>> ok. welcome to san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, may 28, 2020. as i've done so in the past before we begin, i would like to enterm the following into the record. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. therefore, due to the health emergency, the commission chamber and city hall is closed. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued orders suspending laws applicable to boards and commissions making it possible to hold hearings remotely. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through the end of the shelter in place.

the authorization directs the commission to prioritize consideration of action items pertaining to infrastructure, housing and small businesses. this will be our ninth remote hearing. i'm requesting everyone's patience in advance. the merged platforms are not perfect and at times may even seem to be clumsy. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming the toll-free number across the bottom of the screen, comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling 888-273-3658, entering access

code 3107452, pressing pound and pound again. when you are connected, hit 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your aloeed time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and direct my staff to take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. at this time, i would like to take roll. and even before i do that, i would like to welcome commissioner chan. [roll call]

thank you. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one. case number 2017-002545drp-03 at 2417 green street, discretionary review proposed for continue witness until june 2020. item 2, 2018-012576c.u.a. at 1769 lombard street, conditional use authorization continued until june 2020. and item number 3, 2019-021795cua at 650 frederick street, conditional use authorization, continuance to july 23. and item 4 is discretionary reviews ed for continuance to july 23, 2020, and item 5,

2018-01244drp is proposed for continuance until july 23, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance and we should take public comment on this. so, let's open the q&a. >> operator: your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> i will remind members of the public that this is your opportunity to call in the 800-number. hit 1 and then 0 to enter the queue to submit your public testimony. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi, my name is chris and i'm calling in on item number one on the continuance calendar, 2417 green street as project sponsor. i'm requesting that this be taken off the continuance calendar and that the d.r. hearing be completed today. i've been waiting approximately three years for this hearing to

go forward and it's also been continued, i believe, at least 12 times so far over the last three years. so, i understand the commission asked us to hold a mediation after our last hearing, which was in january. and the d.r. requesters refused to participate in the mediation and then two days before the commission hearing decided that they changed their mind and then wanted to now participate in the mediation and they're asking for an additional delay, a 12 or 13th delay. so, i'm respectfully asking the commission to hold this hearing today. we're prepared to finalize this and have the project move on. additionally, sb330 applies to this project and requires that a decision be made. as i mentioned, there's been 11

or 12 other continuances, which is way more than five, which is what i believe sb-330 allows. so, thank you for the opportunity to comment and i look forward to having a hearing go forward as calendared. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hello. [talking in background] hello. >> yes. is the caller prepared to submit your testimony? >> caller: i'm sorry. i have to leave. i'll do it another time. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining.

>> caller: hi. i'm the daughter of the owner of 12218 [inaudible] avenue and this is regarding 012539d.r.p. and since my parents are seniors, my father is 89 years old and my mom is 80 years old. they don't feel comfortable to attend the remote meeting so we request to reschedule the meeting to this september when in-person meeting is more likely to be had. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. the matter is now before you.

would anyone like to make a motion? commissioner imperial. commissioner imperial, your mic is muted. >> thank you. i'd just like to comment on the item 1. for him not ready to hear it today on this 2417 green street, since i was not around when this hearing -- the previous hearings before. so i don't have a chance to see it right now. so i'm not prepared to, you know, so i would like other people's opinion as well. >> commissioner fung? >> move to continue as scheduled. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is -- well, i do see

commissioner johnson requesting to speak. go ahead, commissioner johnson. your mic is muted, commissioner johnson. >> thanks. we hear from a commenter related to funston and wanting to make sure that that hearing doesn't happen until september at the earliest. so just want to respect that request. >> is the motion amenable to modifying it? if need be, come july we can continue it again also. commissioner moore? >> wouldn't it make sense that the applicants first speak with staff in order to bring this

forward as a full request? >> that's fine. i'm just concerned that if we continue it again, we get into issues of members. >> commissioner fung? >> i'm not sure whether that would be project sponsor or whether it was the appellant. it is a d.r. case. i just soon leave it at july and if they can't make it, then we'll continue as required. >> commissioner johnson? >> ok. that sounds good. >> very good, then, commissioners. there is a motion that has been sexed to continue items as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call]

that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that will place on us on your consent cal, all matters listed here under >> connie: taoutsed consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public or staff so requests. in which event the matter shall be removed from the con send calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 6, case number 2019-02 0527cua, 2675 geary boulevard conditional use authorization request, and item 7, 2019-004110cua at 2675 gear r*z boulevard for doing business as

whole foods would receive multiple requests to remove this from the consent calendar. all parties have been notified that it will be removed from the consent calendar and heard at the end of the regular calendar. item 8, case number 2019-020831cua at 1117 irving street, conditional use authorization and item 9, 2020-0002000cua at 1240 9th avenue, conditional use authorization. again, commissioners, items 6, 8 and 9 will remain under your consent calendar unless we receive additional requests to pull those items and item 7, the whole foods matter, will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at the end of the regular calendar. we should take public comment to see if there are any additional requests to remove. let's go to q&a. >> operator: your question is now in question and answer mode.

to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> again, members of the public, in order to submit your testimony, please dial the 800 number and hit 1 and 0 to get into queue. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> caller: ok. thank you. i just want to notate any agenda items that are not essential services, important or needed for emergency under the pandemic and state of emergency orders set by the mayor and city that would exceed your scope of business allowed by the mayor at this time. i urge you to continue these items until such time the city releases the state of emergency as fully re-opened for business.

your commission order states, quote, the commission is consideration of these projects must be an essential operation, given the ongoing housing and economic crisises, consideration of these projects is necessary to ensure public health and safety. i don't see that any of these items that's standard. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioners, i would like to address that briefly so i'm just pulling up our authorization because i don't want anyone to doubt that we are consider anything that we shouldn't or could not talk about.

it simply states that we are authorized to hold meetings -- that the commission may consider other items but must prioritize the essential services listed in the order. so, i just want to make clear that it does prevent us from considering other items. seeing no other public comment, commissioners, the matter is now before you. commissioner moore? >> move to approve items 6, 8 and 9. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. [roll call]

so move, commissioners. passes 7-0. and will place us under commission matters. item 10, consideration of adoption draft minutes for may 14, 2020. we should take public comment so we should open up the q&a. >> operator: your question is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> again, members of public, you should call in to the 800-number and enter the access code and press 1 and then 0 to enter the queue.

>> no callers. >> very good, commissioners. the matter is now before you. commissioner johnson. you're muted. >> move to adopt the draft minutes. >> thank you. >> second. >> on that motion, then, commissioners to adopt the minutes for may 14 -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that item passes 7-0. item 11, commission comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> i'd like to welcome commissioner chan to the commission. it's a very unusual way of

starting, but perhaps it will forge strong bonds between all of us. welcome to the group. >> commissioner chan? >> i just want to say thank you. hello, everyone. it's great to be with you virtually today. just want to extend a brief thank you and appreciation to dr. hillis and the planning staff for taking time to provide these things for all the projects before our calendar today and the secretary for his help in getting me set up for this role. other than that, just looking forward to working with my fellow commissioners and to the day when we can all meet in person. ?o. audio] [no audio]

>> you may be on mute. >> i don't have any further comments. >> we're not [inaudible]. >> can't hear john. >> apologies. i muted my mic. [laughter] so, we moved on to department matters. item 12, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i think i'm going to have year-round mute t-shirts made, our catch phrase at the time. one, i just wanted to also congratulate commissioner [inaudible]ed for her role in this. it was good to talk to you, albeit rather briefly last week.

we're very much looking forward to your experience and perspective as we tackle some of the major planning issues we have in san francisco, especially around housing and affordable housing. so, looking forward to working with you. i wanted to give a quick update on the budget. we received instructions from the mayor's office to reduce our general fund allocation by 10% this coming year and 15% to the following year so we'll come to you on june 11, it's a rather quick turn-around to [inaudible] approve the proposal for us to get there. we're also at the same time analyzing where our fee revenue is headed and obviously there is going to be some reduction in fee revenue as we move forward. i also wanded to thank our staff who have been participating [inaudible] task force and you might have seen that the mayor announced a shared spaces program that's geared to help local businesses

and our small businesses along [inaudible] and continuing -- or start operate using some of the public space in those areas so we're looing forward to working on that initiative throughout. and that is my report. thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner moore? >> direct hillis, i have a question. the budget reductions you were mentioning, they are above and beyond what we had already approved? >> correct. this is in addition to -- we didn't necessarily approve reductions as a result of the health crisis and the reduction in general fund revenue. so, we briefly talked about it. but we are coming to you in order to meet the mayor's target of 10% reduction for -- this is for the 2020-2021 budget that's already approved so this is an adjustment to the already approved budget for

next year. [coughing] >> thank you. >> if there are no further questions, commissioners, we can move on to item 13 which will be extremely brief. we have no reports from board of supervisor, board of as or the historic preservation commission so we can move to general public comment. at this time, members of public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, exempt 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. i will remind members of the naubl this will be a good time to call into the 800-number if you wish to submit any public comment, general public comments for items not on the agenda.

