remote hearing for thursday, april 9, 2020, before we begin, i would like to enter into the record the following announcement and acknowledgements. on february 5, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. since that declaration, the county health officer has issued a number of public health orders related to covid-19, including a st stay-at-home order. the governor and state health officer have issued an overlaying stay-at-home order. therefore, due to the emergency and to protect commissioners,

staff, and members of the public, the commission chambers and city hall are closed. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws applicable to boards and commissions, making it possible to hold commission hearings remotely. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene through may 3, 2020, recognizing that the commissi commission's condition of concern projects is an essential consideration. it needs to consider action items pertaining to infrastructure, housing, and small businesses. today, the planning commission reconvenes for the first time in its history remotely using

telecommunications. it may at times be slow, and it may be clumsy. therefore, we ask your patience. commissioners and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely but participate as if we were physically present. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is televising this meeting live. sfgov is streaming the toll free phone-in number across the bottom of the screen. comments and times to speak during the public comment appearing are available by phone by call 888-273-3658.

the access code is 3107452. then you press pound, and you press pound again. when you want to speak during public testimony, you need to press one-zero, and you will be set in the queue. while you are waiting, the system will be silent. the system will notify you when you are in line and waiting, and all callers will remain on mute until their line is open. you must call into the 800 number and press one and zero to enter the queue for each item you would like to comment. i will repeat these instructions for every public

comment period. each speaker will be given three minutes to speak, and when you hear a chime, you will know your allotted time is almost up. when your time is up, i will notify any staff to take the next person queued to speak. as always, you may submit written comments so the commissions.secretary@ commissions.secretary@sf.gov. this is also a friendly reminder to mute your mics. commissioners, remember to turn them on when speaking and mute

them when not. at this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] >> clerk: excellent, we have an agenda. commissioners, first on your agenda is the matters considered for continuance. 2018001443 map, item 2, 2019,

021215 cua 3751 a 24 street, item 3, 2019-014251 drp-02, 2009 chestnut street, item 4, 2017-010281 drp-02, at 236 el cami no del mar, item 5, 2018-013511 drp at 350 liberty

street, item 6, 2019014211 drp, 667 mississippi street, item 7, 2016-008561 cwp, item 8, item 9, 2019-020999 cua at 150 waverley place and item 10, 2016-003164 gpa, health care services master plan, is proposed for continuance to april 23. we'll open this up now for

public caomment. i'm sorry. before you continue, sir, this public comment portion of the hearing is only to the matter of continuances. which item are you -- are you speak to? >> caller: this is for the 350 project. >> clerk: 350 liberty street? >> caller: no. i guess i've been premature. i apologize. i don't have the agenda in front of me. this is all new to me. >> clerk: yes. when we get to 350, we'll let

you know. >> caller: okay. thank you. this is all new to me. >> clerk: okay. chan, can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: go ahead. >> clerk: okay. i believe those persons queued up early before their items. i will remind members of the public that this opportunity to comment is on the items proposed for continuance, items 1 through 10. if you wish to speak to items coming up that have not yet been called, we will give you

that opportunity and remind you when that does come up. >> caller: the additional caller deactivated. >> clerk: okay. very good. through the chair, i do see commissioner milicent requesting to speak -- commissioner johnson, actually. >> president koppel: so seeing public comment is closed, i'll turn it over to my fellow commissioners. >> commissioner johnson: i would request continuing items 18 a and b at 1846 grove street. the issues was wanting to get

more information, and there has not been any additional information submitted. i would like to give the project sponsor a couple of weeks to get correspondence from or hear directly from the fire department about the life safety issues that we are concerned about before voting on that project. so for your consideration, i would propose that these items be continued. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> commissioner johnson: that is a motion to propose all ite ite items stated continued and to continue items 18 a and b for two weeks. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond?

>> commissioner diamond: could we get some direction how the project sponsor could respond to commissioner johnson's request. are we asking the sponsor to meet with fire department and staff and come back with a report on fire egress? i understand the request, but i want to be as specific as possible as to what it is we want the sponsor to actually do. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore, you may need to turn your mic on. >> commissioner moore: to repeat, it is my -- reading the

staff report, it is my understanding that the applicant had spoken with the fire marshal and gotten clearance to all of his issues that pertained to the length of the corridor, width of the corridor and proper firefighting access to the property. if staff report that kind of a finding, i have to assume there is a consensus to us as to having got it done. if we in the course of hearing the project later on in the meeting want to continue it because of other questions, i would say let's wait until we come to the project, but i feel that question was sufficiently answered in the staff report. >> president koppel: commissioner hillis -- i'm sorry. director

[inaudible] >> director hillis: we can go through the questions when we come to that item and see where we get. >> president koppel: mr. dido, do y do -- dito, do you have any comments? >> yeah. like the director said, the project sponsor is here if you want to have that expanded upon

now or obviously if we have the hearing later, we can go into more detail then. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you all for weighing in on this, and i appreciate it, and agreed, and so happy to hear it and amend my motion to actually hear items 18 a and b and have a conversation about it. >> clerk: so there is a motion to continue items 1 through 10 as proposed. do i hear a second? >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, i'll call the roll. on that motion, then, to continue items 1 through 10 to date specified -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, which would place us on item 11 under consent. i understand that commissioner moore wishes to remove item 11 off of consent, and through the chair, we will take up that matter at the beginning of the regular calendar, placing us on item 12, adoption of draft minutes for february 27, 2020 and march 5, 2020. so for persons listening on the phone, you only need to press one-zero if you wish to speak to this item, number 12, which is the draft minutes.

if you do not wish to speak to this item, then, you just continue listening. >> caller: i'd like to address all these issues have been addressed by the fire marshal. we contacted the fire marshal and asked for part of the clarification. >> clerk: sir, i'm sorry to interrupt you, but we are not taking comments on items 18 a and b. we will take those up later in the calendar. >> well, my objection was everything wasn't covered in the initial -- all right. thank you. >> clerk: right now, we're taking public comment on the draft minutes. >> caller: oh, gotcha. my bad. thanks.

>> clerk: i don't see there's anybody else in the queue. >> president koppel: okay. so public comment on the draft minutes is closed. >> clerk: do i hear a motion? >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes of february 27 and march 5 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that item passes 6-0, placing us on item 13 for comments and questions. >> president koppel: so let me take a moment to talk to the public. due to this serious epidemic we're facing, we're really trying to balance the functioning government process that we have in regards to everybody's well-being and life safety. this is something we've never had to do before. again, i want to firstly thank director hillis, jonas, and kristin specifically along with all of the staff for making this hearing possible. i'm proud to be here with you all today. we all are definitely out of our comfort zone, but we need to continue moving forward. the continuance calendar is definitely backing up, and we are going to be asking for your

patience today during the hearing and for future hearings. we're doing the best we can, and i'm comfort we'll keep moving forward without compromising the public's accessibility to comment. so for today, we have definitely been reviewing all of the e-mails that have been submitted to us, and those who do not have internet service, there is a call-in phone number. again, please be patient with us throughout that process. there may be a 30-second delay throughout the hearing, but we definitely want to make you sure that your voice will be heard. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i ask the commission to close today's meeting in memory of gerald adams. mr. adams was a journalist for the san francisco chronicle on

april 8, 2020. from the 70s until his time retiring from the chronicle in 2005, his contributions as a writer and key contributor to the city made him an ingredient in the city's formative years in the conversion plans. jerry adams covered years of the downtown plan hearings, which was a requirement for office planning developers having to pay for the hourly

rates of workers. i have summarized his history, and it will become part of today's meeting records. director hillis and the clerk, secretary jonas ionin have graciously gre graciously agreed to do that, and i ask that we close today's meeting in his memory. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you so much, commissioners. how we view meetings in the

future will change. we cannot day that there are disasters going to come, and this is one of it. so i just want to bring up that i think last -- about two weeks ago, the san francisco bay development commission issued a study. it's called adopting to rising tides, and it is one of the things that i think we should also read, and i think the planning commission should also take into account when considering the future development plans, and also when development plans have already been approved. this is very -- and i would say -- it's very thorough, and at the same time, what kinds of infrastructure are going to be affected when the sea level rises and what kind of communities are going to be affected. so this is something that we

need to take into consideration when considering plan amendments. so yes, i recommend the planning commission take this into consideration. as for what we're doing now, you know, at the same time, because of the virtual hearing that we're having, it also gives us, like, limitations on what can be heard and what can be approved. and so definitely patience from the public and how to be responsible and how to connect this kind of information to the public. and it's going to be really new to us, and i applaud already the planning department in having this virtual hearing and having this out in fact public, but we need to figure out because we don't know what the future is going to look like once the shelter in place is lifted, how the different sectors are going to be behaving.

so, you know, i know we are trying to see what we're all doing. that's just my comments for commissioners. >> clerk: if there's no other comments, we can move onto other matters. item 14, director's announcements. welcome, director hillis. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas, and thank you, everyone for your support, and thank you, staff, for all the work you've done and pride you've shown in the past month. it's led to an incredible piece of change that we've all seen and recognize, and we recognize

this at any time business as usual, and that the impact of this crisis will likely continue after the shelter in place order is lifted. we're already getting indications from the mayor's office about the general fund impacts and about the budget impacts that we'll see, the unemployment impacts. we're also seeing particularly the impacts to small businesses in the commercial corridors, and we're already seeing an increased level of vacancies in business corridors, and the impact will be felt harder in some of our most vulnerable communities. so all of this will necessitate a change in our work in various programs, and we'd like to come talk to you in the future to get your feedback and public feedback in scheduled changes to our work program.

certainly, projects around housing, affordable housing, and community stabilization, those priorities will be fully intensefied. building housing and making sure we have the right supplies, the right sizes of units in the right neighborhoods, building more equitably in more portions of the city and not just certain portions of the city, strengthening and broadening our community stabilization work in disadvantaged communities are going to be particularly important. our housing stability strategy phase two, which is going to be key, and extremely important, so we want to make sure that work is completed and prioritized. also our work in commercial corridors, strengthening small businesses, providing more flexibility to fill vacancies

is some of the things that we're working on with the mayor's economic teams to help small businesses in commercial corridors. as far as for business, the department remains open, obviously, with reduced capacity. our investment in infrastructure over the years has paid off, with digitized files, being able to accept applications on-line, so staff deserves a ton of credit with regards to that. we'll continue to prioritize housing projects, affordable projects, affordable housing projects, but there's going to be a slow down, and i think, commission commissioner koppel and imperial, you commented on that. this won't change when the shelter in place is lifted, and

we want to come talk to you about potential changes to our work program. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: directors, i would be very interested to hear if you think the shelter in place and slow down has any impact on making the move into the new building. >> director hillis: so far, it has not. construction was continuing at least as of last week, so there has not been a slow down. that may change as the definition of essential projects continues to evolve, so we'll keep you posted, but to date, it's still on schedule. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yes, i just wanted to say welcome,

director hillis. i've always appreciated your bold vision, your genuine desire to engage community across bold perspectives, to challenge and be challenged, and your clear and deep commitment to the city of san francisco. while these are certainly challenging times for all of us, i'm glad you are at the helm and just want to echo so many other people's comments of thanks to staff and to you for looking during this challenging time. agreed that this is not business as usual, and will we won't get back to business as usual for a long time. i look forward to working with you and everyone on staff to make it through these challenges, to change our work to make it more relevant to these times and meeting the needs of our communities, and hopefully to aid us in the recovery and vibrancy of our

city going forward, so welcome, and thank you. >> director hillis: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: despite the unusual circumstances, it is your very first meeting, commissioner or director hils, alis, as well, and i want to let you know how much i look forward to working with you. we all face enormous challenges as a result of covid-19, and i'm glad you are at the helm to lead us through this, so welcome. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: welcome. it's good to see you. >> director hillis: thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move back to item 15, review of past

events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. there was no historic preservation commission over the last several weeks, nor was there a board of appeals over the last several weeks. they both hope to reconvene on april 15. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, managers of legislative affairs. at the land use hearing on march 30, the committee considered two planning code amendments. the first was supervisor peskin's ordinance that would regulate intermediate lane occupancy which includes rental occupancy that lasts between 30 and 365 days. this item was not acted on but instead was continued to the call of the chair with no commenters or presentation. the second was an ordinance that the planning commission sponsored. this ordinance would correct

the planning code regarding timing of fees and adding an additional fee waiver or buildings damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity. there was no public comment at the land use committee, and after proposing public comment, the committee moved to recommend the item to the full board. there were no items of the full board last week. this week, the land use committee considered one planning code amendment, which was supervisor yee's ocean avenue ordinance. this ordinance proposed to add

a conditional use authorization for all large size project in all neighborhood commercial districts. two, allow lot mergers in the lot n.c.d. of up to 50 feet. three. [inaudible] >> -- and three, allow arts activity uses within the ocean boulevard n.c.t. commissioners, you heard this on march 27 with amendments. overall, community members expressed support for the ordinance. questions for the sponsor and staff includes questions on the lot mergers, and there was one commenter who was not in support of the ordinance.

after public comment, the commission voted to pass the recommendations. at the board, the commission considered two planning items. the first is the american indian cultural plan, and the second was the code corrections ordinance, sponsored by the planning commission, which passed its first read, and that concludes my report. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. 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. and so for persons who may be viewing the sfgov telecast, this would be your opportunity, then, to call the 800 number, and i will issue that now, and for the benefit of people who are actually in the live event, there is about a 30-second to a one-minute delay, so we want to give members of the public the opportunity to call in and press one-zero to queue up for public comment. that call-in number is, again, 888-273-3658. the access code is 3107452. preside press pound, and pound again.

do we have anyone in queue? >> caller: i have one. >> clerk: why don't we go ahead and take that public comment, and i will remind members of the public that this section of the agenda is intended for items not on the agenda that we will consider. go ahead. >> clerk: you ha . >> caller: you have five questions remaining. >> oh, hi. this is georgia schutish. thank you, everyone, for being back, and i hope everyone

continues to stay well. on february 25, there was a board of appeals hearing, for 1913 broadway, and if you have nothing to do, it's an interesting hearing to watch. mr. sanchez opened the meeting but saying, i think that section 317 is horrible. he went onto say that they tried to achieve -- it doesn't achieve its goal, and something needs to completely work, and it hasn't happened for many years without success. and i guess i would say that there -- you have the ability under section 317b-2-d to adjust the -- [inaudible] >> caller: and based on communication that i sent on

april 1 with respect to a property on jersey street, demo calcs needed to be adjusted. they were sold for about $1.5 million above what they were paid for by the developers. if the intent is to maintain relative affordablity in these cases, it's not working, and the projects that are entailing considerable demolition should

have your attention. i'll leave it at that. so i guess i'm done. this is very odd, but i wish you all continued good health, and please take care, and thank you for listening. take care. bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie phelps with san francisco neighborhood coalition. the reason that i'm joining the call and doing the public comment is because i am, like many san franciscans, are concerned about the projects that are going to be making your agenda with little to no

public participation. as president mentioned earlier, this is above and beyond our comfort zone. it is very consult for people to participate in this medium. we are appreciating your effort to keep the city business going, but i do believe that having demolition projects and having small residential projects for luxury housing is not necessarily something that has to be pushed through this format. this can wait. it's okay to expedite projects that are going to provide for the good of the public, but

having demolition projects are absolutely unnecessary, and they can wait. so my call to you is to please ask the planning department to put those projects on hold, postpone them until we're out of this crisis, and people can crawl out of their shelter in place. there is no urgency to have these projects heard with this format. this is very difficult and very awkward for public to participate. that's it, and thank you very much. >> hi, commissioners. this is steve bosch with indy action. first, let me say congratulations to director hillis and commissioner imperial. i regret that i can't send my

congratulations to your new commissioners in person, but health and safety is a priority of us all. i realized that a majority of commissioners are new to the commission. commissioners diamond, fung, and imperial have all served less than a year, and commissioner johnson, if i'm not mistaken, is not quite done with two years, and now, there's a new vacancy, which hopefully will be filled soon. so i'm going to direct my comments at you and say you are not the fault of the failures of the commission in the past, but you are responsible for fixing their mistakes. we are entering a new era, one where small businesses are getting wiped out, renters can't pay their rent, and both subsidized and affordable rate developers can't get financing.

the future of san francisco is in your hands, and i hope beyond hope that you do not repeat the mistakes of your predecessors. rather than standing in the way of development, the planning commission should start saying yes. stop listening to nimbys, stop listening to people that don't want a small restaurant down the street from them. stop demanding the perfect instead of the good enough because we cannot demand perfection when people are losing their homes and their jobs. so i'm asking you to stop saying no and start saying yes. you will be remembered as either the commission that sat on your hands while san

francisco crumbled or the commission that got out of the way and let people build a progressive, thriving, and growing san francisco. so please let's say yes to growth, yes to more housing, yes to more shelters and affordable housing, yes to market rate housing, yes to a better future. so thank you, commissioners, and stay safe, and wash your hands. >> you have six speakers remaining. >> hi. my name is rita evans. i live in the sunnyside neighborhood. i want to raise the issue again of government bodies not opportunistically taking advantage of the public's inability to attend large gatherings right now. this should be postponed just

as our citizens are being asked to defer nonessential travel and errands. the other point that i want to make is the fact that city employees and many members involved in planning and other functions are working from home. they're conducting businesses off premises on personal devices due to this emergency. it's critically important that all government employees strictly observe all security and records retention requirements so that messages about key governmental functions are reserved, retrievable, and subject to review which is on precedence with. all business communications must take place over approved channels, channels that allow for messages to be easily arrest arrives and reviewed. all electronic communication and information sharing must be

transacted through official government e-mail account and use only government issued communication devices. and i look forward to assurance from the commission that these basic information security protocols are in place and will be enforced. thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my corey smith with the san francisco housing -- this is corey smith with the san francisco housing coalition. i want to echo and join in congratulations to director hillis. quite the first meeting, i am sure, and extend an appreciation to everybody involved for keeping this going. we are having conversations with different cities around the bay area and understand the status of city commissions and planning council hearings, and

i can say with confidence that san francisco is ahead of the curve, and while none of this is perfect or ideal, just extending a magnitude of gratitude for everyone involved for allowing this to happen. i understand the conversations about accessibility. we want to make sure that everybody does have the opportunity to speak up, so i really want to echo president koppel's comments in trying to make that happen, and we think this will be a unique opportunity to allow additional voices who are not allowed to be a part of the planning process in san francisco because they workd day jobs thursdays at 1:00 in the afternoon. we think this will be more inclusive and allow more people to be involved in the process, and we're excited about that.

i look forward to continuing the conversation, because we all feel that housing is of utmost importance, and we need to keep building more affordable housing across the city. so thank you very much, everybody, and i hope you're well. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi. this is laura foote from yimby action. i'm really excited about this new way of interacting with the planning commission. we're in the middle of a massive tragedy, but one of the silver linings is we have the opportunity to make our systems more accessible. showing up in person has been an equitable way of gauging what the public thinks about things, and we have an opportunity to building a system that's more equitable in

a much broader way, rather than dedicating meetings to sitting in long, painful hearings. so i hope that you embrace this opportunity. in the short-term, we're going to have to deal with the aftermath of the crisis. the main job of the planning commission is to start thinking about the medium term and the long-term. in the planning commission, we have an opportunity to do an amazing amount of acquisition for housing. we have an opportunity to make sure we don't lose housing that we have in the pipeline, and to make sure we don't lose the market rate housing that we have in the pipeline. we are at the brink -- i don't think we have come to understand how much this is going to be a major recession and how hard this is going to hit us across the country. business owners are in crisis,

and we need to think about every way in which the planning department makes it harder for businesses to run and how can we remove those obstacles because they are going to want to be able to have our economy come back. our local government is going to be completely broke, and we don't have the ability to just print money like the federal government. we do have the ability to allow market rate housing to be build. we do have the ability to allow business owner to see get the patio furniture that they need without nine months of permitting issues. so the more we can focus on unleashing the opportunities that we already have, that is something that the planning commission can help with: how do we help this community get back on its feet. thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hello, planning commission

of san francisco. my name is sarah ogilby, and i am a member of yimby action? i want to thank you so much for giving us this opportunity to expand public hearings and public comment? i think this is a very innovative and responsive approach to welcoming a people who otherwise would not be able to access your hearings, so i want to thank you all so much for that? and i want to just gently but urgently remind all of you that we are in a housing crisis in the state of california and in san francisco? and i want to reiterate the comments of my friends and colleagues that we all need housing. i just encourage you to use your powers, use your process

to mobilize and keep moving forward all possible opportunities to create and build for housing. i strongly believe that this is going to be one of our paths forward out of the second on the crisis is to allow for diverse families and all families to live in san francisco society. i appreciate the opportunity to participate in future meetings. >> you have three questions remaining. >> hi, commissioners. my name is cleo gordon. thank you for setting up this meeting. i know it's been quite the scramble, and i'm glad to see

you embracing a virtual technology that will get us through this crisis. i live in the city, and i'm just able to afford a small apartment. it's hard for me to takeoff work four hours on a thursday afternoon. while i spend my time advocating for affordable housing in san francisco, it means i'm only been able to make it to four comment sessions in the last year. however, this format means it's actually easier for people like me to make comments. it's easier for people like me to make this point, and hopefully, people see them on sfgovtv.

it favors seniors, it favors older folks, and it favors people in low-income housing. i'm hoping that we'll hear from people who are impacted by the housing market, thinking how can i have a place in san francisco? how can i raise my family in san francisco, instead of does this building shadow my garden? because this crisis affects someone's life, whereas a building affects a garden and shadow concern.

[inaudible] >> -- without having to go through hours and hours of comments on every single renovation, duplex, a.d.u., etc. so thank you very much, and i look forward to commenting on upcoming items. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: caller, are you on the line? i don't hear anything. hello? >> yes, we can hear you. >> i'm hear. can you hear me? >> yes. >> hello? you can hear me. good afternoon. this is cook palmer. i'm a resident of the westwood

park neighborhood of san francisco, and i'm calling to say i'm gravely concerned with the commission continuing with nonessential business at this time. i think it's fantastic that we instituted a policy to allow call-in participation to these meetings, and some people on the line might not otherwise be able to participate in a meeting like this. at the same time, it's not just a question of technology. the citizenry of this city is suffering gravely through this crisis. people have kids at home they weren't expecting. they have businesses that are failing, they're scrambling to find food, they're scrambling to find health care, and their attention is elsewhere, so i would reckon that many, many people who would want to be involved in important decisions about the medium and long-term issues -- housing that's going to be build two years from now or five years from now -- are, in this period of several weeks

duration, not able to give full attention to these matters. [please stand by]

>> the commission is trying to conduct business to ask people to think about would it be ok if this housing unit was built five years from now. it's not what anyone's attention is right now. this is terrible. that's all i have to say. it's terrible. >> commission president. we have exceeded the 15-minute limit. should we continue with public comment? is there anyway that we can cut off the cue or no?

>> we just move them to the end of the agenda. >> we were only supposed to allot 15 minutes and we went over 20 minutes and i just want to make sure it whether resume at the end of the agenda. it is under the regular caliber and for item 11 that was pulled off of consent. for case number 2018-006299cua378 eighth avenue. this is a conditional use authorization.

>> commissioner moore. within an rn-1 zoning district. this is a new project that's not been reviewed by the commission. the project site is a 25-foot wide by 125 deep lot located between geary boulevard and clement street and they're rm-1 and inter clement ncd.

the building is eye 3,000 square foot three-bedroom home constructed in 1904. the project was evaluated by preservation staff and existing building was determined not to be a historic resource. it's one foot haller than the existing structure and it consists of two flats and a two-car tandem garage. it will extend to the year-yard line based on the residential building footprint. each unit will have access to private open -- based on the lot size, the maximum unit is four units. it was discussed with the applicant and notice to the

project brief which is included in the commission packet and the property owners investigated adding the third unit and the home is currently vacant according to the property owners, the previous tenants moved out in october of 2019 of their own accord. there's no history of evictions at this site as reported by the board. staff recommend the commission approved the project as noted in the executive summary and the single family home is not a historic resource, the project needs all applicable priorments of the planning code and will add one new family-size dwelling to the city's housing stock. this concludes my presentation and i will answer any questions. thank you. >> i'd like to remind members of

the public who wish to speak to this item, item 11, for 378 eighth avenue. this is a good opportunity to call in and press 1-0 to get into the cue. >> public comment? >> we should hear from the project sponsor? >> project sponsor, first. >> is the project sponsor prepared to make a presentation? lawyelaura, are they ready to ma presentation? >> believe the project sponsor

would like to make an oral presentation but does not have a visual presentation. >> very good. >> >> this is an example of how clumsy it might get. is the project sponsor on a telephone line to make their presentation? you requested to take it off of consent can we go to your experience? >> yes, thank you. since this is the demolition and it's on consent, i am asking

that the commission take a close look at what we tip he cannily do when we have a demolition seeing we're giving the project open the door for capturing the opportunity for land use. we're in a rm-1, where the minimum unit size has to be 800 square feet, which gives us a built-in ability to dense a fie up to four units for this particular lot. i believe the request for the unit size are proposed here gives me pause because i do believe that there is room for an adu. later today -- i will refrain

for a moment. >> do we have anyone in cue? >> we have one person. >> let's go ahead and accept that public comment then. >> no, problem. >> you have two questions remaining. >> this is to gordon talking again. i wanted to urge you to approve it. this is turning a single-family home into a two-family home which is a great way to get people to live in san francisco and have secure housing where they can be socially distant and all the stuff we need to do for people's health and safety. we talk about not wanting too much luxury housing in the city so taking something that is big

enough for two family homes and making it still required to be a single family home sounds luxury to me. instead, putting that same size of land up into two homes both still big enough for people to live is a great idea and a great way to build housing that will be reportable to a couple of working families. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> this is steven with the action again. i would like to express my support for this project and would like to urge you to vote in favor of it. it's the great example of kind of things that we need it start doing going forward into this new economic reality. we have to start letting

single-family homes get turned into more dense projects so i urge you to a of thi approve ths project. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hi, this is laura foot. as you can imagine, my only critique of this project is that it doesn't have in fact more units. this is exactly the kind of gentle density we need to make's year to build in san francisco. please, don't miss this opportunity to make projects like this one much easier to do. we have a chronic housing shortage and as elizabeth has cold us the projects like this will be one of the key ways we get out of this crisis. >> you have two questions

remaining. >> hello, this is johnathan randolf and this is a good project and i hope the commission a proves it. i urge you to pay attention to the written documentation because there's an interesting description of the constraints that they were trying to build under. pay attention to the building code columns they were trying to solve and try to imagine what would have made this project better. in particular the city asks them to build three units but the owner couldn't afford it because of the expense of the materials and reconstruction and and the enclosed backyard. it wasn't possible for them to build three units. because the building code.

the planning commission, when they asked project sponsors to build to throw unit buildings or more, they should think about what are the building code constraints and how can we relax those constraints looking into the future. or how can we incentivize the owner to meet the strict building codes using grants so the owner could have afforded to build three units instead of just two. we should try to figure out how we can achieve that in san francisco, we're a charter city so we have complete roll-over the building code and that's something we can look into changing if we need to. thank you. >> you have one question remaining.

>> did the public commenter prepared to speak to this matter? >> hello, this is casandra and i've been trying to call in using the number i was given by the planner. i'm here and available for any questions from the commissioners. >> are you the caller right now? >> i'm also the project sponsor and this is the only way i could get in so i had to use this public comment number.

>> it appears as though public comment, there are no public commenters but the sponsor is available on the line so project sponsor, if you could just remain on the line for any questions that the commissioners may have for you. >> yes. >> you are on mute, commissioner. >> (inaudible). >> thank you, commissioner koppel. i just wanted to reiterate to the project sponsor this is your opportunity to present to the commission and i just didn't want them to miss that opportunity. >> project sponsor, please, go ahead. >> this is casandra metland-davis, i'm the project

sponsor for this 378 8th avenue and i can present to you my narrative or just answer any questions that you may have regarding this. >> commission moore, do you have if i questionany questions for t sponsor? >> i don't have as many questions as i would like to continue my train of thought, talking to the commission, that this particular building, just by it's very nature allows us to have a little higher density by tweaking the building so that one, we will not have any additional requirements for sprinklers, et cetera, because all new residential construction, all new residential construction requires sprinklers. this is a new building. the second point, is that three-unit building does not

require additional exits only if the particular flor area exceeds occupancy and thinks the occupancy could be shaped in a manner that is not required. in it particular case i see the units being rather large and this is not just a question of multi-family units having two but we would be quite able to have two substantially large family units plus an adu at the bottom without adding a floor. the next within i'd like to make is if in deed the owner is intent of only having two units, which i can support as well, then i believe that the adding a roof deck is basically rewarding demolition at the expense of adding an additional dwelling unit which we typically do. later we have a project where we exactly we're able to shape the building and there was a partial demolition and you will fatly

the applicant reshaped the building, that one, the units were of larger size, however an a.d.u. was added without having additional type of approvals, i.e. a roof deck which is a reward for demolition without adding the substantial amount of denseification that we ask for. i do not believe this building would require extra cost by adding an a.d.u. i don't think this building of property shape requires fire exiting that we can indeed have it with the owner having two units plus an a.d.u. without incurring not reasonable additional costs. those would be my comments and i would like to have the commission consider that because this is what we have carefully worked on for years and i think we have enough precedent to those types of decisions to offer support this year.

>> commissioner fung. >> president fung: i'm prepared to move to grant the condition of use and approve this project. >> i would like to -- i agree with commissioner moore on this matter. the issues of demolition is worrisome to me and this single-family home, with this demolition, it's definitely going to be the new building itself. i would like, in terms of how the planning department looks into demolition, i think we really need to look into it carefully and also when it comes tto enlargement of a building or units, there are things that we need to reconsider and create some sort of procedures or create some policy around it that it's also not going to be

something that is -- demolishing the building, there are units that's going to replace, unless it's added affordable housing in it. so that is my concern in it. i would like to agree with commissioner moore and continue it in a way that we would have until the demolition in our policy. >> commissioner diamond. >> if i understood commissioner fung's motion, he was moving to approve as proposed and if that's the motion i'm prepared to second it. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i always support as much density as possible. if we can get on units. i appreciate those comments. i think, however, in the context

of this, this is a project sponsor who is coming to us transparently saying that they're going to demolish a building and asking for density, a second unit and saying that they're going to add that second unit and while they've considered a third, they can't add the third unit because of the cost. and i would say to that that we want to have a balance system where people who do want to dense fie their loss who come to us asking for a demolition, so that they can add an additional unit, are able to do so without fear that we force them to add even more units when they say they can't. and so, i also support this project. i gro agree with the comments of commissioner fung. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> i would like to go back to

the idea that we are in a zoning district, which allows for additional density and i believe that we may look for policy where the minimum density that comes with demo accomplis demole striving to hold up the density for district in which it occurs. i'd like to remind people this is not an rh-1, this is an hr-1 building and not rh-1, this is an rm district, which allows higher density just by it's very zoning designation and i think we are obligated and i am normally not a dedicated supporter but i believe their comments are spot on and it's not just approving two units in this district but this unit has a higher carrying capacity, particularly it's literally right next to geary street where we can, without much adieu,

without increasing costs, without increasing any kind of traps in the code, add a density and still have two full family units and a a.d.. i think, i believe that is our obligation and i think that is the policy which i would like us to pursue built at a minimum to the density applied in the zoning in which a building occurs. >> director hillis. >> i just wanted to bring to your attention, because it's a good discussion you are having, one through the design process recommended an additional unit or converting the area behind the garage to an a.d.u. we can do that because of the zoning. the project sons or did push back and provided information in exhibit f of your packet on why they can't do that and saying they wouldn't pursue the project. so, just want that to be in your

thinking when you deliberate, both the new units are smaller than what the single-family home is currently. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> my original comment i will formulate to a motion to grant a conditional use and approve the project. >> second. >> shall i call the question, if there's nothing further? >> commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> nay. >> johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore

voting against. commissioners that, will place us under items 16a and b for case numbers 2018-00783cwp and gpa. for the balboa reservoir project. we will first hear staff provide an informational presentation and consider initiation of general plan amendments. the project itself is not before you at this time. it's simply the initiation of the general plan amendments. through the chair, public commenters will be provided with two minutes to submit their testimony and again, for persons interested in making or submitting public testimony this is your opportunity to call the 800 numbers --

>> is staff prepared to make the presentation. >> yes, i will share the screen right now. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i hope everyone is staying well in this challenging time. we are supposed to be the first presenter but now we are the second presenter so, we are still excited and have been nervous to be the second presenter at the first virtual commission hearing. please, bear with us. i am still sharing the screen? >> you want to show your presentation which isn't coming up right now >> it's not

showing. >> >> christine, can you push your screen forward? >> there go? >> my name is the product manager of the balboa reservoir project with the planning department. i am here virtually with the rest of the team. the project manager and the office make development and the developer team with community partners. our presentation will start with a backgrounds of the balboa reservoir project and overview of our community outreach. we'll present on overview of the project. following that, we'll be the community benefits presented by lowe. and i will come back to conclude the presentation with the

general plan amendments and next steps. san francisco's housing shortage and affordability has long been an issue. the city has developed policies programs to address them. in 2014, and in support of proposition k, former mayor ed lee launched the public land for housing program which calls for 4,000 units on public land by 2020. the city agencies worked together to identify public land that could be converted to housing while providing both public benefits and financial returns to the city. balboa site is one of a public lens and it can build about 27% of the 4,000 targeted units.