let's go to q&a. >> operator: your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> again, after you call in the 800-number and enter the access code, please hit 1 and then 0 to be queued up to speak. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: oh, hello. good morning, good afternoon. this is georgia soudis. i wanted to welcome commissioner chan and good luck for her tenure on the commission. the planning commission can legalize u.d.u.s and a.d.u.ses and add a.d.u.s, which are tools that can increase housing. the planning code no longer has minimum parking requirements in residential structures. so, garages can be converted to a. a d.u.s or second units per

the underlying zoning which is another tool. the ordinance for demonstrably unaffordable housing has beens paed by the board. demolitions in rh-1 neighborhoods will come before the commission so adding a.d.u.s or eliminate nating garages will be available to increase housing in use neighborhoods. prior to the ordinance, as prices spiraled up, the numerical criteria value for demonstrably unaffordable housing was increased five times between august 2013 to july 2019 by the zoning administrator on behalf of the planning commission. section 317 allows the planning commission on their own to adjust the demolition calculations for policy efficacy. while the numerical criteria value was adjusted for the rh-1 and rh-1d, no parallel adjustment has been made to the demo calcs in order to protect

the existing housing, presumed by the code to be affordable in the rh-2 and rh-3 from de facto or tantamount to demolition. furthermore, this adjustment is now necessary for the rh-1 and rh-1d neighborhoods so the same charade with the demo calcs won't happen to existing housing in these neighborhoods. regardless of any other potential changes to section 317, the commission has the tool of immediately adjusting the demo calcs, just as the commission has the tools to legalize u.d.u.s to add a.d.u.s and to adapt or eliminate garages. adjusting the demo calcs can protect and preserve existing housing and put a check on speculation in the r.h. zone neighborhoodings and a huge uptick in the cost of housing. thank you very much. i hope you all take good care. stay well and safe and happy and send you a little note

about all this. thank you so much. bye-bye. be well. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: yes. good afternoon, commissioners. this is catherine howard. while the rest of the state is worry about whether or not they'll get sick or even have a job our representatives in sacramento are working on legislation that is going to devastate our neighborhoods. once again, turned guise of promoting affordable housing. sacramento is currently preparing an omnibus housing bill. this bill will most likely include elements of up to 22 state assembly bills and at least six state senate bills. this comprehensive housing bill should be available for review this week. there will be a limited amount of time to review it before the session ends on july 31. san franciscans need to know what the impact will be on our city before this legislation is passed on the results are is set in stone. this is really beyond my

ability and that of many of my fellow residents to figure out this rats nest of legislation without the aid of folks who are experts in analyzing legislation. two years ago, the planning department conducted a comprehensive and excellent analysis of sba-27. i was very helpful for us to understand the implications of the bill. please, please, we need your help to know what's planned for our city and for our neighborhoods. i am asking the commissioners to direct the planning department to do an extensive analysis of the state level megabill's impact on our city and its residents immediately. thank you very much. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> caller: linda chapman and i would like to ask for copies of

all the rezonings that have occurred since the knob hill area, since knob hill neighbors initiated several rezonings. this is because to our surprise last week, i think i got a map a couple of weeks ago, a map showing that, you know t areas that we rezoned for 65 feet have been rezone 208ed 0 feet and 120 feet -- 130 feet, excuse me and more. including even the property that i own. i guess, was i surprised that i heard that an 87-foot building was to be constructed in california and when i first heard of that at a meeting, actually i found it out because i asked the property developer where they were measuring 65 feet from. you know, at a meeting. i called planning and i was

assured that the zoning was 65 feet there and all the entire area as it should be. ok? so after. the project was approved, i received the zoning map showing that it was oh, gee, 80 feet and i can tell my fellow property owners, my co-owners that, gee whiz, aren't we lucky? we can sell our property to a developer to knock down our flats and build to 90 feet. and then i checked with some of my fellow community leaders from the past in case something happened here and nobody -- well, i was living over in the sthaoeter district. no. no. the ones who were living here never heard of any of this either. how does this happen? across the street from me i discovered and so did a neighborhood leader who operated knob hill neighbors after our membership directed decided to dissolve knob hill neighbors

because it was no longer needed, she didn't know any better than i that a seven-store -- seven-story building was being built across from me. i was surprised that i didn't receive notify indication or conditional use or whatever. she and i each independently found out, what's going on behind the -- [bell ringing] that is maintained at the front and all this demolition was happening behind. right? ok. so i have been trying to get zoning maps. i can't tell you how many times, while i still had computer access out at the university and i could never get it. and i said ok, i'll just have to come in and then, you know, the shutdown occurred and i continued to ask and i -- [bell ringing] and then when i finally got it,

i find this out. i don't find out about conditional use hearings and now this week i hear that conditional use is not required in my district. well that was surprising to me. how do all of these -- >> caller: pardon? >> your time is up. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: commissioners, thank you for hearing me. my name is tim pahlsson, the second traerker -- treasurer of the san francisco building trades council. for the record right now, the san francisco building and construction trade council is officially opposed to the south van ness project. i know that this august body had moved to e.i.r. at the previous meeting and i just want to let you know that the developers made it very clear to the building trades council

and the workers here in san francisco that they're not committed for the construction training programs. the health care retirement plans and that is unacceptable to us so, again t city should be outraged. now if there is any other pieces or changes to this plan that comes before you, woe hope you will take this into consideration. this land was purchased years ago with the retirement funding from union pension programs, the developer has now decided they would not commit to san francisco standards for construction on that particular site. so, i just want to be on record as saying that and thank you for your time. >> you have six questions remaining.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. san francisco land use coalition. last week a tenant activist sent me an excellent article that, you know, like many other urbanist articles that you see in "new york times" or what have you had some very poignant and uncomfortable observations as in the following. the sidewalks have been converted into bustling restaurants with families on bikes, roaming the open streets inhaling the cleanest air they've breathed in decades through properly fitted masks, of course. is this what your city will look like in post-pandemic america? for many, covid-19 is a life or death crisis, or your zip code determines if you physically financially survive. for others, it's a dawn of an urban utopia. even before the staggering impact of the novel coronavirus

had been fully revealed, the people who write and think about cities were busy writing prescriptions for their recovery. instead of bearing witness to mass death as a moment of reflection, many advocates are using the coronavirus as an opportunity to accelerate the prepandemic agendas. agenda which ignore the issues that made covid-19 more catastrophic than it should have been. but the coronavirus among many pro-city voices was not about that disparity, but whether or not tall buildings should be blamed for coronavirus outbreaks. the stories continue to be published to this day. as the density discourse eventually devolves into debate about whether new york city was safer than san francisco, one critical component seems to have been missed. do you want to know the real reason why san francisco, a small but dense city, fared

better in new york city in the fight against covid-19? because san francisco, where there is one billionaire -- one billionaire for approximately every 11600 residents, had purged most of the people who were most at risk from dying from covid-19 to its surrounding counties long before the pandemic arrived. today, you have several large scale projects before you, commissioners. [bell ringing] [inaudible] you keep in mind our affordability crisis and whether or not these projects are equitable for all san francisco residents as opposed to those who make 120% to 150% of the a.m.i. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is jason hendersonment i'm chair of the hvna transportation and planning committee and also the co-chair of the market in octavia community advisory committee. thank you for hearing my comments this afternoon. last week, i was waiting -- i was number 17 on the hub call-in and, unfortunately, i had to go over to final exams and deal with that. so i wasn't able to comment. but i want to make some general comments about some of the things that i heard from the meeting last night. for one, with this discussion about parking, what i heard from the commission and director hillwas that we need to have parking in the hub to accommodate families. but i think that this is a bit misguided because you don't have to have a car to raise a family. i was raised in a car-free family in new orleans, louisiana.