to address this city's housing affordability crisis, this balboa site is a critical step towards the city's housing goals. as shown in the map, the balboa reservoir site is situated in the southwest quadrant of the city near the fire station and right next to city college of san francisco. this site is just north of the ocean avenue commercial district and surrounded by these neighborhoods. sunny side western park. balboa site presents great opportunities to realize the public land for housing program goals. it is an under utilized, sizable 17-acre lot owned by the san francisco public utilities commissions that can provide not only affordable housing but also

many public amenities like parks. as called for in the balboa station area plan, the transit oriented development location in close proximity to the bart station and muni stations. as shown here, the project started in 2014 with initial committee outreach. currently, the project is at the tail end of its environmental review process and it's planning to come back to the commission for e.i.r. certification and project approvals in may. we will show the project approval schedule at the end of the presentation. over five years of community engagement, we are excited to be here initiating the general plan amendment process.

it was established in in addition for providing a venue for public input the c.a.a.'s responsibility was to establish development principles and parameters for developers. over the course of 16c.a.c. meetings, we developed a comprehensive list of development principles and parameters they were developed in response to areas of community interests including provision of affordable housing, creating a range of open spaces, minimizing loss of city colleges, overflow parking, traffic congestion and respecting the scale of nearby

neighborhoods. from here we'll talk about the project. >> good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. this is kristen with bridge housing. we're very happy to be here today for the balboa reservoir. thank you for having us. just making sure everyone can hear me. >> good. bridge is the affordable housing developer of avalon bay. our team also includes mission housing and habitat for humanity who will each build some of the projects affordable housing. today i'm going to start with a brief overview of the project and call out key themes that have guided our work on the reservoir to focus on family-friend low development and connecting the sites to the broader neighborhood. and a commitment to sustainable development. at a future hearing, our team

includes -- our design team with architecture, gls and gls will dive deeper no the designed approach and the design guidelines in your packet. just for your reference, i believe yesterday we provided you a three-page summary to help orient you to the design approach for the project. just to start, on the overview of the reservoir, our approach to the site started with the c.a.c. parameters as staff suggested and they have the surrounding neighborhood and just orient you a little bit to the north of our site is the high school. to the east of our site is the city college of san francisco, the ocean avenue campus. and just south of our site is the neighborhood commercial corridor along ocean avenue and there's a coffee shop and a whole foods right there to get you familiar with the area. and to the west, of course, we have a single family home of

westwood park. with all of that in mind, we took the parameters and really benefited a lot from the c.a.c.'s community input and other community wide events we started doing starting in 2017. to come up with a proposal that's before you today. we proposed 1100 units of housing including eight multi-unit buildings and several townhomes on the west side of the parcel adjacent to the single family home. we are very thrilled to be a part of the city's public program which pushed this project to a 50% affordability goal. and that includes a wide range of affordability levels, educator housing, and affordable home ownership opportunities. the project also includes four acres of open space offering

parks and amenity. it will have a community room and a 100-space childcare center in one of our affordable buildings. we have been closely coordinating on going facilities master plan we have identified a replacement parking conclusion for the users of the lower reservoir and we are also very pleased to cover educator housing on the lower reservoir for ccsf faculty and staff. the project promises to achieve a high level of sustainability which i'll talk about more today. next slide, please. balboa reservoir is a family-friendly development. the site proximity to the public library, the play ground at unity plaza and many schools make this location ideal for families. community members consisten low advocated for family friendly housing at the balboa reservoir.

we're meeting that goal in several ways. the biggest housing issue for families of course is affordability. this project offers affordability levels including low and moderate income housing. providing opportunities for a range of families. the project enclouds 550 units of affordable housing including affordable home ownership opportunities provided by habitat for humanity. the project will also include two bedroom units and three bedroom units. this meets the standards for family friendly housing. families will also benefit from the open space and community room on site providing opportunities for play and recreation. our transportation demand management or t.d.m. program enclouds family friend will he members such as car seat storage, and family biking

amenities. finally the 100 space childcare center will serve families in the broader neighborhoods. next slide, please. the balboa reservoir connects to the broader neighborhood. the new park is the center of the site and the new meeting area with neighbors from sunny side, westwood park and ocean avenue. from our first look at site, we map the pedestrian connections to our neighbors. we place it at the path to ensure that the park was a natural meeting space for the community members. building on the exiting use, our project will bolster pedestrians and bike connectio connections h infrastructure improvements. raised crosswalks, pedestrian paths, adding a new pedestrian connection between the reservoir and ocean avenue and we'll be adding a new protective bicycle

lane on lee avenue just on the eastern edge of the site. next slide, please. >> our heights program aims to provide a connection between the adjacent context and a connection to the neighborhoods step ok ra fee. our approach is to step up from the western side of the site, adjacent to westwood park, to the eastern side of the site adjacent to city college. the maximum allowable height steps up from 25 feet at the western property line to 78 feet adjacent to city college. this provides a gradual transition from the lower scale neighborhoods along the western line to the institutional scale of city college. it also allows maximum views to the west and provides wind sheltering at the center open space. and the diagram shows you the sections of what is illustrated in the diagram at the top of the

slide. we're happy to talk about that during discussion. next slide, please. the reservoir project is making a high commitment to sustainability. not only is the neighborhood walkable, but this is a transit-oriented development, less a half mile to bart, near the k line and many muni buses. we have adopt the the sustainable neighborhood framework to organize sustainability. we are committed to sustainable buildings. we plan to generate 20% of the building energy on site. our roof stops are designed to maximize the solar preheat systems and we have zero waste to the landfills. the it will allow stormwater management to be integrated and they will treat gray water on

site. it's a environment on leadership project under a california assembly bill 900. under this program, the reservoir project will be grown house gas neutral by utilizing means to offset greenhouse gases. the environmental program enclouds a commitment to achieve lead gold or better for all the buildings. and to reduce auto trips and pay a individual for our construction jobs. all of this is in the d.s.g. and there's a matrix that is a good place to start when you are trying to orient yourself to our sustainability program. next slide, please. i'll end my portion of the presentation on the end of the park. public space is the heart of the neighborhood. design to maximize sunshine and shelter. the roof stop overlooked the public space providing an

opportunity for families to play and a connection spot for our neighbors and residents and key to our commitment to sustainability. as you may have noticed in the design guidelines we have attention to the park design and it's intended to feel like a comfortable living room with spaces for play, gathering and gardening. the buildings to find the edges of park providing a community room to utilize outdoor space. again, we really appreciate your time and consideration today. we're here for questions and discussions. my team members, brad from bridge and joe and avalon bay are also participating and i can represent their comments during the discussion per idea. next, i'll hand it over to lee to cover her portion. >> thank you, core ston. this is lee speaking from the

office of economic and workforce development i will discuss key community benefits. can everybody hear me. i just want to make sure. >> yes, we can hear you. >> thank you. this project is unique in the package of communities originated with a community process and the developer team has worked over the last three years to shape those into a successful project as you've just seen. chief among the benefits is the aggressive goal of 50% affordable housing. this is 550 affordable units across a range of inms. from low to moderate and a range of household types from families to educators. the need for affordable housing in the city was acute and will be even more critical as we navigate our residents out of the current deposit epidemic.

next slide, please. the units will be provided in four separate 100 and developed by bridge housing, mission housing and habitat for humanity. i want to focus on the funding plan because for the project and how the housing will be delivered is the result of a collaboration between many city department and stakeholders. firstly, the p.u.c. the owner of the site will be selling the property to the development team based on a 33% affordable developer obligation pursuant to the voter past 2014 prop k and the public land for housing program. to get from 33 up to the goal of 50% affordability, the city will contribute gap funding for the additional 17%. in this way, we are leveraging not things. the p.u.c.'s land value, cross subsidy from the market rate

units, affordable subsidy from the mayor office of community development. state subsidy sources and conventional financing sources. this complex collaboration allows us to reach our goal and at the same time, limit the amount of city funding that goes into the project. it means we can dough ploy those precious funds at other important projects around the city. next slide, please. city college main cam paws is adjacent to the site and a important neighbor and partner to the development. as such, the city and the project team have worked with the college community for the past four years to develop a specific package of benefits that will enhance both the project and the college. collaborative site planning will create linkages and encourage the feeling of an academic village dedicated much needed

educator housing as a part of the project 50% affordable package will be moderate income and available to college faculty and staff at the first preference. public parking of 322 spaces will be developed by the project to remitigate the removal of 1,000 spaces on the city lot licensed to city college for overflow parking. the e.i.r. studied 750 public spaces and parking analysis by the project and the college puts the actual demand at around 220 so we want to meet the demand. we have an ongoing process to design and volkswagen improvements in and around the site and as well as t.d.m. packages and experience in the area.

next slide. on the point of transportation, i want to highway light this project has catalyzed sfmta projects along the ocean avenue corridor. the project will contribute mitigation and tsf funding to the strategies as well as design sustainability transit first project site. and i'm happy to go into more detail on these efforts as desired after the presentation. i will leave it there for now and turn it back. thank you. >> thank you, lee. so, i would talk about the plan amendments from here. i would like to remind you and members of the public, that today's requested action is on initiation of the general plan

amendments, it is not the final approval of the project. it is merely to start the approval process. i also want to emphasize that the balboa park station plan calls for mixed-use development on the project site. the purpose of general plan amendment is two-fold. one is to update policies and maps to reflect the specifics of the project and the other one is to update the housing elements to include a policy promoting housing for families with children. for the balboa station plan we are updating maps to reflect the specifics such as open space reference to the project and guidelines document and the special use district and lastly,

correct some outdated information. the details are included in the packet but here is one example of text edits that shows correcting the outdated name of unity plaza and adding more details about the proposed open space improvements. besides the area plan one map of the recreation and open space element will be updated to show future open space and all changes will be reflected in the land use index. in line with the project intent to promote family friendly house, the general plan amendment includes an additional policy to the housing element as shown on this slide. in the interest of time, i won't go through the details but i can answer questions after the presentation. for the next steps, we plan to

come back to the commission for e.i.r. certification and approval in mid may. the planning commission adoption hearing will be followed by the sfpuc commission and sfmta board hearings. we expect the board of supervisors hearings to happen this summer. this is the end of our presentation and we are happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. that was great. again, at this time, we should be having people interested in submitting their public prime minister ttestimony to cue up bg 1-0 on the phone lines.

>> your conference is in question and answer mode. press one to summon each question. >> i will remind members of the public you are provided two minutes to make your testimony. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> hello. >> yes. >> hi, thank you so much for hearing me today. thank you so much for having this venue that i can participate. i want to talk in support of this project and i'm really excited for it. i think it's bad lo badly neede. i want to urge you to make sure it gets done and gets done quickly. it's really important especially in light of what we might be going through the next few years. i'm excited because it's near transit and it's badly needed housing and so many of the units will be affordable. i think it's really badly needed

and i hope this stops getting delayed. thank you so much. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. i'm really confused. my name is linda and i was told i was given 10 minutes with two of my partners to give a counter presentation. so, i'm trying to figure out how i'm supposed to do that. >> hi, yeah, i spoke with jean earlier today and we offered a solution but it wasn't satisfactory to her, we were trying to group you, the throw e of you together at the end rather than at the beginning and she did not like that solution so you have to submit your testimony as an individual now. >> well, if i go at the end with my two partners can we have our

powerpoint presentation shown? >> yes, i tried to make that accommodation to jean earlier today, as i stated, and she was not satisfied with that solution. >> i think -- i'm willing to try it. i mean, i do understand you are trying your hardest to do your best in this adverse time. i think we were confused how it was going to work. so please let me me what to do and i would be happy to do it. >> as i stated to jean, have your presentation forwarded to staff. >> i did. >> and cc her and when the number of callers start to dwindle at the end, i would suggest the three of you hit 1-0 at the same time so you can be cued into the system together back-to-back at the end of public comment and she will push your powerpoint to the screen.

ok? >> the only issue is the delay between the phone and what i'm seeing on the video. there's a 50 second delay. we'll try it. >> you will have to listen to the hearing over the phone which is live. >> ok. >> thank you. we'll press 1-0 at the end i guess, is that what you are telling us to do? >> yes, please. >> thank you. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. i'm jeremy london. i've been a san francisco resident for 15 years. i love this city. i'm in strong support of this project, which has been delayed for -- literally over five years because of the laborious process that we have here in san francisco. i just want to say we can't keep running our city like this.

we have to move, we have a housing crisis and it's an emergency. it's mer of a emergency now because of the pandemic but it's been a emergency for years and years and we have not been acting near quickly enough. as a result of this inaction, you know, there are people that would be housed in this development and other developments that are now probably suffering risk do you to the pandemic and unfortunately, because of our inaction and the sun are not terne tee what will happen with markets and construction in general, we might end up losing this project and it's a huge tragedy. i hope that's not the case one thing we can do is to resolve never to have another situation like this happen again. there's no reason project take this long. we need to move quickly and expeditiously and treat us as the emergency it is and approve all projects within a year, especially projects that have the capacity to offer this many

units to a community that is desperately, desperately in need of a lot more housing for all members of our community. thank you. >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> caller: hi, my name is kirk palmer and i'm a resident of westwood park and i've been in san francisco for 20 years. i understand that many of the commissioners are new to the commission now and might not be familiar with this project or this area of the city. as was mentioned previously, there's an exiting balboa park station area plan that many of us provided input to. it was something like an 8-year process beginning in 2000. this was recommended for development many times and the community is by and large supported those developments. the density that was recommended for that site was 500 units.

recently there's on going hearings and process on this site and that number has been discussed repeatedly 500 units. only at the very end of the most recent round of proposals was it considered to be possible to put greater density of housing on that site. and i have to say the community is in favor of housing, strongly in favor of affordable housing and strongly in favor of developing accordance to a plan that was developed over eight years of time with hours and hours and hours of community input but the current proposal neglecneglects that so i'm deepy concerned about that and i'm concerned about this hearing happening at a time when people are not available. i'm deeply concerned about the

rebuttal proposal not beg given adequate time and technological means to present to the commissioners who, again, i'm sure are trying to do their best but largely unfamiliar with this site or literally the 20 years that have been planning for appropriate use of this land. this should be slowed down so it's done right because if it's done wrong a it's a disaster and if it's pushed in a wrong way it will take longer to get it done because there's community outrage. >> thank you, sir. >> i would urge the commission to table this issue at this time until you provide input. >> next speaker, please. >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> caller: is this on? am i on now? >> you are.

>> caller: i'm sorry. my name is mike aaron. i'm president of the westward park association. and i submit this comment on behalf of the westwood park. >> this community was developed 100 years ago and a joins the balboa reservoir park project. one of the most, if not the most impacted development by this development. we have over 700 homes, homeowners and we made many comments this the past. last night, i sent you the planning commission our written comment urging this meeting be deferred, since it is impossible to look at environmental impact studies, impacts of this development until we all return to the new normal. notwithstanding that, we have today, submit aid second comment in writing to the planning commission and our points are

all in writing so i won't elaborate but they include the following -- first, any general plan amendment should require that the development on the reservoir can proceed only when the needs of city college have been fully protected with parking and transportation. second, consistent with housing element policy 4 had the 1 which has been discussed in this slides. promoting housing for families. the development should encourage or require more units with three bedrooms or more. this is also consistent with the anticipated deed in light of this covid-19 situation with the people working at home. third, the area of plans should be more consistent with housing development objective four, and require the development to integrate, integrate affordable units with margaret rate units through out every floor of the residential project and last, since land is very precious in this city the city should consider either leasing the land for 55 years or mixed-use development and or selling only

a portion of the property retaining some land for other public use such as city college who we all know will need portions of this land because the parking problems just are not solved. thank you for your consideration. you've got our comments in writing. >> caller: good afternoon, yes, once again, my name is sarah ogilvie and i'm a resident of san francisco along with my husband. i am here to speak in full support of this project. it is a travesty it hasn't moved forward. we're talking about 1,000 units of badly-needed housing that we could have used now. obviously, delaying it is going to be not only impacting the

housing crisis but it's also going to be impacting our economy. we have people, hard-working, diverse, talented poem wh talene eager to contribute to the economy who are having a hard time and struggling with their jobs and even people like my husband is able to work right now. he is blessed. we live in a small studio in the mission and you know, we are looking forward to better housing. we would love to see this housing project go forward and eventually be able to by something bigger so that we can leave this housing for someone else who needs it. so we just need to create this housing. we node to pus need to push houd and it's really harming people. this is a discussion that ultimately comes down to people and we should say yes to people.

we need to say yes to housing. thank you so much for hearing my full support on balboa reservoir housing. thank you. >> caller: hi, this is laura foot. i think it should surprise no one that opponents of the projects think that we should be moving slower and supporters of the project are really understanding that we cannot wait on things like this. we have to be able to move forward in this crisis. we should have had that housing 15 years ago. the balance boy a reservoir is a project who has been brought forward multiple times and it's time to recognize saying no over and over again has driven this city into crisis and we need to say yes. we node to say yes in a big way. we need to say yes efficiently.

we need to get it faster, faster than we have ever before. thank you. >> caller: commissioner, thank you for taking my call. 1100 units mean at least three thousand people. and what i'm concerned about is that we do not have any emergency water supply for the western part and southern part of san francisco. also i have an accent. i live in san francisco for 60 years and i love san francisco. sir don't want to have it go up in flames and before you put 3,000 people until a barbecue, i wish you would see the emergency water is being installed and sew

sigh safety is being done and is it's adequate because it's two wagons and across traffic on ocean avenue to two long for the short aisles so this isn't traffic situation which should be solved before 3,000 people are moving no this area. before the water emergencies are being employed. i thank you for listening. >> you have 15 questions remaining. >> hi, my name is mark owes and i'm supposed to be presenting at the end so i'll just press 1-0

when available. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. corey smith on bow half o bow be san francisco. when i started back in 2016, i think it was two or three weeks into the job, when jody and i went to my first balboa reservoir meeting and i had been attending those c.a.c. meetings for the last few years, participating in the community process and listening to feedback and residents and encouraging some project sponsors and now we've got something that we certainly believe will improve the area and bring 1100 much needed homes and half which will be subsidized affordable homes and

we all agree are desperately needed. just because people aren't getting every piece of the final project how they want it is different than communities not having to provide input and a couple of shares have done a great job of engaging everybody and making sure everybody has been herd heard and we have liked this foss go a little bit faster and we think there would be more housing and we think what we have here today is really exciting and look forward to it continuing to move forward as fast as we can. you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello. i'm steven randolf. long time resident. i have been following this project since the beginning.

so, since the beginning of the process in 2013. so, i think this is a good compromise project. many neighbors would have preferred more homes on the site. we were preferred even higher hike limits and i at this this way that the hikes have been stepping down to the westwood park rising up near city college with all these considerations for open space and other modern tee sign standards to design for transit rich neighborhoods and this is -- i would have

preferred more homes here and more people living here but the compromise is a good compromise so, i urge that you the commission please go and start this project as soon as possible. through the general plan amendments and all the other things. thank you. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissionersi'mrepresentative a advisory committee. although the community process hasn't met everyone's needs and wishes completely, it has been a consistent robust and continuous community process and i thank the support the claiming department and the oewd have provided to the committee.

speaking personally, as a near neighborhood to the project i'm looking forward to its completion. however, the construction process will be -- the community amenities included in the project such as the public park and open spaces and the public comment are welcome. they will filet longstanding lack for sunny side. they have surveyed our members twice in recent years and many are looking forward to new affordable housing. though i might say that many would have prefered to have fewer total units, more in line with the 2009 balboa stark place trance. transportation and transit needs have been top of the community dialogue and the city follows through with the plan, trick transit improvements in order to support the fact that the

project is transit oriented the project will provide welcome benefits for both new and existing residents here and decrease vehicle miles traveled on balance the project will be positive change for our neighborhood. thank you. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. this is kenneth russell i'm a san francisco district 7 resident. looking forward to having this development in my area. i to want to thank the commission for having the meeting today using this remote technology. people's need for housing doesn't wait during this crisis and i appreciate we have the technology to continue the work of the city here. and actually contrary to what some have said for me this format, it's more inclusive and makes tease year for me to give that input while juggling my full-time job which conditions even in this crisis. sim speaking in support.

it's 50% affordable and i really appreciate it it's near transit and as someone who normally walks from where i live to bart rephrased to go to my job. i encourage us to move forward with no more delays on this and a lot of people have spoken about the fact it's taken a long time to get to this and i just want to see us move forward as soon as we can. >> thank you, all. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> caller: hi, commissioners. i'm in big support of the project and i regret it's taken so long for us to get here. i feel like we're at the end. we can finally say yes to more

housing and say the needs of people who don't live here yet outweigh the demands of a few nearby nimbys. i think this is indicative of what has gone wrong. it shouldn't take over a decade to do something like this. we have 25-foot height limits less than our transit station it's nadness. look at the air quality now that no one is driving. it's beautiful, right. the air is clean and you can see for miles and you can exercise outdoors and not have to breath car exhaust so we should be building as many times as possible near public transit and i am disappointed at the project that it's so small and i would have loved honestly to see 10,

15,000 units at this site. it's doable with a few highris highrises. i understand it's well outside the zoning with you it's nearly something we made up. we could change those so i'm happy that we're moving forward and i urge you to vote yes on the project and say yes to more housing and yes to people. thanks. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is ian gordon. i wanted to humanize this a little bit because we talk about height limits, shadows, we talk about every random concern you could think about from someone who already has a home. we should talk about the thousands of people who living in the units.

not just the 1100 units that are on the table right now but what could be 5,000 or 10,000 homes because this lot is big enough for it and all those people could have a place to live right now. we said no to them. we said no because we wanted to spend 10 years arguing with people who already own a home and who are impacted by the housing crisis over whether they're ok with building housing. >> san francisco is a progressive city that we say it is we wouldn't ask housing forwards and we wouldn't go around asking the most fortunate that it's ok. because of this process we failed thousands and thousands of people. we failed them. where are they now? those who could have afforded the market rate units are crowded in with roommates or crashing with family. when one of them goes out to the grocery store or breaks quarantine to vis the a friend they're at risk of getting sick

from covid-19. they're not able to socially dis tan themselves or they left san francisco entirely and they're going to miss out on the san francisco comedy which is going to be fun but it's going to be better off as the rest of the country. what about the people living in these below market rate units and instead they're living in shelters or they're on the street. thousands of people could be in safe spaces to live where they could be thriving and growing and stayed they're on the street in shelters so neighbors don't have to see shadows? what is wrong with our city? how is this our priority? we have to get rid of the racist legacy of single family zoning and say yes to a center we can build housing. how are we going to stop this from happening and what are we going to do to make it easier to build housing.

>> my name is michael chen i'm also a on the board of northern neighborhood for livable and likely neighborhoods. i'll calling into say i'm -- the big thing that's been on my mind is the fact that what we're dealing with homelessness on the streets and it's a big public-health problem for years and now with covid-19 coming around, you know, it's really kind of putting no focus the fact that people are on the streets and do not have shelter and they're more likely to get sick, if they get sick, then, all are in danger so housing is public-health and we really need to think about how to make sure everybody who is unsheltered get setter. in my neighborhood, there's a big kerfuffle about opening the pal of fine arts. and that really kind of thrown the focus this fact that we need

to house people on the streets and people in crowded shelters but we're facing a lot of negative opposition and you know, the thing that i want to say is we really need housing we node housing to make sure that everybody is housed in is not fran and we need to think about how to approach with the urgency is needs and deserves. please, move this project forward without any further delay, thank you, very much. >> you have nunez remaining. >> >> caller: my name is john winston i am the chair of the balboa reservoir g.a.c. i just wanted to speak up and say that we spent several years working on perhaps pel parameter and we made a huge document that took years and input from the community. the nine members of our committee voted on it.

i believe it was almost unanimous. we rised at a compromise and it took some long and it wasn't fast enough. we're designing a neighborhood. not just housing. there was a park, streets, utilities that had to be installed and we had to consider a lot of different aspects of the job. more than just building an apartment building or block of apartment buildings. it didn't go fast enough. through this principles and parameters we came up with a compromise and amenities and benefits. we made sure it would be 50% affordable and we are pushing hard for better transportation in the neighborhood. and our next meeting on april 20th will be about transportation and we will be pressuring the city government

and to provide better transportation alternatives in the neighborhood. as it stands right now we have enough parking and connections to the neighborhood we will have to the streets that will work very well for pedestrians and we will not over all, we are planning very hard not to over crowd the streets with traffic and the 50% a fort ability is three levels of lower income people and we will provide housing for teachers and what is rare is lower middle income people will buy a house in the neighborhood. some of the townhomes will be available for lower income people which is something that's really rare in the city. we have a lot of affordable housing not so much for poem who want to buy. with that, i'll ask that you you

have eight questions remaining. >> i'm a local neighbor from sunny side. i want to thank you for making this online process available to us and on the point of process, i want to speak to those people who asked that we should slow down or where this longer and san francisco has a housing crisis. one of the worst housing crisis of anywhere we can imagine and we also have one of the slowest most deliberative processes you can imagine. the two things, while they're not the only factors, are not a coincidence. it's our slow process that has caused aspect of this crisis and if we think about it in much more human terms. the 10 at least years delay that this project has gone on, we think about the 3,000 or so people who could live in homes built here, that's 30,000 human

years in that time wasted that's 300 lifetimes and can't occur in this states and anything that goes to the point of what is the benefit of this where is the greatest impact on housing it's not neighbors in balboa impact bid this project and poem that would be most impacted and live in these homes. the people who have their first homes, their first home they own, their best home, the home they make their family with and not just right now but over 100 years or longer that is how long housing lasts, think of the many, many lifetimes that can consider in those homes that's why it's essential they get built and strongly in support of this project, i wish it could be bigger. i wish it could be bigger and start tomorrow but, perfect cannot be the enemy of the good as it has been for san francisco

housing policy and i strongly support ask i'm excited to have more neighbors and people with any project of any city of any neighborhood. more people is exactly why we need this project and i'm so happy. >> your time is up. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> my name is christopher peterson and i live a little bit west of the project. i urge the commission to initiate the general plan amendment process today. the balboa receipt voice site provides extraordinary opportunity to provide a significant amount of genuinely transit and pedestrian oriented multi family housing. it would make a major commitment to affordable housing and i have one and it's the public parking garage component and i hope that it's a process goes forward, you

will consider instead going with the additional housing options discussing e.i.r. which would eliminate the public parking garage and provide additional housing. that aside, i urge you not to delay the process. this is been under consideration since at least 2014 and please, authorization initiative general plan today. thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. >> hello. i've been attending the balboa reservoir c.a.c. meeting for five years, since 2015. i'm a millennials and i'm very supportive of maximizing the amount of housing that can be built.

my browser just crashed. if i can speak in broad terms, the younger poem tend to say we want more housing there and we want a lot of existing residents say they're most concerned about the impacts to themselves of course and saw as street parking, crowding and as net i can and and i respect that and a reasonable balance must be made between housing affordable and the specific local impacts and they are hashed over and over for the past five years and they're don't low. the one thing i gren this land is very precious, i grow.

we should thousand efficiently and put as many units as possible and according to the design guides, the tights are designed to step up towards cpsf so why is it only 25 feet which is a lower than height limit for west wood park and coming up from them. three stories is should be the maximum and and three-storeys not just two-storey and what is important to maximize the privacy impact not to only make it two stories and chop off a third-storey just to respect the westwood park neighbors. and the housing so please, proceed and maximizing the houseel. >> thank you. >> you have four questions

remaining. >> caller: hi there, my name is riley and thank you so much for a format i can participate in. i cannot attend those meetings so i'm glad i'm able to today. the presentation by the project sponsors i just can't believe we're five years into the project and this is a dream come true. 50% affordable over a thousand units educator friendly and family friending housing and to about the. the project on top of a gigantic parking lot so no one is living there right now. the only wish it would give you more homes and remember that every unit we don't build on this project is a family we, you and i and everyone else in this call enjoy and take for granted. every home where we have room to build, but don't build, we're saying i love the city and enjoy it's privileg privileges you i t you do the same. keep that in mind and approve this plan and thank you, very much. >> you have three questions

remaining. >> caller: -- >> is there another speaker on the line? >> >> my name is cliff bagger and i'm with urban environmentalists. we know the sentiments many people have made so far saying that this is a great place to put a lot of new housing. it's unfortunate it's taking them so long and it's not more

units. we're adding housing on to the parking lot and it's walking distance and it's the best possible way we can add housing and it's amazing how clear the air is the better environment is possible and one of the ways we can attain it is building projects like this one than let people live lower carbon life styles, thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is stephen martin, resident of sunny side district 7. i want to point out a couple of things. i'm not against this project at all. but we got our member. one project alone won't solve the housing crisis so it's unkum

bent upon us tincumbent to built size. we have to be aware, overcrowding is an issue that doesn't -- planning is an issue that doesn't help cities equality of life it ruins it. overcrowding ruins cities. let's not make our urgency to put the mack mum number of maxim in this area or force us into bad decisions to live with for generations. a couple other things i want to address, i think it's ideal advertis --

>> -- this plan shows us we're still adding outdated data for a plan that will grocery affect city college. we must protect our educational access, as well, especially now, and no plan for those people whose lives have been up ended to get to school. thank you. >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. so if you could push the --

>> hello? >> -- the screen forward, please. >> clerk: if you could push your presentation forward. we can hear you, wendy. >> so maybe you can hear me, but i can't hear you, so i guess i'll just -- i don't know what to do. >> we can hear you. >> clerk: shen, let them know that they have ten minutes. >> i'm not getting any response. >> clerk: hi. wendy, we can hear you.

[inaudible] >> clerk: your presentation's -- [inaudible] >> okay. it appears you can hear me. i can't hear you, but i'm looking at the t.v. and also looking at my -- speaking into my phone, okay. so -- [inaudible] >> okay. so you've got the slide up,

number one, that shows the balboa reservoir. next slide, please. i hope you're showing the picture after the second picture of the balboa reservoir where i have the title on it, but the next slide is what is the purpose of initiating the general plan amendment, which is the item that i'm speaking to today. as you know, i'm sure, that in the -- [inaudible]

>> so what you're being asked to do today is to initiate a general plan amendment which will make substantial changes to the city and county's general plan, and the associated balboa park station area plan. the general plan and the balboa park station area plan are intended to serve as guidelines and directives for future development. if a proposed development is nonconforming, then their development must be changed, not the overriding policy. the planning commissioners knew that when they drew up these guidelines and parameters. in particular, the developer's proposal deviates from this plan with respect to open space, housing, and height

limits. the open space shows to be talking up at least 50%, and up to 90% of the 17.6-acre reservoir. the general plan amendment will shrink it down to 11%. next slide. this is what the developer's

promotional picture looks like, and it certainly does look very lovely, but when you zoom out -- next slide -- we see the reality, and the reality is that you'd have a little sliver of green space when it was originally supposed to be 50 to 90% of the reservoir area that you see here. next slide, please. the balboa park station element's plan proposed 425 to 525 units. the g.p.a. will allow for over 1100 units. this is environmental impact that cannot be mitigated. one, traffic congestion, two,

construction pollution, and three, noise. next slide. the developer claims that up to 50% of the units will be affordable. next slide. the facts are that of the proposed 1100 units, only 50% will be market rate, but only 33% will be developer as proposed by the vel -- -- will be affordable as proposed by the developer. the remaining 17% will be developable. and the question of affordable is whose definition are we using? the definition that's being used by the developer has been

heavily influenced by the san francisco real estate association, and it includes someone earning almost $130,000 a year. the rent in those areas are $3300 to $10,000 a month. these are not long time excelsior or ingleside or sunnyside residents, or even college students or workers. san francisco needs truly affordable housing for everybody. so housing in san francisco -- next slide. i think i may have gotten out of sync because i forgot to say next slide, but i want to be now on the slide that says public land for sale.

we don't have a housing crisis in san francisco, what we have is an affordable housing crisis. when we make 4500 units of market rate housing, we are not helping that crisis whatsoever. the biggest impediment to affordable housing is the cost of land. so if we take irreplaceable public land and turn it over to a developer, we've lost the ability to increase the number of affordable housing units. all right. we should be on the amendments to the height limits. so one of the amendments in the general plan amendment document is to change the zoning of the reservoir. right now -- well, actually, the planning staff asserts that

the current bulk height zoning is 45 and 65-a, but in fact, that's not really true. the zoning map on this slide shows that the 65-a zoning only applies to the city college part of the reservoir, not the p.u.c. part of the reservoir. so the amendments would change this 40 feet up to 78. they talk about it being stepped up from the westwood park neighborhood to the industrial side of city college, but if you look at the actual scale of the buildings -- go to the next slide. when you look at the reality, the buildings that will be adjacent to city college are going to be almost three times higher than the closest adjacent building, which is the multiuse building, and this slide here shows you the relative scale that we're

talking about. the avalon bay eight-story building next to the mudd is -- pretty much overshadows it. now is not the time to be making these huge decisions. i do appreciate that people are able to come to this meeting virtually in a way that they couldn't when it was at city hall. however, just myself giving this presentation has been incredibly difficult. i have no idea if my words have been lining up with the slides. there's just no way for me to tell that, so i'm flying blind here. now is not the time in this pandemic. the world is going to look a lot different on the other side. we can't stop life at usual, but we have to delay decisions that could further hurt working

class in san francisco who have already lost so much, and they're going to require assistance in both jobs and housing during the recovery effort. city college is going to be one of the drivers of that recovery, so i really urge the commission not to make a decision about something so important during this time. please vote no on initiation of the general plan agreement. now is not the time -- next slide, by the way. and you've got the cart before the horse. the reservoir project should conform to the san francisco general plan and the balboa park station plan. these higher-level plans should not be amended to fit the project. there are too many changes proposed to the current balboa

project. last slide. most important is this aspect that public land should stay in public hands, in use for the common public good forever. it should not be put in the hands of a private developer for profit, and that's what you're doing, handing it over to a private developer to make market rate housing. thank you.