the reality is we're talking about families that can afford to live in luxury buildings and pay for luxury parking. if we rezone the hub for zero parking, you recalibrate the entire formula there. i think that this should be part of your consideration and i would urge the planning commission to direct staff or to gate third-party study of the impact of parking on the cost of housing. this is a really poorly understood part of gentrification displacement, that is that off street parking incurs considerable cost to new housing. also i'd like for you to follow-up on the comments made about the central freeway removal because this provides a great opportunity to open up land in the southern part of the hub, some of which, or much

of which could be dedicated to public housing with the right political will. publicly owned land and some sort of social housing. the board of supervisors in 2004 requested further study of the freeway removal and further study of freeway removal is part of the market in octavia plan. unfortunately, for reasons that aren't quite clear, the city has not undertaken those analyses. so, that's really important. lastly, i would ask that -- [bell ringing] the hub plan be amended to include a western variant of the better market street plan that extends the car-free portion of market street to goff street and not 12th street. this is critically important because right now, the way it is set up is you'll have a lot

of eastbound vehicles turning on to that very narrow 12th street, which is supposed to be mostly a public plaza. and part of the public realm but in reality -- [bell ringing] the way thing look now that this would be an extented driveway for several large developments plus a congested turnoff for t.n.c.s and e-commerce vehicles and whatnot. so >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastasia. i heard the director talking about budget cuts and i would like to make sure that what he said at the historic preservation meeting, he was asked about funds to complete surveys of historic resources and he said that would be included, that this funding is needed. and it should be part of the budget like he said he would include it.

because there is more legislation coming down the pike that would kind of make properties -- historic propertis that are not surveyed as of yet as a -- vulnerable to being demolished. next, as far as the traffic and things we discussed last week at the hub project, i think it was 10 south van ness, i saw very little affordable housing there. you had to make $70,000 a year to qualify for one of 22 of the lowest income housing in that particular project. so very little affordable housing and the trade-off is

tall buildings and also traffic jam jason henderson was telling you about. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi, my name is robert. i wanted to bring your attention that senate bill 902 is progress through the state legislature. one thing that this bill does is it makes it easier to off zone small lots for up to 10 apartments on a parcel without going through the california environmental quality act and environmental impact report process. and as we saw with the hub, which produced a 1500-page report after several years, this is very expensive. so, california and san francisco-based a gigantic

budget shortfall in the coming years, i think that this commission should encourage our board of supervisors in the planning department to look into how we can use senate bill 902 to comply with our up coming housing regional need allocation changes which are projected to be much higher since now that the city cannot [inaudible] underbuilding as a reason to not build housing, san francisco will need to build more housing and senate bill 902 would provide a much more cost effective way to achieve that. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hello. my name is richard rossman and i keep reading and hearing about companies are going to not require their employees to come to the office.

i think the planning commission should maybe put some of these big projects on hold to get a better study of what the future of downtown san francisco's going to be and are all these new buildings going to be just empty concrete blocks. so, maybe there should be a pause on the building construction or approval this will we see what the new landscape is going to look like. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: g*frn, commissioners. welcome to our newest commission member. i'm a renter in district 5 and i'm on a couple of neighborhood associations and member of community action. we hear a lot -- and you actually heard earlier in this general comment concerns about neighborhood character.

and i'm sure it is going to go up in the next few hours as we debate a few more projects that could add housing. i'm sure it will come up in every other planning commission hearing from now until the end of time. and i just wanted to say that i care deeply about neighborhood character and the thing that makes neighborhood character isn't a bunch of walls and isn't the height of a building. it is not the way the windows look. it's the people who live there. so when we look at whether to build housing and where to build housing and how much housing to build, let's not overindex on if the neighborhood is going to look slightly different. if somebody who owns a single family and has millions of dollars inwell going to be a little bit bothered by a shadow that might pass over their garden. let's think about the hundreds or thousands of people who can now afford to live in san francisco if we build these projects and the things that i can add to their community. i live in a building that was

built in the 1920s. it is now illegal to bill because of the [inaudible] that happened in the 1960s and 1970s and i'm sure at the time that people thought that was building neighborhood character. but as someone who lives in an apartment building, i find it offensive that residents like myself are not viewed as part of the neighborhood. we are the neighborhood character. adding more housing means more character in our neighborhood and that is better for neighborhood character than whether it is a one-story building than a five-story building. if you look into future projects, think not about the envelope of the building or specifics like that, but think about the people who live there and think about the people who can raise families there and think about the things that they can bring to our community and the shops that i can run. the arts that they can create, etc., think about the people, not just about what the building looks like. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining.

>> caller: hello, good afternoon, commissioners and welcome commissioner chan. it is great to have you. my name is sarah ogilvie. i'm a d-9 resident and member of the m.b. action. we envision an integrated society where everyone has access to safe, affordable housing, their job, services and opportunity. i've been blessed to attend these remote public hearings for several weeks now and to avail myself of all the exciting proposals for new housing. especially larger projects that are coming down the pipeline. i've been joining my fellow members in supporting efforts to build more homes of all kinds in all neighborhoods and have been following legislative efforts to compensate for more than 40 years of housing disinvest independent this great state that is home to this great city. california and san francisco housing policies for the last several decades have led to virtually unquantifiable damage

to millions of individual and their familis who are confronted with the crushing housing crisis that leads to instability, homelessness, poverty and actually it affects our g.d.p. that's been well-documented since 2015. i urge the committee to continue to view projects in light of the current situation and heavily scrutinize those who are opposed to updating land use regulations including density, zoning policies, including height limits when reviewing matters before you. we don't need anymore housing or any changes whatsoever because i already have a home. it is not ale va i argument against housing production and doesn't reflect the community at large. any opponents will be speaking and unfortunately they failed to consider the overall housing shortage when opposing projects.

they failed to acknowledge that restrictive zoning policies force projects into historically red lined areas. and fail to rectify the fact that market rate housing, quite frankly, funds subsidies for 100% affordable projects when speaking against construction. rarely at thee hearings do housing insecure or homeless individuals or other vulnerable parts of the population get to speak. sometimes people speak on their behalf. it may or may not be true. and many homeless people right now are hurting because there is not enough shelters in the districts where they have been resighing. the city is facing an economic downturn that could be alleviated by removing zoning and regulation restriction -- [bell ringing] -saving as many construction jobs as well and have units to generate revenue streams. after many years being bullied by those who say no, time has finally run out. please push back, be bold and say yes to building housing in the city and saving it from ruin. thank you.

>> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hello. my name is jerry landler with the san francisco land use coalition. [inaudible] have different levels -- >> mr. landler -- >> caller: hello. my name is jerry with the san francisco 90 coalition. >> mr. -- >> caller: [inaudible] agenda at different levels of compliance with the city's long-term goals of creating affordable housing. it would be most useful for the planning department to score each project against this objective and should each project be scored from a to b. [television on in background] this would be most helpful in calling out the projects that

would require additional scrutiny. thank you very much. play >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> and that is a class kick example of why we should be muting our television and/or computer that has a broadcast delay and creates an echo behind you on your microphone. commissioners, that concludes general public comment. for item number 14, case -- >> hold on, commissioner moore want to chime in? >> i apologize, i did not see that. commissioner moore? >> i said may i suggest that mr. dradler submits his comment in writing to the secretary so we can all hear what he said. we were unable to hear him.

>> i'll follow-up with him, commissioner moore. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar for item 14, case number 2020-003041pca for the conditional use review and approval process planning code amendment, is staff prepared to present? >> yes, staff is ready to present. >> very good. >> good afternoon, commissioners. diego sanchez with department of staff. today we will be planning to amend the planning code to extend the authorization and approval process and reduce the application fee for certain uses of commercial space. however, before i begin, i'd like to provide supervisor peskin's office with time to present to you. >> mr. hepner, i believe your mic is muted. >> all right.

good afternoon, commissioners. commission president koppel, welcome commissioner chan. just by way of background and context, this legislation that you're considering today comes in the context of a lot of work that supervisor peskin and our office have been doing over the past few years to encourage the health and vitality of san francisco's neighborhood commercial corridors and the overall retail environment. we have variously brought you legislation to liberalize our neighborhood zoning controls, to restrict the proliferation of uses that impede more complex and diverse mixes of community serving businesses. we've worked with community organizations to bring a hardware store back to north beach, to build nearly two dozen vacancies within the commercial district last year alone, following reports of increased vacancies. earlier this year, in march, just before the covid-19 emergency became the new

reality, 70% of san francisco voters adopted the prop-d store front vacancy tax. >> au. >> in the same spirit of reducing -- yes? >> [inaudible] commission president koppel, welcome commissioner chan. i have a very long delay on my end. apologies, commissioners. i will continue. the legislation before you comes in the same spirit of reducing or eliminating various inefficient -- inefficiencies in the process, whether that is approving permits to private process of improving and leasing spaces for retail use. the legislation today effectively codifies something that you are all very familiar with, which has been called by the department and the commission cb3p for several years now. in so, codifying it hopes to