>> clerk: okay. i think that's the end of the organized presentation. are there any members of the public that would like to comment? >> yes. [inaudible] >> when the p.u.c.

demolished -- [inaudible] >> second, i agree with the president of the balboa park station area plan that eight years of work it took to arrive at that plan should not be ignored. the housing development -- [inaudible] >> -- in the c.a.c. process, so

500 units would be more than enough. [inaudible] >> it's based on public resources code 2178-c, and that says there are large projects under consideration in various regions of the state that would replace old and outmoded facilities with new job creating facilities. this is a new project. it is not old and outmoded facilities. the problem is that when the -- >> you have zero questions

remaining. >> clerk: president koppel, it appears that you have come to the end of public commenters. if anybody has comments, it would be an opportunity to present public comments. >> president koppel: yes. if anyone chimes in, we will hear from them, but for now, public comment is closed. yesterday, i had a chat with the president of the board of trustees. she shared with me she is very well aware of concerns and what's going on with the property, faculty, students,

and the public. she is constantly keeping a pulse on this project and just wants us to know that city college is doing their due diligence on their side to make sure this project does get delivered as smoothly as possible as whatever pace it goes. but also, just a couple of comments that were on the top of my list were on the 50% below market rate housing, which we see almost never. not just muni transit, but we're, again, very close to b.a.r.t. station, which has greater possibilities for longer distances to get rid of those instances. local business hiring is something i'm in favor of and always glad to see included in

this project. i will be supportive of a motion today. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: hi. i guess a question for the staff or inquiry for the staff so that when we start initiating or discussing this plan, when it comes to the time the city is going to be leveraging, knowing we may be

in a recession in two to five years, so that's something that i have in mind in terms of, like, public investment. as, you know, this is -- i think, is, you know, the 50% and the -- 50% affordable housing with 70% of leveraging by the city, i want to make sure that there is funding for that so that we know that the -- the low-income, the most vulnerable will be able to have this kind of housing. i am wondering in the next hearing if there can be more information about the traffic and the parking spaces in there. i agree with -- actually, the

balboa reservoir precedent, we're not just talking about housing, we're talking about neighborhoods. i would like to hear about this in the future when we talk about this more. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i am very excited about many aspects of this project. i love the fact that we're getting a family friendly project on the west side of the city. i love the fact that it is educator housing, that it is the result of a very extensive community process, that it has 40% community housing, and presented an opportunity for

unique large scale master planning to fit in with the neighborhoods that surround it. it has features that are only possible in a large scale project, so i would be very much in favor of initiating the general plan amendment. when it does come back to us, there are two items that i would love staff to provide more input on. one is it seems like the amount of e.v. chargers seems low. it was only 10 to 20% of the chargers provided would be provided for 10 to 20% -- i want to make sure that they're

allowing some room for flexibility, creativity, and individual expression so that we don't end up with every building looking, you know, very similar to each other. but in general, if -- i'm very excited about this project and in favor of initiating the general plan amendment at this time. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: very much appreciate my fellow commissioners' support for the project. i think the project is a very mature, very forward-looking project, and i appreciate staff's as well as the thoughtful presentation which is a little harder to understand but for me fully substantiates my understanding for the need for general plan

amendments. they are also there to be amended with real projects and real housing plans that the amendment sets forward. it goes also to particular elements in the general plan, so i am in strong support of initiating the general plan amendments. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i really just am appreciating what everybody has participated in the process and my fellow commissioners' comments.

especially commissioner moore and why we felt comfortable about initiating the general plan. i will just kind of echo a couple of things. one, i really appreciate the coordination with the city college board of trustees and the c.a.c. my one issue that i've talked through about this is something that somebody has brought up, which is just the issues with traffic and transit. they've taken the 29 and the 43 and the k to city college, and people kind of avoiding and not being able to get on those buses because they're so packed. one thing that i'm really heartened by is the initiation of this project is the need to really thrust those traffic issues and concerns and those public transportation issues that have been challenging for so many to be able to provide better access, especially to the students. and so with that, i make a

motion to initiate. >> president koppel: i'll second that and call on commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i also am prepared to act on the initiati initiation. i believe that, as my fellow commissioners indicated, there's no project that's perfect, but should a change be necessary, then, we will need to do that. this is a large-scale project. every large-scale project that we've ever seen has required code amendments. i'm prepared to move forward

and pursue any questions that i have in the time period before final determination. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commission >> commissioner moore: the concerns by commissioner diamond are to be discussed. we had concerns about traffic congestion and how we looked at traffic mitigations can all be brought. this is not a whole hearted approval of the plan itself, but just the initiation of the general plan and housing amendment, a general plan of this kind. >> president koppel: director hillis? >> director hillis: yeah. i just wanted to reiterate that comment. we will be back before you with a lot more detail. we've got your questions and concerns, which we'll address, so we'll definitely pick up on

those items. i also just wanted to thank president yee and his office for the time and effort and years developing this plan with us, and thanking our staff at oewd for all the work they've done on this. >> clerk: okay. seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate the general plan amendments, and i -- if i understand correctly, to also schedule a public hearing on or after april 30, 2020. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 17 for case number

2016-006860ika for 65 ocean boulevard. this is a fee waiver and in-kind agreement. please note on october 24, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, this was continued to december 12, 2019 by a vote of 4-1. commissioner moore was against, and commissioner melgar was absent. on december 12, 2019, without hearing, continued to january 16, 2020, by a vote of 5-0. commissioners johnson and richards absent. on january 16, 2020, without a hearing, continues to february 13, 2020, without hearing, continuing to april 2, 2020, by a vote of 6-0, and continued from april 20, without hearing,

continued to today. >> -- with almost 200 dwelling units and a basement level garage. as a reminder, this commission approved the home s.f. authorize back in october 2019. that home s.f. approval was appealed, and in january earlier this year, the board of permit appeals upheld your decision. the proposed -- >> caller: excuse the interruption. >> hello. i'm so sorry to interrupt. this is the operator. i'm so sorry. i have your participants telling you that they are not listening to this call. i'm showing this is muted, and

they're hanging up. i'm sorry. did you need us to unmute? >> we're all muted right now? >> caller: you're muted, so they cannot hear you. >> okay. let me try. >> clerk: chen, it appears you're muted. consu excuse me. apologies for the interruption. it appears we have some technical difficulties. chan, if you could unmute yourself. it's just the microphone.

>> yeah, it's unmuted. it's not the correct one. >> clerk: you still show as being muted, chan. >> caller: it won't let me unmute. >> clerk: i can hear you, but your second one is still unmuted. >> director hillis: hey, jonas, can we take a recess? i don't see that line on here. >> clerk: sure. we can take a recess, but chan, i'm concerned that you have --

you're still muted on one of them. you have two lines. one is muted, one is cleared. >> caller: let me try the phone again. >> clerk: there you go. >> caller: okay. got it. >> clerk: okay. so apologies -- well, you muted your other one now. >> caller: yeah, that one should be. >> clerk: okay. so apologies to members of the public. if the commission's okay, we should resume, and just for your information, these live stream events are available to us at four-hour intervals for now. we're working on a ten-hour interval meeting, so right before 5:00, we have to take a break and then reconvene after 5:00 in a new event.

everyone who has been invited to this event will have access to the next one, and for those in attendance will have to dial back in. and i apologize for the logistics, but we're still working through them. veronica, why don't you go ahead. >> caller: and commission president, do you want me to start at the top again? >> clerk: yeah. why don't you do that. >> caller: okay. veronica florez, planning department staff. this is for a waiver of $300,000 of the child care subsidy information subject to the developer providing an on-site child care facility. the facility is looked at 65

ocean. the commission approved the home s.f. authorize back in october 2019. that home s.f. approval was appealed, and in january earlier this year, the board of permit appeals upheld your decision. the proposed child care facility is located on the ground level of the project. due to the topography of the project site, the main area is located along ocean avenue, but there is another entrance along alemany avenue for entrance to the child care bank. the child care facility will contain as many children as state and local licensing allow and will be open to the general public with the same terms and

conditions to the residents of the 65 ocean project. the project has received one letter of support. i also want to highlight one letter of support you have received in your original packet from last year. the letter from faces s.f. noted their support for the child care facility, specifically, the child sponsor's effort -- care sponsor's wish to return to the original site. this item relates to a larger housing project which includes 25% on-site below market rate units, and the project provides a much-needed on-site child care facility.

>> clerk: i think you're the producer that has the floating menu bar. >> this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm also available for any questions. i want to ensure that staff will follow up with a visual and verbal presentation whenever you are ready. thank you. >> clerk: why don't we go ahead and move to the project sponsor presentation. project sponsor, are you available? >> i am. can you hear me? >> clerk: i can. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm on behalf of reuben, junius, and rose. we appreciate the opportunity to be here today and keep this project moving. i also want to say welcome to director hillis, and also i want to really thank the planning department for keeping projects moving. i know it's been a hard time with people working from home, and it's been difficult connecting remotely, but i think the department has been doing a great job, so thanks to

all of you. so we were recently here for a project approval in october. i know a lot has happened in the world since then, so i'll run through a few things about the project and about the child care space. hopefully, i will show some images. if not, i may get a little help here. let's see if i can actually -- is that showing -- are the slides showing? >> clerk: we see your screen, but you haven't opened the slides yet. >> caller: i'm having trouble with my network. veronica, are you able to pull those up, by any chance? >> caller: yes. let me request control from you. >> caller: that would be great. thank you.

>> caller: or, rather, can you pause your screen share so i can share mine? >> caller: there we go. >> caller: great. thank you. so starting here with a site overview, you can see the project location between ocean, alemany, and cayuga avenues. the pictures are a little small here, but particularly in the photo below that, you can see that this is a large and underutilized lot. a lot of it contains surface parking currently, and it's an amazing opportunity at that location to provide a housing project. the approved project, as you heard, replaces that large

underutilized space. it includes 25% affordable units, and we hope, after this hearing, a much needed child care use. on the next slide, this just gives a little overview. this is a transit-rich area. it's about a half a mile from the balboa park station, and on numerous bus lines, although we expect many families going to the child care center would walk from the surrounding neighborhood, being a child care hub allows it to be used by the entire neighborhood as a whole. next slide. here's a rendering of the approved project, and you can see how the residential levels step up. there are some walk-up ground floor units and there's a large roof deck for open space. there are three courtyards that provide significant open space

in the project. the project is family friendly with 19 two or three-bedroom affordable units. because of that, we believe that it is particularly important to include the proposed approximately 6,000 gross square feet of child care use, plus child care outdoor play area. as we all know, there's a signature shortage of child care in san francisco. this is particularly an acute problem in this neighborhood. that's the outer mission, excelsior. however, despite having significant need for child care, these neighborhoods have proportionately higher needs

for child care. there's only enough licensed child care capacity to serve approximately 15% of infants. among the numerous support letters received by the project, we're happy to receive support by faces s.f., a nonprofit supporting san francisco families with early childhood education. as faces points out, projects like this are important because so many child care providers have been forced to leave the city. this is a serious problem, and presidio bay wants to be a solution to the problem. under the project, presidio bay would invest $2 million more than it's required to. the child care space would p s operate for the life of the

project, ensuring child care for the child when so many others are forced to leave. next slide, please. so sorry. it's a little small, this plan page here, but just to show you a little bit more about the floor plan of the space. as you know, there will be a dedicated area of the child care that was really thoughtfully designed to provide a separate entrance to the outdoor play area. this will be fully built out by presidio bay and be ready for a child care provider to move in. this just shows the level above, the small area in pink, and you can show, again, the dedicated entrance to the child care space. there will be elevator service so that the space is fully a.d.a. accessible. there is student loading on alemany avenue for students who

do not walk or ride the bus. one previous tenant, little bear -- in addition, presidio bay has some reduced rent at a temporary location, supporting the provision of preschool services in the community for as long as possible. the grand box moved from 65 ocean, unable to offer a long-term lease. the crayon box is planning to return to 65 ocean with a brand-new below market rate lease. the sponsor has received letters of support from hundreds of merchants, the bare chair council, ucsf, and the

bay area action coalition. it also received support from parents and child care providers because of the services proposed. with approval of the in-kind agreement, the project will be fully approved by this commission, and presidio bay will be able to move forward with the mission to provide much needed child care to the neighborhood and the city at large. thank you for your time today and allowing us to proceed remotely. i'm happy to answer questions, and the rest of the team is available by phone. >> clerk: great. thank you. i think we should open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public in the queue?

>> you are now in question-and-answer mode. to ask a question, press one-zero. >> clerk: is any member of the public wishing to speak on this matter? >> caller: i've got one. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello. i'm theodore randolph. to me, this fee waiver and in-kind agreement looks like a good idea. this project -- this home s.f. project is a very highly needed project in this neighborhood, and even though i'm sure, in my opinion, the parking garage seems way too big, it's going

to impact my commute significantly, but besides that, i think this is a very needed thing in the neighborhood, and the way that they're having these tenants, it makes the space a much better idea than leaving the ground space unassigned and needing to worry about these retail and ground-floor vacancies in this area. so the child care, activated ground level housing -- that's applicable to a range of families in the neighborhood. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello, commissioners. corey smith to behalf of the

san francisco housing action coalition. i'm here supporting this today. this has been in front of you know a couple of times, and so i don't need to reelaborate on the comments. the city desperately needs housing, and approving that today will assure the project getting built as quickly as possible, so respectfully requesting that you move it forward. thank you. >> caller: no more speakers. >> clerk: thank you, chan. just one last call to members of the public wishing to speak on this matter. that would be your opportunity to press one and zero to queue into the public comment part. commissioner koppel, why don't we go to commissioner deliberation, and then, if someone chimes in, we will afford them the opportunity to submit their testimony? >> president koppel: sounds like a plan. commissioner moore?

>> commissioner moore: i'm in support of the fee waiver. i had originally questions about the space, and that was alleviated by supervisor safai, who supported the change of the child care space. i think the two things come together in a very supportive way with housing s.f., which makes a strong emphasis on housing and children, and for that reason, i think we should have the child care facility at day one when this project opens. again, i am expressing my full support for the fee waiver. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: the cost estimate is fairly close to what it would take to build a shell and the t.i. improvement

for the child care. i'm prepared to act on accepting this waiver. i would so move. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm in favor of this, and commissioner fung, was that a motion? if so, i'm seconding it. >> commissioner fung: i would so move. >> commissioner diamond: seconded. >> clerk: very good. i see no other commissioners requesting to speak, and there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the fee waiver and in-kind agreement. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

6-0. commissioners, that will place us on items 18-a and b for case numbers 2018-011441 cua and var at 1846 grove street. please note, on december 12, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued to march 12, 2020, and on march 12, without hearing, continues to march 19, and subsequently continued the matter to today's date. this having been at least the second hearing on this matter, times will be reduced to three-minute presentations by the sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. matt dito, planning staff. the project is requesting to construct four single-family homes on 1846 grove street. conditional use authorization allows for one dwelling unit for 1500 square feet of lot area. with approximately 7500 square feet, five units are permitted with conditional use authorization. the project is requesting four units. as jonas said, the project was previously heard by the commission in full on december 12, 2019, with the commission providing guidance to conduct further outreach, reduce massing, and to look into reducing density.

in response to that hearing, the project sponsor has held a community meeting to gauge feedback, and reduce the massing from five to four units. the reducing massing can be seen on the plan set, and it should be noted that it does not provide any set back from the property line. the project contains a 3.5 access from fulton street into the access of the lot to be developed. the project sponsor conducted a preapplication meeting with the department of building inspection and the fire department to ensure that the project was feasible from a technical and safety standpoint. both departments signed preapplication meeting notes which are included page a-0.1 of the plan set stating that the project is feasible. the project sponsor will provide further details on the safety measures taken if the

project as proposed gives limited access. additionally, this inspection by d.b.i. and the fire department give approval. in response to the revised proposal, the department's received 45 letters of opposition, citing the same previous concern about the address of the property, density, safety, and environmental impact of the project. the department has also received 24 letters of support to the project, citing the ability to provide four units to the neighborhood. although t and the department finds the

project to be compatible with the general plan and recommends approval with conditions. the design of the site respects character of the neighborhood with smaller scale units, and the project provides four dwelling units on a large site and is designed in compliance with the residential design guidelines. additionally, the drost motion included in the plans required -- draft motion included in the plans required two sections to be read into the record. item b says the project does not include any existing houses, and in item c, it says the project does not include any existing housing. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you available? >> yes. >> clerk: okay.

you have the floor for three minutes. >> as i have limited time, i will try to be brief or quick with my comments. i also have here via phone line captain -- retired san francisco captain mario ballard of the fire department, who served 33 years with the fire department that could answer your questions about the fire safety of the project. i'm going to share a screen -- bear with me, if i can do this correctly. is that visible on your end? >> clerk: yes. >> may i ask christine, i think, then, to share it? i'm not -- is this a shared desktop? >> i also have it, yeah. >> clerk: matt, can you push

that forward, please? i've paused your time. >> okay. thank you. so in your packet, you will find 16 items that we've agreed to adjust. we've reduced the number of units from five to four, combining two of the smaller units into one three-bedroom unit, so now, we have two two-bedrooms and two three-bedrooms. we've moved a second story volume away from the property line at unit three. we've reduced one-story volumes at the east and south edge of the property. we're providing a planting screen as a buffer screen

between the neighboring yards to the east side of the property, and we've relocated the bin area to the east side of the property. so if you can go to the next slide, please. thank you. so you can kind of see the overall scale of the project with respect to neighboring buildings. [inaudible] >> clerk: troy, that's you, right? >> i'm sorry. i'm getting a little technical difficulty. so the next slide, please. >> clerk: we can still hear that, troy.

>> sorry. so this is a view of the project from the southwest. if you'll bear with me one second. just let me figure out how to turn this off. okay. sorry about that. so this is the view from the southwest. next slide, please. kind of a more overhead view, showing the sloping living roofs with the one-story volumes, and note that the two-story volumes are pushed back from the property line a minimum of 3 feet. next slide, please. view from the north-northeast. next slide, please. next slide, please.

so there are, i think, four fundamental questions that could be asked here. number one, can the massive lot support four families? i believe the answer is yes. is it necessary and desirable and is is there a demand for this type of housing? i would say absolutely. question two, is it designed to minimize impacts on neighbors? the answer is absolutely yes. the design that you see is not the design that's the least expensive to build nor the one that gives us the most square footage, but it's most successful at screening, design, and privacy concerns. at the neighbor's request, we produced a big box content that was set back on all sides, kind of as a multiunit town house form in the middle of the lot. it puts circulation in outdoor living spaces up against the fence line creating privacy

concerns for adjacent space here and really created spaces that are not necessarily useful for anyone. >> clerk: your time is up, but i think the commissioners may have questions for you later. i appreciate the technical difficulties associated with this, so i'm sure if the commissioners have questions, they'll call you up later. >> thank you. >> clerk: if we could go to public comment, members of the public -- >> -- to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: you've heard the instruction. press one and zero to queue up for public comment. there will be no 30-second chime, it'll just chime at one minute. >> you have 25 questions remaining. >> hello. first, let me say how much i

appreciate this medium and how it works better for me because i wouldn't be able to show up in person. i want to voice my support for this project. i think it's necessary. i think it's kind of family housing, i think it's middle housing, and so i implore the commission to expedite and improve this. on a personal note, i really am excited to see you building more housing. i'm really looking forward to the commission moving forward with this project. thank you. >> you have 30 questions remaining. >> caller: thank you. you're supporting this unsupported claim that increasing housing supply will be in the public good. they don't talk about any studies to back this.

[inaudible] >> -- undermines these claims by pointing out high vacancy, coupled by high rent, indicates the opposite. this will not solve the crisis of affordable housing, but this will make it worse. there's no evidence that simply adding units will solve the crisis in terms of housing availability in a city where affordable housing is largely unknown. this is green washing that actually just uses the housing commission to affect illustry housing. >> clerk: thank you, sir.

your time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have 29 questions remaining. >> caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is craig rosen. my wife and i are residents adjacent to the property. i'm in opposition to this project not solely because i live adjacent, which has clearly drawn my attention to it but because i think anyone rationally evaluating this project would conclude there's a major safety issue here. i'm all for more density here, but i don't think this is safe. i'm sure there are accessory dwelling units that are on properties, but not multiple homes with many people, and let's be clear, these are not a.d.u.s. not only do i believe it's wrong to build homes in what's a small courtyard, but also asking to raise the density.

i'm concerned about safety. it's not clear how a fire truck would proceed, how anyone would be able to access these homes in the state of an emergency. thank you. >> caller: thank you. you have 32 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is matt, and i'm a long time resident of san francisco. first, i just really want to say that i enjoy the telephone system that we have right now. telephones are a reliable technology, and i think this allows everyone to call in and be a part of this process. we need housing in san francisco. i'm in full support of this project. i think there is copious research out there if you look for it, showing more housing units will abate the housing issue and crisis that we have in san francisco -- or help abate it. i think that this project has

really taken into account conscientious design and really has worked to make this not be too much of a problem for the adjacent units, and i think that it clearly does satisfy the existing building codes that we have, particularly in regard to safety and fire safety. again, we need housing, and i think we really need to move forward with this project. thank you. >> caller: you have 32 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is charmaine curtis, and i've been developing multifamily affordable housing in san francisco for about 30 years now. i am calling in support of this comment, and i provided written comments back in march. i have two things to say. the first is i believe the developer has done a great job in designing a great design on

this not-so-typical lot. this crisis has real human consequences that we see every day. the building massing and set backs are thoughtful and take into account neighborhood policies. i very much hope that you will grant this project the necessary approvals today. thank you. >> you have 30 questions remaining. >> clerk: whoever's in queue, you're on. hello? >> hi. sorry. i was muted. let me make this really quick.

i'm a renter -- my name's theo gordon. i'm a renter in the neighborhood, and i support this project. please give me and others like me the opportunity to live in a small, modest house like this. people have done everything they can do to stop this project. let's hear from the fire marshal and the professionals who are concerned with fire safety. let's stop throwing around the word luxury housing. it's insulting to people like me who work in the city, just trying to find a place to live. people calling this luxury who are so concerned with shadows over their back yard. shadows are a major concern? having a place to live is not a luxury, it's a basic human right. let's approve this project and not waste a lot of time fighting over this project.

>> you have 29 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is brian vito. i'm a resident of the panhandle. i live a few blocks away over on hayes street. i'm calling in support of this project. like others have expressed on this call, i feel that san francisco has a major shortage of housing, and i feel like innovative projects such as this one are exactly the way that san francisco has to be thinking going forward to support all the people currently in the city and those that want to move in. and like others have expressed, i defer to the experts on whether or not the project is being safe. obviously, i think it should be built in accordance with the applicable fire codes, and because they are, i believe we should not block a project like this. thank you so much for your time. >> you have 29 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. my name is ben woodard, and i

would like to, first of all, thank the commissioners and the san francisco government for putting together a meeting and allowing us to participate virtually. that's a great credit to your i.t. staff. i would like to register my support for this project because i believe that this

been addressed before. there's already lots of agencies -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. >> you have 27 questions remaining. >> thank you for plowing through what is a challenging time performing your duties. commissioners, you have a chance to right a wrong with the 1846 grove street proposal. the character of this neighbor is two-story duplexes, set backs with yards and gardens.

these gardens and yards may be privately owned, but they're communally serving the block. this project wants to do away with its own set backs and yard requirements to build on the lot, including building up to the fence way. the proposed project seeks to waive the ingress width that any other project would currently require. additionally, there is a significant disconnect between the sponsor's claim, the neighbors, and what you have likely heard from these neighbors. this project does not fit in the neighborhood and is opposed by the neighbors. >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> you have 26 questions remaining. >> i'd like to say that in the

revisions of the plans, the problems that i had raised in the last meeting in public hearing as well as with the developer after the meeting have not been addressed. basically, there's a 20-foot vertical two-story box that runs right across, and it was something that i was met with one word from the developer when i asked him to consider it. he said impossible. there are things that i would like to be considered by the commission. one is a 1-d and 2-d consideration of the property line across. there is no windows indicated on the property at 1834, 36, or 40 or 42 grove street. there are 26 windows that would be blocked by this wall. >> clerk: thank you, sir.

your time is up. >> you have 25 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. my name is maria, and i'm a 20-year near resident of the neighborhood of this proposed project. i had submitted a detailed formal letter of support to the commission secretary in advance of today's hearing. i just want to briefly reiterate that the executive summary clearly shows due diligence by the design team to meet compliance measures while responding to the community's worries and measures. so please take the bold action of recommendation by the planning department. thank you, commissioners, and be well. >> you have 20 -- >> -- with yimby action.

i think probably most people know what i'm going to say, that this is badly needed housing, but i'm going to say, to address the other people that are on the line that live in the neighborhood that oppose this project. i want to say, you're afraid that your neighborhood will change, that things will look different, and i understand that here, but i think that you're underestimating how damaging it is for your neighborhood to remain exclusionary, for your neighborhood to remain a place where people cannot afford to join your community, and it's going to have to change. the physical parameters of your neighborhood are going to have to change, and it has changed before. our city has grown over time. every new generation adds newa new architecture to the community. it adds things that we maybe hate the newest version of it,

but we get used to, and it becomes a vital piece of our community. i know you're not going to support this project here today, but i hope you can start to think more broadly about how your community needs to change over time to welcome more people home. we have a chronic housing shortage. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> you have 23 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. this is kenneth russell. i'm a san francisco resident, and i want to thank the commission for having this set up for this medium to allow this type of participation. i'm speaking in support of this housing very strongly. we need more housing, especially in-fill housing. as we look to address climate change, you know, to the aspect of safety here, i trust our

fire marshal, i trust our professionals who do this for a living. i believe them when they tell us that this is something that works. on a personal note, as an lgbt person who moved to san francisco because of the tolerance of this city, it's really important for me that other people have that option to be able to live here and appreciate what san francisco has to offer. and as someone who's also had friends move out of the city because of the lack of housing options, it's really important to me that we have additional options. thank you. >> you have 22 questions remaining. >> hi. sean lundy, and long time san francisco resident. i fully support this project for a number of key reasons. number one, i think it's a thoughtful design. modest one and two stories.

it has some safety considerations, but both the building department and fire department has reviewed and approved the content. [inaudible] >> -- and most importantly, the thing that everyone keeps saying, san francisco has a housing crisis, and we badly need affordable units just like this project. so i urge the commissioners to do the right thing and approve this much needed project. thank you so much. >> you have 21 questions remaining. >> good afternoon. my name is sarah ogilby, and i'm with yimby action. my husband and i fully support this project. we took a careful look at

specifications which did include a new fire water pipe, which i think is a much needed feature that will be accommodating to the safety and health concerns of the neighbors? once again, i'm here to reiterate my friend's comments that we badly need housing in forums such as these, and this represents a wonderful opportunity for the neighborhood to expand and grow and be more welcoming and more inclusive, and it will bring in families that can help solve the economic challenges that lie ahead, and we should welcome them with open arms. thank you, troy, for your incredible work. >> clerk: your time is up. chan, don't take the next

caller, please, just for one second. i need to make an announcement. additional technical difficulties and logistics associated with on-line hearings. we are limited to four hours. our four hours are going to be up at 5:00, so we'll take a couple of more callers, but then, the commission will need to take a break and basically log out of this live event and log back into a new one. everyone who's in queue and on the phone, please stay on the line. we will resume again after we take our break very shortly and resume public comment. if in the instance we lose you, please call back in, and we will resume public comment. okay. we believe that we should be able to keep you all on the phone in the queue that you are currently in, but in case you

do drop off, please call back in. okay. we'll take a couple of more callers, and then, the chair will notify us sometime before 5:00 that we're going to have to take a break, and we'll take a break for about five minutes to get back through in, okay? go ahead now. take the next caller. >> you have 21 questions remaining. >> commissioners, this is michael talbert. i'm an architect and 30-year resident of san francisco. looking at this project from a high level, this project takes advantage of an under utilized property. similar to the a.d.u. increased density, this project provides housing where there could be. it is a unique -- it is unique as an undeveloped lot in the city and requires no demolition of existing buildings or displacement of existing housing stock. i've had a chance to review the

sponsor docks for t sponsor docs for the project. the shed roofs on the northside minimize shadows to the neighbors. t and in short, by disbursing the units as the sponsor has, it provides the project with minimal impact to light and views. i encourage the commissioners to approve this forward-thinking project. thank you. >> you have 19 questions remaining. >> caller: yeah, hi. thanks for taking my call. my name is derrick werta. i'm calling in in support of this project. i'd like to say that it's clear to me that all of the necessary approvals have been given. we've already heard from the zoning and planning department. also heard that fire concerns voiced by some have been addressed properly.

i would find it sad, and it's incredibly disappointing for the people of san francisco that are looking for housing if we just let the neighbors and throw up their arms and protest. everything clearly we've heard in the negative about the project come from neighbors. it's simple nimby-ism, and i urge you to let this project continue. thank you. >> you have 19 questions remaining. dprs . >> caller: i strongly oppose this development, especially because of the zero lot lines and developments. the sponsor plans to build up to the lot line. the only minor change from the december 12 planning commission meeting being a five-foot set back on the western corner. in no case should the rear yard

be less than 25% of lot depth or 15 feet, whichever is greater. the absolute minimum is 15 fee [inaudible] >> back yards are additional to the community. allowing an investor to build right up to the neighborhood's 17 developing property lines will likely prevent us from building a.d.u.s in the future. we're only asking that the sponsor adhere to the rules and be fair. >> clerk: thank you, chan. if you can hold off on the next caller, we've been alerted that our time is almost up.

[inaudible] >> clerk: apologies, everyone. we will need to take a brief recess. we will close this live event. if those persons on the phone can please stay on the phone, we would appreciate that. again, if we lose you, not intentional. please call back in and follow the same process of entering the access code and pressing pound. but at this time, for participants of the live event, we'll need to close this one. you've all been sent an invitation to rejoin a new event that will extend this time for another four hours, okay? so i believe we'll need to go into recess. through the chair, we'll go into a recess now and try to reconvene within the next five

minutes as soon as we can get a quorum of commissioners back onto the live event, okay? >> president koppel: i'm with you, jonas, and with that said, let's literally end this meeting and log >> clerk: we do have a quorum of commissioners available, and chan, if we can resume public comment. >> you have 18 questions remaining. >> clerk: caller, you're on. >> hello, commissioners. thank you for making yourselves available during these trying times. my name is dr. michelle burch, and a 30-year resident of san francisco. i'm here today to show support for these ingeniusly designed

cottages. [inaudible] >> they forget that there's a shortage of housing in san francisco, that we must maximize development of open lots and allow others to live and thrive -- >> you have 18 questions

remaining. >> clerk: caller, you're on. hello, public commenter. we'll have to move onto the next commenter. y . >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> my name is christie nelson, and i live in the neighborhood where the project is proposed, and i am in opposition to it. i walk by the proposed entrance daily. there's only one very narrow and long entrance that seems so unreasonable for general living. it's not as wide as a typical sidewalk in our neighborhood. i think that poses a severe

threat to safety and health, and i think this project does not adequately increase safe housing options for san francisco as a whole. thank you. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. i'm an architect in san francisco that works on both single-family units and multifamily housing projects. i am fully in support of this project. the sponsor has built to less density than is allowed on the lot, and also, i want to talk about safety. this project is probably safer than any of the surrounding projects. the city is filled with projects that are inside the block for or in unusual

configurations. i just spent last weekend walking along the greenwich steps along coit tower, and those are less affordable than what troy's project would be. i think these projects need to be applauded in san francisco right now rather than criticized. thank you. >> you have 16 questions remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is siobhan, and i want to express support for this project. thank you all for dealing with complicated technical issues for allowing us to voice our concerns about this. i'm in support of this project because while they're not low-income housing, they're not luxury housing, and we're exactly the kind of housing

that us middle-income people might be looking for, so thank you for your consideration. >> you have 15 questions remaining. >> caller: hello. i urge you to oppose this project as it is currently formatted. if you want to approve it as two units without a conditional use, that would be one thing, but the impact on the neighbors of having the construction of four yards in a back yard is tremendous. and all of the safety factors from the fire department have not been at all addressed. all they addressed was the matter of exiting from the building once they were built. unless there's a guarantee that these condos -- and they are condos will be sold for 300,000

per unit, they are not affordable, they are more luxury. we have 30,000 vacant units in san francisco. affordablity is the issue, not more units. thank you. please oppose -- >> thank you. you have 15 questions remaining. >> caller: hello, commissioners. i am a san francisco resident and attended the first preapplication meeting that you had for this neighborhood. i'm supportive of this project and surprised it's still under review. some neighbors requested an alternate scheme with side set backs.

in my opinion, that is less impactful and provides some relief for the neighbors. i hope you can approve this project. thank you. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> hello. i'm john, and i live at 1829 fulton street, which is directly next to the 3.5-foot walkway. and i appreciate a lot of the people don't like the development who don't live in this neighborhood, but i can tell you that people in the neighborhood have real safety concerns. in january, i talked about fire concerns, and nothing has been addressed. if the walkway catches on fire, they're all trapped inside.

if the walkway is blocked, it's too narrow to let firemen in or people out at the same time. during construction, it's all being built next to our very, very flammable fences. all of the things are additional safety risks. that's the only thing in and out, and there's really no plan b for people. so as someone who lives right next to it, i just have strong concerns about safety, and i oppose this development as it currently is. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> thank y . >> caller: thank you, commissioners. my name is mary. welcome to the newly received commissioners, and i'm grateful

to the commissioners for providing this egalitarian way for participation during this pandemic. we've increasing equitable access to this meeting. i'm pleading with the planning commissioners to deny this potentially elitist type of construction project that provides no guarantee of low-income rental rate and will provide a guideline for other despicable project developers to gentrify our neighborhood with another complex.

it is -- [inaudible] >> i join my multiple neighboring dwelling residents to plead with you that you please vote against this disruption construction for our children, seniors, and daily working residents. many thanks for your attention to the considering opposition of the sponsor's questionable neighborhood communication in the block of this deeply affected neighborhood despite the eloquent business representatives that are commenting in -- >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> hi. my name's macre. i have huge safety concerns, and i also have a lot of

logistical concerns about that many people living on this lot. you know, it's 3.5 feet wide by 50 feet, so if someone is hauling in garbage cans really early in the morning, they're going to disturb people at that time, and they'll also damage the siding and the fences, which can't be fixed because it'll block access to their property. if someone is pushing a stroller, they definitely can't pass. the developer has made a few changes here and there, but any time we've really pushed them on how does it actually become reality, it's gotten super wishy washy, and i don't think that any of the things that they've really promised us will make it to the final stage of construction, and concerning light and sound as well as

safety -- >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> hi. my name is brandon keys. i'm the opposition speaker, and i believe there's a presentation that you have a copy of. >> yes. let me pull it up. >> i'm not hearing anything, to matt, can you please confirm, can someone please confirm? >> yes. can you hear me? i'll pull it up right now. >> anyone from the planning commission confirm or hear me? >> commissioner johnson: we can hear you. >> president koppel: we can hear you. >> clerk: matt, go ahead and push his presentation. >> any of the planning commission folks, can you confirm if you see the slides, folks? >> clerk: your slides are up. you can go ahead and proceed.