provide an expedited c.u. process for various ground floors, storefront uses enumerated in the planning code. it requires -- our legislation goes a little bit further to acquire a hearing on the consent calendar with 90 days subject to a one-time 60-day continuance and beyond that, and i think what we're really driving at here is expanding the eligibility and implementation of cb3 to encompass all ground floor store front use. for instance, last week, youer that application for italian home-made, a new restaurant that exists in other parts of the city but it is now opening up in north beach and that would have been eligible for cb3p, but instead for the reason they did not fill out a separate application and they were stuck in the planning queue for a better part of the year and that was an example well reported on by the chronicle when we announced this legislation. our legislation also proposes

that we remove the separate application for cb3p eligibility. i don't want that, we go another step to provide some [inaudible] relief in as much as it is an abelieve yaitd c.u. process, we think that is the basis for the lower fee. we cut it by 50% and provide a fee by the applicant if the timeline is not heard in the anymoreline set forward by the proposal. it is our fundamental belief that cu.s play a valuable role for encouraging community input. the appealability of c.u.s to the board of supervisors, while extremely infrequently invoked does provide leverage to community and neighborhood groups who are eager to have a say in uses that have historically been controversial in our neighborhood commercial districts or negative

externalities in our neighborhood commercial districts many of which are mixed use residential school districts. so, our goal is to make that c.u. process a lot less cumbersome. to preserve the other parts of procedure that are important for community input and review, while reducing the burden that can sometimes amount to months, if not years of paying lease on a space while you're waiting for your day in court, so to speak. that is my presentation. i am happy to address the recommendations of planning staff andly stick around for questions, of course, from commissioners. thank you. >> ok, commissioners. the department definitely supports the intentions of the ordinance. providing a pathway for small businesses to expeditiously navigate the permitting process invaluable especially in the current retail climate. staff is recommending that

instead of codifying cb3p that can effectively compete against e-commerce be principally committed and over the counter approval for a period of threat years. in recognition of existing q.n.e. efforts, staff is also recommending that we maintain existing quantitative limits on particular uses and specific zoning districts such as those for haigt street. this concludes the staff presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> if there are no immediate questions for staff, or mr. hepner, commissioners, we should take public testimony. let's go to q&a. >> operator: your question is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> again, members of public, this is your opportunity to call the 800-number and enter 1 and then 0 to be added to the

queue. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi, commissioners. my name is theo gordon. i spoke a few minutes ago. i'm a renter in the district 5 area of the city. i'm also on the board of a couple of different neighborhood associations so i'm one of the -- i'm involved with one of neighborhood groups that likes to weigh in on how we like the see merchants open and [inaudible] in the corridor, etc. and when we look at what we're seeing now, with stores closing, you know, just an awful, awful situation of bored up stores and not knowing if they're coming back, it is clear that we have to make it much, much, much easier to open a restaurant, open a business. and so i highly support shortening the amount of time that businesses take to open and i don't see a reason why

neighborhood associations like mine or any other should be able to delay a business opening by three months. people could be earning money, you know, adding to the neighborhood character, making it a better place to live. and employing people in much needed jobs, you know, these are all things we need to be doing and making i easier and you should haven't a bunch of neighborhood associations standing in the way. make principle use of storefronts [inaudible] right. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> is the caller prepared to submit your public comment? >> caller: hi. i live in lower hait.

i live close to haight and fillmore where there are a number of businesses which have closed, including bars and much beloved cafe. i agree with the last speaker in that we should not be letting public input create hardships for small business owners who want to benefit the community. i've looked at the recommendation the department has put forward and they chose a small sensible list of uses to permit principally on the first floor and i don't think it makes sense to let neighborhood groups concerns cause small business owners to spend $5,000, there -- $10,000 rent on utility and fees while they're waiting for their public input to be heard. i think this could also allow

neighborhood groups to shake down businesses saying if you don't make changes that we want, we'll cost you lots and lots of money. and i don't think that that kind of opportunity is really the kind of cooperation with the community that san francisco really deserves. we should support small business owners and not weigh them down with rules. i think that neighborhood businesses definitely deserve better. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm calling today on behalf of the mission to raise potential equity issues that we have seen in this legislation. we still need to catch up on a lot of it. and we move that there are potential equity issues in this legislation that could be highly detrimental to communities of color and

working-class communities and conditional use authorizations are not just important but invaluable safeguard for these communities. they create accountability not only for the type of piem receiving the opportunity but also the businesss that are being proposed and it's in the local community and the tlaoex that business is proposed. we believe there is more work to be done. it provides very broad generalizations in terms of making this analysis and even the study cited for that part is incredibly suspect. it provides ratios in terms of immigrant business ownership. but we believe that the [inaudible] sampling sizes for each population are so drastically different, i believe the nonimmigrant was in excess of $200,000 and immigrants surveyed were only 85,000. we believe it is incredibly important not to paint too broad a brush when we should be conducting a localized study to

truly understand not tonight state of immigrant business and ownership but also the states of communitis can where these businesses will be built. and making sure that the kind of businesss that are proposed are things that tep low-income and working class communities are serving those communities at low to medium-price points and won't be a restaurant that will become a gentrifying amenity to these communities. so, we believe they've take and closer look at the social equity study and making sure that we do a much more localized study with more detail would be incredibly important. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hi. this is kenneth russell. i think in this climate, we really have to consider all that we can do with our small businesses and what sort of support we can give them. i really think that we're looking at a situation where

potentially we'll have neighborhoods with very limited businesses remaining after this. so anything we can do to support those businesses we should do. i don't understand how we can ask small business owners paying space for months without using the space at all. this proposal improves that some, but we have to look at how we can go further and how we can speed thup and see if we can do things in a parallel fashion because i understand that the groups want to have public input. it's just lopsided to ask the found pay the cost of that while not having any income at that time. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi, this is laura foote. not from m.b. action. i'm taking off my m.b. action

hat and saying that i think that this kind of thinking and how we can make it easier to run a small business in san francisco is critical at this time and we need to be thinking along these lines and even much, much bigger. we're going to see our small businesses drop off of a cliff. and i don't think we're being creative enough that this is in the right direction. the thing that i think we need to think the most about is whether our assessment of how many of what kinds of businesses in what neighborhoods, all of that math that was dubious to begin with should probably be thrown out the window at this point. we have no idea what neighborhoods can support coffee shops and which neighborhoods can't and we were never good at it to begin with and we'll be awful at it now. we have no idea what the next phase of our economy is going to look like. and we need to allow people to open whatever kind of small business they can, wherever

they can. we should be terrified about what is to come. i think we are at the very beginning of. this crisis and making it easier to open a small business is the most important thing that this commission can be doing to ensure that this recession does not become a deep and lasting depression. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. the matter is now before you. >> so while i'm waiting for another commissioner to possibly chime in, i wanted to thank supervisor peskin and hepner for leading the charge on being proactive and starting to get our streets back to active when possible. thank you again mr. hepner. i'm in favor of the planning staff amendments. but definitely in support of what we're hearing today. commissioner fung.

>> commissioner koppel, you overlooked that i pushed my button first. >> i don't think so, catherine. >> you don't think so. >> anyway, i probably would be heavily supportive of any reduction of unnecessary and undesirable process. my comments, however, are not necessarily related to this specific legislation. but more as a request of the director. i think it would be important to me and to perhaps others to look at where we can eliminate

the conditional use process and see where we can really reduce that process and, you know, in response to the comment earlier about equity, i think, you know, there's also the equity concerns for the small businesses. the majority of small businesses in san francisco are minority and women-owned. they don't come to city hall often. this is probably the only time that they're ever going to be involved in trying to open their business and i think the conditional use process, where staff is spending an average of 68 hours and then it goes to a consent calendar, is ridiculous. i would ask the director to come back to the commission

with areas that he may recommend that we eliminate the conditional use process. >> go ahead. >> no, i can speak after. >> one, i just want to thank the supervisor and mr. heper in for your work on this very timely legislation. like many of the other commenters are deeply -- have been deeply concern about the future of small businesses, especially in wake of covid-19. and it has been a topic of conversation of this commission for years, actually. i'm looking at these processes. so, thank you for bringing this forward. i would love to hear you, mr.

hepner, opine about staff's recommendations a little bit more. i'm actually leaning toward agreing with staff's recommendations. just looking at the data of projects that do come in, and how quickly they are processed and thinking about the fact that making over -- essentially over the counter or at least ministerial approval of certain types of businesss that we know we tend to approve anyway would be kind of a get at your goal of making sure that these projects are approved sooner rather than later. i also just really quickly want to make a comment that, you know, i really appreciate that staff added that we're not recommending that existing quantitative limits on eating and drinking limbs in the commission as being part of that because we believe there

was a long-standing process that we wanted to control certain types of uses for the exact goal of recognizing their gentrification impacts. so i just want to point that out as part of the conversation. >> commissioner moore? >> i was actually waiting for mr. hepner to respond to mrs. johnson's question. i have a question very much in support of what she was asking so i would like mer hepner to first respond. >> go ahead, lee. >> thank you. happy to respond to those staff recommendations. i want to be clear to the commission and to members of the public. this legislation is absolutely about reducing barriers to entry for small business. i think we all recognize and

agree with that imperative. this was crafted in the context of ours vacancy task, precisely to provide an easier and faster path to get through the process. but in response to staff's recommendation, i want to align myself with the comments about the equity issues. and i appreciate and agree with those comments. the equity issues are precisely why the c.u. process is important, to allow that opportunity for community input. to staff's recommendation, which i think is a fundamentally and critically different approach than what we are proposing. it would take away that opportunity for community input in the c.u. process. so, what we're saying with this legislation is that you can have it both ways. we can agree that communities should have a say over the future of their neighborhoods

while reducing barriers to entry for small businesses. those are not exclusive of each other. so, what we're proposing is that, for the c.u. process for the certain category of uses that doctor v demonstrated predictable, negative externalities including gentrification in many neighborhoods over decades, that we nevertheless reduce that permit process from what has amounted in many instances to a year or more to months or less guaranteed. i think proposing that, with all due respect to commissioners, that removing the c.u. is removing a very, very critical check ons the planning process and the determination of neighborhoods in our district and it's a small jump from removing the c.u. process to doing something even more radical, which is to principally permit formula retail uses which will decimate our small business community in neighborhood commercial districts across the city. i think that what we can do is

keep the c.u. process, shorten that c.u. process so that what it does, it actually resembles something a bit more like the term that a principally permitted project takes the. but still have the fundamental and critical check that allows for community input in the determination of the future of these neighborhoods. this is actually having it both ways and i actually respectfully disagree with planning staff's recommendation on item one. as to item two, just very briefly as to quantitative limbs, i think what that does is something that we've also asked for, which is a robust and accurate inventory of use ton ground floor level throughout our neighborhood commercial districts. if we had an a exact idea of how many limited restaurants there are, how many bars there are, how many lawn droe plats there are, that would be a really, really important tool to ensuring and facilitate ago more quantitative approach to the policies.

we don't have that. until we do, i don't think that we can facilitate that recommendation either. lastly, i think that it is contrary to our offices' philosophy, even if we were to agree that we can take a look at the use controls in district 3 commercial districts. even if we agree with that, it is absolutely not our place to say what should happen in the castro neighborhood commercial district, in the outer mission commercial district. you hold premise of neighborhood commercial districts since they were created in the early to mid 80s is that these are tools to allow communities to determine for themselves what is best. so, even we agree that we should do that analysis for north beach or polk or pacific or union square, far be it to say what we should do for other neighborhood commercial districts. thank you. >> thank you for explaining that because that is exactly

what we can't quite read in the summary that is in front of us. for me personally, it addresses a subtle level of nuance by which i'm in full support of the legislation as proposed. in district three, district three spearheaded the protection of neighborhood corridors with the specifics as explained for speech and other parts of the district. so, i believe that this particular legislation is not trying to make it sound like one-size-fits-all. but, indeed, protects a critical voice of local merchants and local business owners in those districts to basically facilitate how to fill those empty storefronts with a particular signature of what is missing in those particular corridors. thank you. >> director hillis? >> yes. thank you.

and just to [inaudible] that we want to support small businesses and reduce some of the process they face in trying to open. so the nuance here is our recommendation does what commissioner fung said. it takes it a step further in trying to look at those uses that we think we can eliminate it and some of our corridors fail in that. that's what the recommendation does. it says let's look at these other uses in where we can eliminate the c.u. requirement and make these principally permitted. and i get mr. hepner's issue. there are still avenues that

neighborhoods can tyke protest a certain business. there is a d.r. request. those are permitted also. it's a nuance here of where we go and how easy we make it for small businesses to open and enter some of these commercial corridors. >> commission kerr imperial? >> thank you. i have a question to director hillis. it says on the staff recommendation that with all the recommended uses that a there will be a three-year period sunset and why is that? i guess -- yeah. i think you're muted. >> thank you. that's up for your consideration. i think we wanted to kind of

test this. and wondered if the supervisors were amenable to that change and see how it worked. i think there is also the abilities to tailor that recommendation to neighborhoods like the mission where we're working and concerned about gentrification in equity issues. so, you know, i think we would be supportive of kind of, you know, reducing these c.u.s in many places in making these uses principally permitted or perhaps layering them in in neighborhoods where we are working more intensely, where we've got issues of stability, instability and gentrification and that is where we think they're appropriate. >> i'm generally supportive of supervisor peskin's legislation and i do believe that

supporting small businesses and at the same time, having that c.u. -- having that c.u. for the public as well. and something that brings to me [inaudible] is really supporting small businesses, minority-owned small businesses and this is really not something for all the planning commission, but something that oewd would have to enhance and how to really support this minority-owned small businesses in different areas. and in the staff report or staff recommendation, looks like there are three neighborhoods that -- the balboa park station area plan t bayview hunter's point area plan, the grant park community plan, western soma area plan. i'm wondering what the basis for that.

why only those specific area plans or am i reading this legislation wrong? >> diego sanchez with staff. that is the mention of those area plans to make findings with the general plan and staff found in those area plans there is a concordance of what those intentions are with the ordinance as well as with staff recommended modifications so it is not exclues k*if, but just to show that this ordinance and staff recommended modifications aligned with the general plan in those area plans. >> ok. so, there is -- it's not based on the -- i guess on the racial or equity on what kind of, you know, -- when i comes to small businesses who are owning them, it is not .

-- i mean, we don't have that kind of analysis yet and that is something that for us, you know, and i amgenly -- i know that the small businesses are really struggling right now and i like the knack there will be eliminating barriers, reducing the fees for small businesses but i think we can do more still when it comes to uplifting the racial inequity in terms of who are owning them and how to support them more. especially those who that are looking into [inaudible] as well. so, the general support is of the legislation. >> commissioner diamond? >> so, i am extremely supportive of both efforts to try to streamline the approvals and permitting process and

reduce the small and mid-sized businesses. this was critically important before the pandemic. you know, and all the more so now. i absolutely believe that the intent of supervisor peskin's legislation, especially as explained by mr. hepner, is absolutely on point. but i find many aspects of the staff's modification very appealing. the notion that small businesses have to be paying rent for several months while they're working their way through the conditional use process is really troubling to me. so i think i would be in favor of approving the legislation as modified by the planning department's suggestion in the hope that both the planning department and supervisor peskin's office through the continuation of the legislative approval process can work to find common ground to expedite this process.

>> commissioner moore? commissioner moore, your microphone may be muted. >> sorry about that. i support the legislation as it is written. and since we are making recommendations, i am comfortable with other commissioners supporting amendments, staff amendments. i personally believe the legislation as-is is fine. i would like one additional clarifying comments to mr. hepner, if i may. was this legislation drafted before the pandemic or during the pandemic? because i believe that we have to expect additional consequences in our small business corridors that we're unaware of. as we're defining a timeline of three years, i want to make sure that post pandemic

experiences are being considered in your legislation. your mic is off. >> this was drafted and introduced before the covid-19 pandemic. everyone recognizes that we're living in a new world right now. it is the reason why our offices put forward the emergency legislation to waive additional fees, the reason why we've been working with the office of economic and work development, the m.t.a. and the emergency operations center to craft, create ways to use public space. i honestly -- i just want to reiterate that staff recommendation one is not a bad idea, but it is really outside the scope of what we're doing here and i think that it is better taken the up in the context of separate legislation

to change use controls, either directly as an emergency response to covid-19 or permanently to the extent that we see fit -- rather to the extent that each commercial district neighborhood sees fit. but to recommend that modification are a bit at odds with each other because the scope of them and tools that we're taught about are fundamentally different. thank you. >> appreciate that explanation. and i stand by my supporting the legislation as proposed. i make a motion that we approve without modifications. >> second. >> commissioner chan? >> i want to just say that i support the intent of the legislation, which is to support small businesses, reduce red tape and fees. i think as for the planning department's recommendations, i agree with recommendation number two. recommendation number one, i'm

trying to waive area factors here and i think for me it comes down to we don't want to veer to the extreme and eliminate the abilities for neighborhood oversight and community input. i'm thinking about the speaker who raised the equity issues, particularly in businesses and really the traditional use process being part of this chain of accountability in a way that can take a more localized approach and really come down to, you know, local definition of what can be serving businesses looks like. i think some of the concerns that my fellow commissioners have raised around the pandemic uncertainty for the future is definitely something we should take into account and i think because of that, we would need probably more fine grain ant a -- analysis. i think we've been operating under certain assumptions of how retail and commercial use has looked like. you know, in the past. and all of that is currently up in the air and i think one way to have those discussions is