>> caller: okay. well, i can't hear anything. if anyone can here me, my name is brandon keith. i am a neighbor, i live at 1858 grove street with my wife and young daughter. i just want to note that in the previous hearing, there were 28 approved opponents and two in support. i'd like to commend the developer for buying off the supporters and the yimby. it's amazing to hear from so many people i've never heard of. commissioner diamond says i don't know how you're constructing this with a

three-foot passage way. commissioner fung says i don't know how you would put that up. oh, i see the slide. i'm just going to speak and assume that you're vamping it at the same time that i say it. slide 6 clearly shows that there's a three-foot passage way on this property. in an emergency, people would go over the fences. matt, if you'll go to slide 9 -- sorry, slide 10. slide 10 shows an ariel of tere 2019 presentation from

december. you can see the same thing on 11. matt, if you could advance to 11. commissioner moore said they would need to reduce the number of units and unit size. if you look at the 2020 design on slide 14 as well as slide 15, you can see there's practically zero set backs, it's effectively the same design, and it's frankly dishonest to say that these chang changes haven't been mad-- hav made. slide 17 is showing what was 2019. slide 18 is what's now. finally, commissioner melgar was saying the sounded with the life safety issues, you're going to have property lines right up against the walls of other folks. there's a serious fire danger issue. if you go to slide 20, and the only way of dealing with fire

here is a sprinkler system. nfpa, which is the national fire protection association, sprinklers are ineffective against electrical fires, period. you have a toxic run off and a case of electrocution in case of a fire. there's been no plan for how -- presented to the public about how this is even possible to move all of the earth that needs to be moved on slide 21. it's unclear to me if anyone's been able to hear me or be able to see the slides as we kind of run through here, but i'd like to voice my opposition to the project as proposed. i think this site should be developed with a more -- with a plan that takes into account the comments from the commissioners and really focused on safety. like, this is -- i've never been in a building that has one

way in and out in case of a catastrophe. i'd like the commission to consider everybody else that's here, and what would be the impact in case of an earthquake or fire. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. >> you have 13 questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. good afternoon. my name is michael chen, and i am a member of yimby action. one thing that i want to say is when we talk about diversity of people, we need to think about diversity of housing. there are these homes that are completely hidden from public

view, and you can go through there, and wow. i was going through pacific heights, and there's some apartments next to victorians, next to some places that were built in the early 2000s, and it makes san francisco what it is. i would urge you to follow the planning department's recommendation and approve the project. we need more housing. thank you very much. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> my name is -- [inaudible] >> -- i am a member of yimby action, and they don't pay me. the san francisco housing crisis, we need to change the parts of the city, and the public pension crisis means we need to do it without increasing the burden on the

city budget, and this project does both. i think this is a great idea. we should support and try more of these small in-fill projects around the city. all right. thank you. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> this is henry kang in opposition to the project. i have been a 25-year resident of san francisco and live adjacent to the proposed lot -- to the proposed development. many have expressed support who do not live in the neighborhood. all neighbors are against it, not because of nimbyism, but because we have knowledge of the project and the area. this project does not address the affordable housing area especially in a time of on coming recession as

commissioner imperial mentioned. the commission gave the sponsor the opportunity to reach out to the neighborhood, but the opportunity was squandered. when asked if the concerns at the community meeting were addressed, he dismissed it as banter. we also believe the -- >> clerk: sir, your time is up. >> you have ten questions remaining. >> afternoon, commissioners. my name is rick sills. i am a former commissioner myself, and congratulations, reg hillis. i remember our names used to get confused.

i'm here to support the project in its entirety. it's fully code complying. the fire safety code concerns have been addressed. personally, the fire marshal assured me that the neighborhood code certains h e have -- concerns have been addressed. if you listen to the people who are opposed to it in that neighborhood, really, it's a question of not in my back yard. we need to get past that and look at the need for housing in san francisco. i'm 100% in support of the project. thank you very much. >> you have ten questions remaining. >> caller: hi. my name is derek davenport. i've lived with my wife here

for over a decade. this is not a question of not in my back yard. we're scared. there have been fires in this area. it is locked in, they can barely get to the street with a very narrow pathway, and the developer hasn't worked with us. the developer hasn't reached out to us to -- to help us -- [inaudible] >> caller: -- in the way it's made now. there are people that live in other places that don't want anything like this. the people that live here are terrified by this, so thank you. bye. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> i am in favor of this project, as i am in favor of more housing in san francisco. i'm in favor of more high

quality residential design in san francisco, and construction that is safe, certainly moving in the direction of the allowed building code, and that we allow the safety professionals such as the fire department make those recommendations. as a local resident, i attended the first three application meetings, and frankly, i was embarrassed by a lot of other neighbors' attitude and vitriol towards the project. certainly, the neighbors were not seeking much compromise from the project sponsors. from my perspective, i see this project has providing responsible and well designed housing that enhances the neighborhood through its diversity and being new construction, it's safe, as well. i believe the current design is respectful towards the

awareness of the -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michelle dubrow, and i live in the project facing the project, and i oppose the project as it is. the investors have described this project as an apartment building under r-2, which would entitle them to a ceqa cross 3 exception. these are designed as three buildings and an apartment. under ceqa, the egress of the property must be 44 inches. the egress of this property is 36 inches and 50 feet. however, the investors, to get around that, have described this as four single-family

homes. t to get around ceqa, they've described it as three single-family homes. the investors can't have it both ways. thank you. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> hello. my name is mary yvonne. i live on sonic avenue, directly to the east of the proposed project. the proposed building's windows would look directly into my bedroom and those of my neighbors down stairs. something that hasn't been addressed on this call, and that is my fear for the coastal

live oak located on the subject property. the project could cause irreparable harm to the tree. in addition, water will be diverted away from the california oak tree on my property. my guess is that the california oak is planted when these homes were built, which would mean it is over 100 years old. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> hi. my name is dave cumby, and i am

an architect and i am in support of the project. i believe the fire concerns have been properly addressed, and remember, those departments have to approve the project in order for the building permit to be issued. i think the commission really should be focused on the question of if the scale and character of this proposed development is appropriate for this particular site, and i think if you look at the aerial view of the 3-d model, the project is broken into small parts, and it's inward looking, so it preserves the privacy of the adjacent properties, and respects the light and air to the adjacent back yards. so i would urge you to approve the project. thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. >> my name is robert, and i

live in lower haight, and i am in support of the project. i attended a meeting that was hosted by the developer back in november. it was actually interesting because only four people showed up, including myself. and so we had about 45 minutes or so where the developer representative, kathleen from more people and us, so we got to ask whatever questions we wanted to about the project and state our opinion. and i think the rep said there would be a living roof because the other residents in the surrounding buildings, you know, wants ed to continue to e grass. and i think he also mentioned that the units would be more spread out than they otherwise would be, like, more massing. they would be more spread out so it wouldn't appear as one large structure. he said it actually increases

the costs because it requires more foundation to be laid out. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> it really sounds like the developer has tried -- >> you have five questions remaining. >> clerk: so is the next caller available? >> please don't overlook the neighborhood concerns. this is not the appropriate block. thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> caller: hello. my name is jennifer. i'm a resident of the neighborhood, and i oppose this project. i'm an advocate for more housing in san francisco,

especially low-income housing. i am a public servant, and i see the effect of no low-income housing on my patients every day. i'm an advocate to develop this property, but this project does not address our housing crisis but instead lines the pockets of the developers. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi. i'm jeremy, and i'm one of the advocates for yimby, and i've got to say, hearing the comments, i'm a little bit concerned that i haven't received --

[inaudible] >> to me, that isn't so neighborly, but i'll let you be the judge. for those of you concerned about having you to spend your day on the phone about it, i encourage you to join me in supporting these types of projects so we never have to do this ever again. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: i'd like to support the project. i think it's really important that we welcome new people to san francisco, and i think it's important that we get new units wherever we can get them. i urge you to approve.

thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> caller: go ahead, caller. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> caller: chan, can you possibly tell her? >> i told her, but she didn't hear. >> caller: hello? >> caller: are you there, ma'am? >> caller: hello?

hello? hello? >> caller: she can't hear. >> caller: hello? >> caller: there's no other callers. >> clerk: i'm not sure -- chan, we're going to have to figure out why the callers can't hear us. when we tested it, they were able to hear us, so i'm not sure what to do in this event. >> caller: yeah. we have no more callers. >> clerk: why don't we hang up on her -- >> caller: hello. >> clerk: ma'am, can you hear us? ma'am, can you hear us? >> caller: ma'am, can you hear? >> clerk: okay. why don't we let her go, and then --

>> caller: okay. i see another one that got in. >> clerk: okay. >> caller: i'll put them on the line. >> caller: hi there. my name is damian. i grew up in the neighborhood. i'm really bothered by the number of people who pretend to have any legitimate claim to -- to this neighborhood. we have tons of architects and whatnot. obviously, a number of people are being paid off by the architects are investors. i am firmly against it. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: my name is basel. i live in district five, very near to the area, and just to say to investors, no plot can

be turned over for profit. [inaudible] >> -- requires a rear yard of 79 feet where the two open units, existing space is zoned for. we believe an appropriate building and appropriate location, but this proposal fails both criteria. this is good for industrial developers, not for this land use. we are counting on you, the planning commissioners, to protect our 120--year-old neighborhood from this inappropriate investment, and

we hope that you will reject this proposal. >> you have one caller remaining. >> caller: hello. i respectfully request that you disapprove this project. please know that my opposition to this specific project does not indicate my opposition to any project on this lot. i'd just like to see a project that takes commissioners' and neighborhoods' valid concerns into account. the investors could reduce the number of units or the number of bedrooms which would keep the same number of benefits. i brought this up with troy, and he said it would be

impossibl impossible. he also said that only 11% of the populations are smokers, so the chances of a flicked cigarette would below. also, the total massing of this project has been reduced by 176 square feet, which is not a significant reduction at all. this is yet another reason the commissioners should disapprove this project. thank you, and please stay safe. >> clerk: okay. commission president koppel, i believe that is all the callers. unfortunately, it seemed like we did lose one, but hopefully, maybe they can call back in, and we can get their testimony. >> president koppel: yeah, sure thing. why don't i start off with the commissioners, and a quick favor. if that project sponsor is still available, if i were you, i'd have the fire marshal ready

to go if questions are directed towards him, and let's start off with commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. so i have comments going back to the january 12 hearing. if you look at what d.b.i. has said what is needed for this size of egress court, it has to

be less than 50 occupants, and it has to serve less than 50 occupants. i'd love to understand how we're going to control the number of occupants that are in this space, particularly during holidays and other things. >> so i'd like to speak to the question of this construction project. if anyone hears me, please, could i have the opportunity to put in a few words? >> clerk: you may. sorry, commissioner johnson, but i believe this is the speaker that got cutoff previously. go ahead, ma'am. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: yes. >> president koppel: go ahead, miss.

>> caller: hello? is anyone available? >> caller: hello. ma'am? can you hear us? >> caller: hello? hello? hello? is anyone available to take comments? >> clerk: she's calling from a different phone. she got ahold of the team line, where it just allows you to call in, i believe. okay, commissioner. >> caller: hello? can anyone hear me? i don't know if anyone can hear me. hello? if someone can hear me, i would like to put my opposition to it because if people could only go

by two abreast, how is construction materials, fire trucks, garbage trucks, emergency trucks, ambulances, and cars going to get in to this particular area? how are they driving in if there's no other opening? have they bought some slats and torn them down to get access? how is this working out? this seems to be an impossible situation with high density and very poor accessibility. the danger of fire, the danger of emergency personnel getting in there, and people getting out in earthquakes, fires, or any kind of emergency situation seems to be impossible.

i am totally opposed because of the concentration of the construction. thank you for your attention, if i can get through. no letters or notices were sent to me, either. >> clerk: okay, chen. thank you. >> caller: thank you for your attention. >> clerk: apologies, commissioner. i think you have the floor again. >> commissioner johnson: thank

you. i'd love to hear from the fire marshal specifically about not only can life -- first responders and life safety folks get in through this egress, i understand hold --

[inaudible] >> caller: i was a long time resident of the area. i hope the project does not get approved as is. thank you. good-bye. >> i have mario ballard, a 30-year retired fire marshal. can you hear me? >> i can hear you. i don't know if you can hear me. >> caller: i can hear you. >> caller: okay. first of all, a lot of people referred to the fire marshal. i was not the fire marshal. as troy said, i spent 30 years in the fire department, half of my career as a firefighter

right down the street from the project at the fire station on grove and broadway, and ended up managing the plante region division. for the general public that's listening, and the commissioners, the buildings in san francisco are not unique. we have buildings that are four stories, wood frame construction, no sprinkler system, one way in, one way out. they're throughout the city, and the fire department deals with them on a regular basis. specifically, the issue of fire department access to this project has been extensively vetted by the fire department. when we had an additional preapp application meeting, the

fire captain that was there, reviewing our proposal and the site plans personally visited the site. the engine company down the street personally visited the site. the plan was then forwarded to the division chief, who personally visited the site. it was then kicked up -- i can't -- the number two chief, the deputy chief, that's one under the chief of the department reviewed the conditions and approved it. a ladder company -- i believe, i was not there. i believe they took their handheld ladders, and with the fire department carry, took the

ladder to the back of the buildings and were comfortable that they were able to get their equipment to the back of the site. one of the other questions i'd like to address for the public's general knowledge, there's a concern for the building's life safety, one of the concerns is how is the fire department going to respond to the site in the back if there is a fire? well, the first thing to consider is that the buildings are fully sprinkled. the level of sprinkler system has been upgraded to a higher level than would normally be required for those types of buildings, so basically, in layman's terms, it's a more robust sprinkler system. on top of that, the project is proposing, which the fire department required, is basically fire hydrants -- wet

hire hydrants strategically placed in the development. and what that means is the same volume of water that the neighbors see at the little white hydrants on the corner, you know, on folsom street and around the city, that is going to be directly provided to the back of the buildings at the buildings, so if there is an incident there, the fire department shows up, and they take their bundle of hoses. they're not dragging their large bundles all the way to the back of the property where this hydrant already is. they bring their bundle, which is 100 feet of hose with the nozzle, and for the size of those buildings, is adequate to make an initial attack. so there will be water in the back of the buildings. the fire department can ladder the buildings, and the

buildings are sprinkled. the type of construction has been upgraded significantly, and i think one comment that was made earlier is that in reality, those buildings are going to be the safest buildings on the block more or less. i can't speak to all the buildings, and if they've been upgraded, but typically, the buildings in that neighborhood are type 5, not rated buildings, and they're not sprinkled. so if there's any specific questions, you know, from any of the commissioners, on one of the commissioners, i would like to address the issue of how do you control the number of people in the buildings? well, the code doesn't specifically address that. commissioners, you will all -- you all live in the city, and you have a party -- you have a new year's eve party.

and let's just, for argument's sake, you have six families in the building, and you have a large gathering. well, the code doesn't say that. it says based on the square footage of the building, the area of the building, it has a number, and whatever that number is, the chances are, during the course of a year, parties, graduations, weddings, what-have-you, you exceed the capacity, but it doesn't mean the building's not safe, all right? and these buildings, from a prescriptive code requirement, meet exiting codes for those buildings. >> president koppel: okay. sounds good for now.

commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: two questions. one for mr. ballard, and one for staff. mr. ballard, is an area of refuge required? >> caller: no, an area of refuge is not required because it would be exiting requirements for the buildings. >> commissioner fung: okay. question for staff, then. i had reviewed the -- the drawings which summarized the preapp meetings with the building department and the fire department. the one question i've raised to staff but it was not answered was does this project have to conform to the a.d.a. code? and if it does, i believe -- correct me if i am wrong, but i

believe the a.d.a. requires, if it's a hallway, it would be a minimum of 44 inches. if it's a sidewalk, depending on how access is defined, would be required to be 48 inches. >> matt dito, planning department staff here. so the planning department does not implement a.d.a. guidelines. that's more along the lines of a technical requirement that comes through with d.b.i. and other code review, so i can't give you an answer that i'm confident on there. i would say if the project did trigger those requirements and it could not meet it, the project would have to be revised down the line or it wouldn't be feasible to move it forward at all. >> commissioner fung: okay. would the project sponsor like to respond to that question? >> yes, happy to respond. so as r-3 occupancies, meaning

single-family homes and duplexes, that -- the a.d.a. is not politicable to those requirements. that said, the units, you know, do have ground floor bedrooms and rest rooms, so somebody with a disability could use it, but the a.d.a. is not politicab applicable to single-family residents furnishing fung and what about r-2. >> caller: a.d.a. would be applicable to the ground floor only. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have a question about the noise that the neighbors who are adjacent to the passage way are going to experience, and i wonder what mitigation measures -- this is a question for the project

sponsor -- what mitigation measures you could propose to diminish the noise that they are going to experience during construction and then after construction, you know, kids racing down, strollers racing back and forth -- [inaudible] >> caller: -- to make some sort of attachment on the building to contain the noise. for the most part, it's up

against blank walls of the building. the other side of the wall is a street, so i think that lid will provide some effective treatment during construction. i would also add that we're going to move in a three-foot wide bobcat, and that bobcat will stay on the site, and it's not moving in and out of the entry on a regular basis. and then, during the -- with the final occupancy of this, that is another good question or good point, and that's part of why we developed this courtyard scheme. with all of the impacting facing inwards, and then, the courtyard will be self-policing. [please stand by]

>> is that tunnel going to pass fire? >> that would only be during construction and it would be removed. they are proposing a very tall planting which could absorb sound. i feel like people have con inflated the number of people that are living here. it's maybe 14, 4 families with two and three bedrooms. and this is the same question that you might have about any

activity in a yard adjacent to another yard. neighbors have to be considerate. they don't, the neighbor's having a party all night, you are going to get upset. i think the same level of consideration is applicable for these neighbors will have to be considerate. previously we had a more solid barrier against that edge and the neighbors made comments that made them believe the planting screen was more appropriate. so that's what we are doing to mitigate and absorb some of the noise impacts. i welcome any sucks the commissions would make on that

if there are other ideas. >> thank you. i do have other questions for staff but i think i got to hear from the other commissioners first. >> i need to do the conference call again. >> okay. go ahead and do that. >> can i proceed? or should i hold off? >> no, go ahead, commissioner. go ahead, please. are you there? >> yes, i am.

stepping back from where we were a few weeks ago, the questions we all jointly shared and concerns we expressed from my perspective, those questions have been answered, and the concerns i had have been sufficiently responded to. i believe that the project with the reduction of units has indeed created a context contextual fit into the space that i previously had questioned. i also believe that from an experimental point of architecture, it's i think a wonderful, unique solution for a very difficult space. you have 15 different conditions. this project reminds me of 1531 york street which had literally opposition from every parcel adjoining this very difficult site. we all remember that project not

too long ago. this project in its own right, aside from topography, has the same challenges. and i believe the response to those challenges has been met creatively except that in this particular case, the opposition is so unified that it's very hard to do justice and look at the overall conceptual this project make. if i were to compare this project to the other project, it would be immediately approved because it meets such a condition, when you look at the larger blocks, for example, where in the middle of the project of a closed block, for example, housing plus a school or kindergarten, it reminded me very much of the time in the 1920s when they type of

architecture was highly embraced because it indeed completed neighborhoods. i think the density this project achieves is quite admirableable. i think it is lit by a creative in-fill project. and having heard the fire department plan review comments make me feel that those concerns have been fully answered. i know how difficult the meetings are when d.b.i. and fire department come together, they really said the most narrow and stringent course for designing a building. if they have gone through that and gotten support, there is no doubt in my mind that final approval from those two entities is basically done, because you are designing against the very high level of conformance. and i think for that reason i will wholeheartedly support this project. >> commission fung.

>> this was a fairly difficult project to review. at one point in time, i would have thought that my lean would have been toward a more traditional approach, which would have required setbacks from the building to the adjacent property to the north and south directions. with a possible minor exception, then, for that piece of the site that intrudes on the western side, which is not contiguous in its entire length with the balance of the site. then i had to weigh it in terms of what would create a greater

issue for the neighbors. is it that somewhere in the neighborhood of probably nine to ten-feet edge with the one-story buildings that are near the property line, versus looking at something that may be set back not a full amount of a setback for a lot at the rear yard on both the north and the south sides of this property. and in looking, however, at windows and doors and therefore not only dealing with the privacy issues but also some further noise issues. at this point, i think that i'm convinced that the more

traditional approach probably would have been more problematic than the fact that the access and the exposure of these units are all internal and therefore i'm more accepting of that than a more traditional approach to this landlocked site. >> commissioner imperial >> thank you. yeah, this is complicated project, i feel like. but after hearing from the fire, i believe the representatives from the fire department about their extensive, you know, extensive reviewing of this matter and having it being seen by the division chief and deputy chief and having the fire to be

placed on-site, safety is always very important for all of us. and that makes me feel confident in terms of that this development will be safe for people living in here. i mean, usually when it comes to this kind of, like, development, which is in a way this is quite not traditional, which is kind of like it looks like in active backyard but it has been shown that the architect and the developer has put a lot of thought in it. and this is the kind of work i feel like that is not entirely big but it's like medium type of thing or i feel like it conforms with its area that it is in.

i know that in terms of the occupancy, you know, we're looking at to i believe there's one bedroom and then three two-bedrooms and one three-bedroom. and i believe at the minimum -- or no, at the maximum it would be at the most 22 people living here. but of course we cannot, you know, we cannot dictate as to, like, the occupancy when it comes to gatherings. but that is something that i don't think that even if the owners move in here will have more gathering in here, knowing that this is more of a -- you know, a a good spacious area. so for me i thought it has been vetted through. >> did you want to speak again,

commissioner moore? >> yes, i want to actually thank commissioner fung for creating the analogy as i was listening to your words literally drawing what you were saying, i realized how right you were by comparing the single kind of project in the center of the site to the advantages of what is in front of us and very much appreciated that. i wanted to say that to you. i believe that this project deserves our support and i would like to make a motion to approve the conditions. >> second. >> commissioner diamond, anything else to add? >> yes, i have a question for staff. i was surprised in the findings of the project, there is nothing mentioned about fire safety, in particular on page 6 of the draft motion, on the conditional

use findings, numbers 7b which talks about a project not being detrimental to safety, convenience or general welfare. it struck me that it would be appropriate to include language, given the particular facts of this project, why we're not worried about fire safety here. i don't know whether that is something that you might consider and what you would say if you wanted to have findings in that regard. >> this is department staff, here. certainly willing to come up with some language right now if we would like to add it into one of those four subfindings. so the first one is proposed site, second is accessibility and traffic pattern. three is safeguards, four is treatment given to landscaping and other things. i think it could be appropriate under the safeguards afforded to noxious or offensive emissions. it may not be totally

appropriate so an alternative to adding it to the findings would be sort of as a safeguard, at the end we could include a condition to approval related to the fire where we say in the event significant changes are required in order to meet life and safety requirements that the project shall have to come back to the planning commission for a new conditional use, which is sort of in line with the standard questions we already have in place. but it's up to you whichever you think is more important. >> i would be willing to second commissioner moore's motion with that condition that you just proposed >> okay. >> i support that condition and i think it's in the interest of just public perception that that is there. thank you, commissioner diamond. >> director hillis. >> i'm fine. i think they answered if imy question. >> okay, great. commissioner johnson? >> i want to say i still have --

yeah -- i appreciate the addition of that. it makes me feel more comfortable with having that in writing and have it potentially come back. so thank you. >> if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include a safety condition with any changes coming back to the planning department for conditional review. >> to the planning commission. >> you said coming back to the planning department but i thought it was coming back to the commission for review. >> did you want to chime in? >> yeah. so there's a standard condition on one of the first lines for

changes in modifications under exhibit a that included any conditional use that says changes to approve plans may be approved administratively, significant changes shall require commission approval of a new conditional use authorization. so this idea was that we could almost duplicate that specifically for fire and other life safety purposes to require a new conditional use in the event there are significant changes. >> okay. >> is that satisfactory? because then it would not come back to the planning commission. >> if it required a new conditional use wouldn't it come back to the planning commission? >> only in that instance. but there are administrative remedies that would be reviewed by the zoning administrateor. that -- the zoning

administrator. they would ensure it is in conformance with the conditions today. >> if we make changes that are significant it would come back to the commission, it would require a cu when we come back to the commission. >> that would potentially be the significant change and trigger the appeal. >> okay. >> very good, then. on that motion, then, to approve this matter with conditions as amended to include the fire safety condition, and with any change it would return back to the planning commission. on that motion. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. so commissioners, i have been advised. >> excuse me. i think you have the zoning administrator's approval here.

>> we have zoning administrator that needs to weigh in on the variance. absolutely. >> thank you. scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator for this item inclined to close the public hearing and grant the requests noting the lot is an exceptional circumstance and that the proposal that is before the commission today and before the zoning administrator is less than a code compliant alternative would have been which would have allowed for more development and higher development on the north side of the lot and the changes have been made as the commissioners stated reduces the impact on all neighbors but it does require the multiple variances that are being sought. thank you. >> commissioners, unfortunately, it seems we have run into some additional technical difficulties. i don't know if you want to take a recess.

but it appears the bridge line has been compromised. we were anticipating this in the sense that there are more than a few of the public not necessarily hearings but meetings that are being run through at&t servers and unfortunately the technical difficulty is not on our end but rather an at&t's end where we lost that connection. so we would need to at least break until we can resume that to allow for purpose participation. the alternative is we have two items left, 1369 sanchez and 350 san jose avenue. we can take a break and recess and or continue those matters.

i would suggest we recess for maybe ten minutes and reconvene hopefully with the at&t bridge line back impact. >> i'm on board with that. let's take a ten-minute recess and then formally for us, should we leave everything as is currently? >> yes. in fact everyone who is participating and who can hear, i think sfgov tv will go into the recess screen. and we don't need to log back in and out. i would just remain as is. i would mute your mics and i'll contact offline once we regain that at&t bridge. and at need be at the very least, we'll have to come back to adjourn the meeting. >> do we mute camera as well?

>> i would turn your camera off and mute your mic during recess >> so let's go for a see any ish that. it will be good to advise the public. >> okay. so officially now we are back in session. do you mind repeating that for the members of the public? >> yes, absolutely. so welcome back, members of the public. we are back in session. fun fortunately we have encountered technical difficulties associated with at&t and their server which does not allow us to have our hearing broadcast via teleconference. so those persons who do not have access to the internet or a television for that matter, but more important to submit their public testimony. so at this point, our options are few.

we have two items remaining on the agenda, commissioners. at this point we have made it through the meat of our agenda. i would like to congratulate all of you on participating in a such as first remote hearing of the planning commission. we were doing quite well in my opinion up until the moment that at&t, their servers kind of just went down and left us hanging so to speak so at this point i would recommend we simply continue matters. >> does that need to be an action item? >> absolutely >> okay. so any commissioner might want to motion we continue this. >> so moved. >> second. >> and continuing to next week? we need a date. >> yeah. i would suggest for today's purposes we continue it one week to see if we can have them

heard. and then we'll worry about the agenda between now and tomorrow's issuance. and if need be, we have to continue matters. i mean sort of unprecedented times. i apologize to members of the public, project sponsors that this has inconvenienced. but, again, we are learning as we go and dealing with situations that are varied as well. >> this is a crucial part of our process and our hearings is the public comment side of this. so does that also mean that we cannot continue that potential last couple of general public comment? >> no, i mean under normal circumstances we would have to take public comment for the continuances, but given the circumstances we can't >> and i know we cannot access this today. but there was possibly one or two people that may have wanted to generally public comment that got cut off from the initial

first 15 minutes and i wanted to confirm that now they are not able to call in as well, correct? >> no, they are not. i mean, that was the bridge line that was made available to members of the public to call in to submit their testimony. so, again, sincerist apologies. this is really kind of outside of the city's control. we were counting on at&t to provide us with adequate coverage for a phone bridge to the team's application. >> got it. commissioner, did you want to chime in? >> yes. and thank you. i do -- i mean, of course, all this technicalities, i'm just kind of thinking to ask to what should be heard in terms of these commission hearings that we should probably assess what needs to be heard in terms of, like, the items like the items of these are conditional uses or

discretionary reviews, can we assess in the way what is urgent? are they urgent, you know? that's kind of like thinking in the way of how we can, in our limited capacity, with technical difficulties that public are going to have, i think we should try to -- i mean, we are doing that right now but i'm wondering if there can be categories or we can consider what's essential. but i guess just that's what i'm kind of thinking of how do we make sure that our hearings are something that is worthy of our time, especially in this time nowadays. >> commissioner imperial, we have been given authorization from the mayor's office to prioritize infrastructure, housing and small businesses. so for these first few hearings during the month of april, those

are essentially the types of projects we'll be bringing forward to you. there are many other projects that are in the queue that have been noticed and advertise and are ready to go but given the priority and direction from the mayor's office, we will only be bringing infrastructure, housing and small businesses to you. >> the issues of demolition, that's what i'm trying to -- these two items coming up, the other one is a demolition. you know. >> right. but even the remaining two smaller items added new housing to the city's housing stock. >> director hillis. >> it's a great point. you saw from the continuance calendar we moved a lot,

suggested we move a lot off this calendar, and we'll continue to work during the officer meetings to set an agenda that really kind of at least initially gets at new housing projects, affordable housing, things that help with the recovery of small businesses. so that's -- i think we are open to the same mindset. if it's a deadline, that may be a consideration to put on the agenda. but we try to limit it, and we will try to continue to over the next couple weeks and make sure we have this discussion at the officers' meeting where we set the agenda. >> commissioner moore. are you there? >> thank you, director hillis,

for mentioning affordable housing. the public comment today voiced their support for putting greater emphasis on affordable housing. that said, i believe that the two projects we are continuing today should be heard next week, because they were on the calendar and it's only the technical issues that pushed them out beyond today. that's all. >> commissioner diamond. >> i'd also like to say that while i think we should continue these two items to next week out of courtesy to the project sponsors and dr requestersings, we need to make sure they are available next week. >> is it planned the hearings will go longer than two hours, we'll keep doing multiple, like it did today where it went four hours, and we i did another

four-hour like hearing, is that the plan? >> unfortunately that's the only plan now with exception to the fact that they are working with microsoft teams to allow an hour meeting >> okay. >> but until we get that, the assumption is we are working four-hours at a time, recessing and then reconvening >> okay. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i just want to thank staff for everything that you've done to support this public process in a really challenging time. the second thing i want to say to members of the public who were not able to comment during public comment or even on the items that we're continuing that you can feel free to e-mail us your comments, especially during this time. so that we can take all your views into account. and i think we have a motion,

i'm not sure we have a second, to continue the additional two items. so i'll second that motion. >> director hillis. >> do you have your mic on? >> sorry. i just want to reiterate things to jonas and jan and candice who did a ton this week and seemed to get us where we are today. so thank you. >> very good, very good. commissioners, there is a motion that has been -- go ahead. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items 19 and 20 for one week to april 16. on that motion. [roll call vote] >> do we have a virtual hearing?

[roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. i will just make a simple reminder to everyone who is still participating in the hearings that we are adjourning in honor of jerrold adams, but i did have an additional comment and for some reason, of course my note is escaping me. but it was brought to our attention that john, member of the planning department staff recently passed away. i would like to adjourn in his honor as well. i think it would appropriate for the commission to adjourn to all the people around the world who have suffered as a result of this coronavirus that has impacted us and the world

tremendously. so i hate to end on a sad note but those are the conditions we are leaving undertake. >> indeed we are. in honor of adams, 93 years, april 3, 2020 and jonathan and any other members of the public out there affected by this tragic illness, please have a moment of silence while we adjourn. okay. we are adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. >> bye. .

>> the meeting has started. >> the meeting will come to order. this is the april 8th meeting of budget and finance committee. i am calling it to order at 10:00 a.m. it is a rescheduled meeting at 10:05 a.m. and the meeting scheduled for 10:10 a.m.