through having a public forum and a process for that. >> i'd be a supporter of legislation with the two amendments that the statute has -- planning staff has added to the process. >> that a motion? >> there is already a motion out there, but i would be making that motion. should the motion pass. >> right. and i believe i did hear a second to commissioner moore's motion, but i didn't catch who that was. >> that was commissioner chan. i seconded that motion. >> thank you, commissioner chan. does commissioner imperial want to speak up? >> oh. i just want to say that i agree with -- with legislative aide

mr. hepner in his recommendation and also clarification that we should separate the staff recommendation and supervisor peskin's legislation because the staff recommendation is more real and leaning toward covid-19 and that should be probably [inaudible] in a different way as well. so, yes. i just want to say that i'm supportive of what hepner, mr. hepner has said. >> ok. seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed legislation without staff modifications. on that motion -- [roll call]

that motion fails 3-4. is there an al -- alternate motion? >> i believe i made that motion. >> very good, commissioners. theres a motion that has been sexed to approve the proposed legislation with staff modification. on that motion -- [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes 4-3. chan, imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on items 15a, b, and c for case numbers 2016-014802env, shd and dnx for the property at 98 franklin street.

you'll be consideration -- you will be considering adoption of finding and overriding statement. adoption of shadow findings in the downtown project authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> thank you. >> before we start -- sorry to interrupt. through the chair, i wanted to notify the project sponsor that you will have 10 minutes to present and for public comment, through the chair, we will be reducing it to one minute. go ahead, christy. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissionersment i'm christy alexander with department staff. the item before you today at 98 franklin street proposes to demolish the existing surface lot and construct a new 36-story 360-foot-tall mixed use building with frontage along oak street, franklin street and market street. the project sponsor is a partnership between related california and the front american international school and the new building will have the new high school for the

front american international school and the first five stories making up the 68-foot-tall podium. the podium would also include ground floor reso you havesers, a cafe and school's multipurpose assembly room on the ground floor. so the residential portion of the project in the tower above the podium provides 345 units, rental apartment units with a mix of studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms and three-bedroom units. 325 will be designated as affordable in order to satisfy the inclusionary housing retirements of the planning code. the project also includes common usable open spaces in various [inaudible] and three level below-grade parking garage containing 111 vehicular parking, 363 bicycle parking and two free loading spaces. along with other building services.

the public art component of the project is proposed to be attached to the market street facade and will be back to you in the informational hearing at a future date. the project sponsor is conducted community outreach to stakeholders including local community groups, namely the haigt valley associates, merened chas, the civic center community benefit district s.f. jazz, s.f. ballet, s.f. housing and action coalition and s.f. chamber of commerce. i received four letters of support from these organizations and 80 letters of support from members of the french-american community, which all of those have been forwarded to you. to date, i have not received any letters in opposition to this project. so, the three action items before you today are one, the commission will need to adopt ceqa findings along with the statement of overriding considerations related to this

project impacts under ceqa. these findings are specific to the project as the hub plans 30 van ness project and hub housing sustainability district. they're all analyzed in one environmental impact report. the final e.i.r. was certified by the planning commission last week at your meeting on may 21. along with the environmental review, the commission must also adopt findings pursuant to sections 295 that the impact from new shadows cast under parks under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department will not be adverse to the use of those parks. the project has the potential to affect parks under r.p.d.'s jurisdiction, namely the laguna mini park, patricia's green, the [inaudible] learning park and the [inaudible] future park site. at the rec and park commission hearing last week on may 21, the rec and park commission

voted unanimously that the shallow impact would not be adverse to the use of those parks. and lastly the project is requesting a downtown project authorization and the commission must approve this authorization and grant exceptions from the following seven code requirements. one for awnings, marquises, two for usable open space for dwelling units, three for dwelling unit exposure requirements, four for the reduction of ground level wind currents, five, [inaudible] mixed requirements, six limbs within the van ness special use district and seven, both controls to permit new construction of the new 36-story mixed building and roof height of about 265 feet tall. staff finds that this project is on balance, consistent with the downtown and market [inaudible] plans as well as the objectives and policies of

the general plan as stated in the staff report and staff recommends that you approve the three actions before you for the following reasons. because, one, the project provides a substantial amount of new rental housing on a site that is currently used as a parking lot. and in an area designated for high density residential uses [inaudible] proximity to downtown and accessibility to local and regional transit. here the project is going beyond and includes area requirements which requires the project to provide 18% of the units on site. the project sponsor is providing 20% or 69 units as affordable to households and 50% of the area median income and they're also inspiring to provide an additional 5% to household debt at 100% a.m.i. the project would also contribute towards [inaudible] housing stock in that 25% of the dwelling units have proposed as family sites units. and the project is designed to

contribute contemporary architecture as shaped by the cluster of new high-rise buildings proposed in the club area. the plan's architect dhur would be compatible to the existing neighborhood and contain a full-use that will significantly active vaits and provide improve. -- improvements to the streetscape with a cafe add jay sent to the school. and the project also includes comprehensive public realm improve. -- improve. s such as sidewalk widening and crosswalks where appropriate aa long its street frontages as well as significantly improving lily between franklin goff. i want to mention that staff may have minor corrective edits to the resolution that will correct some dates and cross reference and will recognize the legislation. these are not substantive

changes but we wanted the commission to be aware of these minor edits and if you move to approve these items, please acknowledge that in your motion. and this concludes my presentation. i'll be available to answer any questions you may have and the project sponsor would like to make a presentation and i will go ahead and share my screen with the slides. >> is the project sponsor prepared to make the presentation? >> we are, thank you. >> very good. your slides are up. you will have 10 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners and thank you for your time today. my name is melinda bin. if we could move to the next sly, please. -- slide, please. i wanted to begin with a little bit about our school and about what we hope to accomplish in our neighborhood. we serve grades pre-k through 12 and our school has over 800 families. we are a city school.

our communities come from every zip code in san francisco and we're proud to support a socioeconomic range of families with a robust financial aid program. over 33% of our students receive financial aid. if we could move to the next sly, please. we have deep roots in the city. we've been here in ha a it valley since 1997. this project will create a world-class high school. it's not just another market rate project. it's a special combination of education and mixed income rentals. 25% of which are below market and this is exactly the same kind of mixed use, mixed income development that we believe will serve our city well into the future. on behalf of all of our students, their families and our faculty, i thank you for your consideration.

now i'll hand it over to mark who will walk you through the project in more detail. >> you may need to press star 6 to unmute your microphone. project sponsor, we're not hearing you.

if you are on the telephone, you need to press star 6 to unmute. >> we're the architects for the project. can everyone hear me? >> now we can, yes. >> ok. thank you. apologize for that. we're very excited to be continuing our work wlt city and the hub. next slide, please. this image shows the location of the site with franklin street to the west and oak street to the north within the hub area plan and christy, you can click next. this is a neighborhood that we're very familiar with. having recently almost completed another mixed use project at 49 south van ness and 5050 mission. next slide, please.

like 98 project, it contains ix manied income residential in that case with an office building. next slide, please. most importantly, strives to meet the ground in a unique and distinctive way in which each of those uses have a strong relationship with the city with substantial public realm improvements and interface. next slide, please. >> the slides are not moving. [inaudible] >> for some reason it is not moving my slides. ok. now i can get it. if you can advance to the slide that says project site, which is white on the left and shows the slide on the right. >> there we go. ok. >> ok.

so, this view shows the project site from above which is primarily at the intersection of franklin and oak. but with a panhandle reaching down toward market street. next slide, please, christy. and very importantly, just to the west across franklin street sits the school's existing campus. thises a series of buildings on the alley as well as most prominently 150 oak. just diagonally across the street from the project site. next slide, please. so, i was an obvious choice to orient the school's entrance and primary phase to the west facing franklin street. and then as we work our way around the site, there is a small retail space around the corner which has the opportunity to connect into the school lobby and then on oak street, the residential lobby, which fits in well with the emerging character including just under construction to the east, the raim -- remainder is

given to retail. next slide, please. the podium scale is carefully set, slightly lower and the adjacent buildings to the south and north. but slightly higher to the buildings to the west. form of transition from the larger buildings at van ness and market to the hayes valley. next slide, please. and very importantly, the podium has a westward-facing orientation with a wind canopy extending from the west side over the sidewalk there. which really gives the podium visual prominence from that corner and connects it to the school's existing campus to the west. next slide, please. the podium is also very porous, bringing light and air into the school space. it's very important for both the circulation in the classrooms. next slide. and then atop the podium is a residential amenities space surrounded by residential

common open space, and then on the market street side, a school open space and we think both of these are very important ways that this can animate the public realm, bringing people out of the building where they can have eyes on the street. next slide, please. the tower form, slightly set back from the podium is very simple. a distinctive form creased along the center of each phase to create an interesting play of light and shadow through the day. next slide, please. atop that tower is the remainder of the common open space for the project. we have absolutely maximized the amount of open space possible. next slide. and the tower has a very fine grain reial school facade in which the remainder of the open space requirement and residences is accommodated through a series of balconies down the center face. next slide, please. looking at the ground floor, we see here the real challenge of

a project like this. a mixed use project on urban infill site is accommodating the different uses in a way that is engaged with the public and to achieve that in large part, we had moved all the vehicular loading and parking and biparking to below grade accessed through a single ramp along franklin street, which goes down into the basement. that leaves the vast majority of the building's frontage for lobbies and retail spaces. in addition, we have an extensive public realm improvement program, which includes can sidewalk widening on franklin street, with very extensive widening, table top crossings and a street tree planting program. next slide, please. in addition, there are similar improvements proposed to the lily street alley just across franklin. next slide. this view shows the school podium from franklin street. it has very strong and clear

identity in the first five years of the building. atop that is a wind mitigation canopy in addition to baffling downward winds, also serves to visually separate the podium from the tower. next slide. and turning the corner, you can see the architectural language of base is related to but distinct from the tower. the school base has more extensive use of masonry which hander niezs the adjacent buildings and has larger areas of transparency at its corner for school library, school lounges and school's lobby at the face. next sly. this shows the oak street sidewalk significantly widened with double row of street trees and the residential lobby just beyond. next slide. we have a multipurpose street for school with moveable

blaoefmer seating and on top of that, classrooms and then on top of that t outdoor open space bringing that life and vitality to market street. this is the elevation on which we're proposing to integrate public art. both at the ground floor where we have the option for a partial transparency as well as a couple along the exit stair to the left side of the facade. next, please. and stepping back, we see the relationship to the other projects in the hub, fitting into the pattern. the planning department has defined here a slightly lower buildings at the edge. reaching up to the focal point and market at van ness, i think you have to click three times here to get to the next slide, which shows the overall views of tower from franklin street looking south from oak street, looking east. again, showing the fine grain facade that expresses the residential use of the building in metal and glass and catchs

the light and shadow in interesting and unique ways w. that, if you could advance and i'll turn it over to matt witty. >> thank you, mark. can you all hear me? >> we can. thank you. >> i just have some closing comments and i'll be very brief. i'd like to summarize the unique program component to the project, some of which christy ran through quite quickly. 98 franklin will be the first of its kind, mixed use, mixed income building to incorporate three uses stonesing the future vitality of san francisco. education, affordable and market-rate housing all vertically stacked in one project. the project will include new classrooms for 400 students as well as 80 permanently affordable units and 265 market rate units. collectively, the mix of these apartments will be at least 30% two and three bedrooms which

exceeds the core requirement of 25%. further, 20% of the 25% on site b.m.r.s will be related to low-income residents. [bell ringing] in addition, the project will contribute $6 million in affordable housing fees that equate to an additional 24 affordable units, bringing the effective total to 32%. lastly, parking is being provided at the base rate of .25 spaces per unit. which was established by supervisor kim several years ago and is currently the lowest ratio anywhere in the city. we believe this is appropriate given the higher percentage of two and three-bedroom units which together with the inclusion of a new high school, we believe will be attractive to families, some of which will own a car. [bell ringing] in summary, given the limited land availability for new housing in the city and fewer sites in close proximity to transit, vertically integrated projects such as 98 franklin are the future of development and we look forward to

partnering with the french-american international school to make the ground-breaking project a reality. >> thank you. that is your time. commissioners, if there are no immediate questions to staff or the project sponsor, we should move to public comment. let's go to q&a. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and then 0. >> i will remind members of public that to submit your public testimony, you should hit 1 and then 0 to enter the queue and through the chair your time will be limited to one minute. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon. this is anastasia, part of the community coalition. i'm commenting about the 24 affordable units. [television on in background] i wanted to know what the

affordability a.m.i. level is on those. and also the 259 studio and one bedrooms. many of them are most likely studios and they have parking attached to the 111 parking spaces you mentioned -- [bell ringing] connected to the project. i have serious concerns about -- i have -- am i still on? i have serious concerns about the impacts of t.n.c.s, corporate shuttles and deliveries around that area. they will impact the environment. and affect the students and the pedestrians. t.n.c.s will be serving upscale residents. thank you. >> operator: you have 14 questions remaining.

>> caller: good afternoon. this is jason imerson. i had an image that i sent to the planning staff. can we put the images up, please? >> yeah. christy, can you share your screen in and i paused your time, mr. henderson. >> caller: thank you. >> that the image, christy? >> yeah. >> ok. if we could go to the image. great. ok. mr. henderson, your one minute starts now. >> caller: tricky, which image is it because it's delayed. i can't see the image. >> it's bicycle existing conditions. >> bike. ok. so the bicycle existing conditions. i just want to point out this is from the hub public realm plan that there is a huge gap, if you look closely at the map in the area of 98 franklin. and particularly franklin and goff. those are important routes into

the retail area and that is very, very dense tenants and rent controlled tenants. next one, please? [bell ringing] so the next slide -- >> [inaudible]. >> public realm plan which shows that franklin is actually absfrenl the public realm plan. now what i'm suggesting that we do and the promise is talk about bicycle access. it is mid block on franklin. they have to go up franklin from page to market. this is the social distancing that we need to do a fully separated cycle track on franklin northbound to connect the different parts of the hub internally so we can have e-bike delivery, cargo biex. families do not need cars and living in the center of the city. this can be done by bicycle.

but we need the infrastructure and the map is showing a massive gap in the infrastructure. >> operator: you have 16 questions remaining. >> is the caller prepared to submit your testimony? is the caller prepared to submit your public comment? >> operator: you have 15 questions remaining. >> caller: hello and good afternoon. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: thank you, everyone. i'm a resident of richmond area in san francisco. i'd like to express my support for the 98 franklin development. as resident of san francisco

since 2002, and parents of two children aged 12 and 11, my wife and i have been a member of the school community for eight years. the school and its community represents [bell ringing] the best of the city, a diverse, compassionate and principled culture that brings people from many backgrounds. so we highly encourage you to support the school and the project and much appreciate your time and your support. [please stand by]

-- i am expressing my wholehearted support for the development. (indiscernible) and i believe that the mixed use and the development with affordable housing and the streetscape, and the water, will definitely make it more livable. so i will support the project. thank you. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> hello, my name is robin l livid. and i live two blocks from the site. and i'm very supportive of the project. the french-american school has been an excellent neighbor for all of the time that i have been

living there. i want to make a couple quick comments though about the project. first i want to talk about the comment about bicycle access. i think that the bike lane on franklin street to access the project -- and also i would encourage you to look at reopening the crosswalk at oak and franklin. it's now closed to pedestrians. and also west of octavia. the street is now -- has overcapacity. people race down that street. i'd like to see some traffic calming there and improved pedestrian access. and also i like the lily street in the block between gough and franklin but i think that it should be extended to octavia to

connect more of the campus to the new project. so those are my comments. thank you very much. bye. >> you have 16 questions remaining. caller: hi, my name is ahmed casi and i'm a san francisco resident for the past 20 years and all three of our kids were born in san francisco. two of them attend french-american high school and we support this project. this is the exact project that san francisco needs. it revitalizes the hub and it brings more children into the hub and the city and it increases activities and the affordability. i think that there was no opposition to this project and it's obvious why. it's a unique opportunity to change san francisco for the better. thank you, commissioners, for supporting this. >> you have 15 questions remaining.

>> caller: hi, i'm calling to express my support for this project. i have two children at this school and i have lived across the street from the school for 13 years. and if you walk down franklin and the surrounding area you know that this project is needed. the school has economic opportunities for neighboring merchants and this project will increase those opportunities and it's sorely needed in the years to come. as importantly, the cultural richness to the valley. and it's a unique chance to have a world-class high school. i strongly you to support the development and thank you. >> you have 14 questions remaining. >> caller: hi there, i am samantha leland and i'm been a resident for the past five years and a neighbor of the french-american school for the

last one year. and i am calling in to express my support for this project. in that year they've been excellent neighbors. and this is exactly the sort of project that my wife and i were excited about when we voted for the various housing propositions that have shown up on the ballots over the years. we're especially excited about the affordable housing, (indiscernible) and in the presence of the school. this school has been an excellent neighbor for us and we absolutely trust them to be transparent and responsible through the construction process. so we have no reservations about this project. thank you. >> you have 12 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition in support. you know, i want to just echo

comments of previous speakers, it's always nice to be 10th in line behind additional supporters. and the only thing that maybe i'd add is that we're talking a surface parking lot into housing in the middle of our city in a growing neighborhood. we're very, very excited to support this effort and ask that you continue to move the project forward. thank you. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, president koppel, and i'm with local 22 and i represent 40,000 members in northern california, 4,000 who live here in san francisco. i'm here today to ask for your support of the project, and the signatory with the contractor, and the individuals to have the opportunity to earn a good wage where they live, providing

retirement benefits to our members. this project will also offer training and educational opportunities for those in the area, and it includes women, minorities, veterans. this project will bring much-needed housing to the area and easing the housing shortage. i urge you to adopt the findings to move this project forward today. thanks. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. audrey ram, i'm calling in opposition of the project with the contradictions that it poses. i have no doubt that the french-american school has a diverse student body as mentioned. but the question here is why are we having a building with 259

studios and one bedroom if this is going to provide family-friendly housing? only 15% [broken audio] this is not family friendly. and, furthermore, why do we need 111 parking spaces for a building that is right in the middle of the most transit friendly spot in san francisco? so from one end the planning department says that family housing needs to have parking. okay, but this is not a family housing. the building with 259 out of 300 odd units that are studios and one bedrooms is not family housing and they don't need these parking garages. and give up parking garages and give it to affordable housing. >> you have 11 questions remaining. >> hi, i am eric becker.

and i'm the father of two children, san francisco natives both. we have been with the french-american community for five years and i have lived in the hayes valley neighborhood for over 25 years. i just want to lend my support to this project because it's the way forward. this kind of mixed-use building is basically our only option given the lack of real estate that we have available to us. the transit options are additionally fantastic and should make the accessibility issue not at all problematic. thank you for your time. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i am calling on behalf of the concerns over the transportation demand management plan for this

project. particularly as it pertains to the understanding of the increased traffic that will be happening in and around the area and prioritizing the safety above the students and other pedestrians. and there's concerns on the impacts of t.n.c.s and other vehicles to the area as well. we don't believe that planning has done an assessment of the impacts on the city as well as the environment and the cumulative impact worldwide as we know that most of these units will be for more affluent residents and more affluent residents have shown a tied to t.n.c.s as well. so it will have a huge impact and a huge potential danger for pedestrians and the children that are coming to school as well. thank you. >> you have nine questions remaining. caller: hi, hello?

>> clerk: yes, go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'm actually a resident in the neighborhood two blocks away from the french-american, and i have a daughter that goes to french-american and we have lived in the neighborhood for five years now. and i'm fully in support of the project. we have been here to see the different phases of the area. i think that the school, (indiscernible), brings to the area. yeah, that's it. thank you so much. >> you have eight questions remaining. >> caller: hello, this is ian gordon and i'm a rentner district 5 and a member of the neighborhood association and i wanted to say i support this

project wholeheartedly. and i look forward to the miss mixed-use building and there's room for the school and it adds character to the neighborhood. and allows more people to live in san francisco, which is great. we're a welcoming city and we need more residents. and it's eclogical and it will be near a lot of transit and have bike parking. i wish that there was less parking, but (indiscernible) so please approve this project and let's get it built as fast as possible. we need the construction jobs. thank you. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> hi, this is kenneth russell and i am a san francisco resident and i support the development and we need more homes in san francisco and i support this mixed-use development. and i support doing what is necessary with the bike access and that sort of thing for this type of development. thank you.

>> you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: hello, i'm a san francisco resident for the past 40 years. i have two children that were born in san francisco and attend the french-american school. i'm calling today to express my support and urging the commissioners to approve the project. i believe that turning a parking lot into schools and housing is very good for the use of the space. i hope that the project can move forward very quickly. thank you. >> you have seven questions remaining. >> yes, good afternoon. i have called in to support proposed development at 98 franklin street and my name is jordan otis and i'm a native and a resident of san francisco. and a parent to two children at french-american international school. as the commission is aware, this

project is located in a vital area of the city which is in need of intelligent and well-thought out development. i believe that the proposed 98 frank lilin street development a perfect fit as it's mixed income and (indiscernible) and for affordable housing to serve san francisco well into the future. i strongly support your support of the development. thank you for your time and consideration today. >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: hello, my name is mike chen and i'm a resident of san francisco and a volunteer, and i'm speaking in support of the project. thank you very much. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hello, my name is jerry drotler with the san

francisco value coalition. this project does not meet city planning objectives for additional affordable family housing. and removing people from the most congested parts of the city. you need light rail and bus lines and 111 parking spaces is excessive. 25% of the 345 units only require 86 parking spaces. and the parking ratio at 15% is too low because 75% of the units in this project are not family friendly. they are one-bedroom or studio units. also how many of the parking spaces have charging stations for e.v. vehicles? thank you. >> you have four questions remaining.

>> caller: hi, we are a policy activist organization and we're excited to endorse the thoughtful and well-designed and much-needed project. as we're all aware that every city in the region needs to do their part. i just want to highlight that there's a report last year that show that san francisco, when they meet the low income target, it will be the year 2030 -- and moderate income 2045. so that shows how much this project could contribute to san francisco's goal. and, again, we just very much urge support and to support this project today. >> you have four questions remaining.

>> caller: district nine resident and in full support of this project. it's been really refreshing to hear all of the local residents who are expressing so much support and understand the importance of this mixed-use project. thank you. >> you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hello, i'm a resident of san francisco. and i am in support of this project. i think that we need a lot more housing in the city and it has to be all forms of housing too. like currently i'm a renter and i would prefer to live in a studio because i'm single and i don't have dependents, but i am living in a house with multiple residents because there aren't

any -- because there aren't any studio -- or enough studios available for people like me. so i urge you to support this today and promote more housing more quickly in the city. all right. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hi, i yield my time. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: this is the area that is called the hub for a reason. there's a lot of transit in the area. i think that the schools should be challenged. they should be challenged to get the school not in a car but on muni, muni metro, walking, biking, skateboards. global warming is a concern of

young people, and whether they will have a future in san francisco and in the world and in the united states. it requires the reducing of fossil fuel usage. one of the things that i put out as a challenge to these students is to educate their parents to not drive them to school and to discuss how to get to school. they have a role in educating the public that lives -- is going to live in housing all around them. there's a lot of rent-controlled buildings around this school. unfortunately, the letter submitted by the parents downplayed the safety of the area. a lot of housing right now exists already. thank you. >> you have zero questions

remaining. president koppel: that concludes the public portion of the item and it's now before y you. okay, well, i wait to hear from other commissioners, i do like this project and i like the fact that it does have the three different usages in one, and the project sponsor is going to lead the goal in this project and it's transit oriented development and i'll be in support today. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: this project is very interesting. i think that it is a good addition to the composition of the hub. i have a couple of questions for mr. -- the architects who presented earlier. is he available to answer some questions?

>> hi, yes, i am available. >> commissioner moore: okay. i think that the project is wonderful and it fits really well where it is, but i have a couple questions because as commissioners we're looking at the project in context. i said on the commission when we approved 1554 market street project, which you referred to as being under construction or in the process of starting construction, and i was wondering why your building does not address the light that is critical to the residential units that face the mid-block of that particular project. it is a school lot with a tower on the oak street side and a tower on the market street side with two major courtyards which provide access to light and air for units in all four portions

of the project. could you address that please for me. >> sure. we did intend to address that and i think that you saw in the plans that there is a skylight in that area. i think that the further study in that area could refine that skylight to better align gee aln geometrically with the neighbor while still preserving the very important privacy and security requirements of the school to allow light to enter into that space, up, from the west and south. so we would be certainly be open to refining that. that is one of the intentions of placing a skylight there is to continue that pattern. and now that project is under construction we'd be eager to see the final geometric configuration of that and to work together as much as possible to accommodate that. >> commissioner moore: let me just comment, since the

residential is in the same need of privacy as the school is, since you are at a transitional prefunction area which are between a restroom and a cloakroom, i'm wondering as to whether or not th

we all know that s.r.o.s very much because they're single room occupancy and all commissioners know what that means, that they do rely on neutrality between adjoining buildings in some form

or another. could you address that, please? >> sure. so the windows from the s.r.o. units start somewhere around the bottom of our third floor, so the first third floor is a brick wall. so it's above the multipurpose room. and the possible locations for the egress are limited. it would not be possible to have relief without losing a stack of classrooms but it's something that we'd be happy to investigate with to the degree possible that it could be done without compromising the function of the school from essentially the third floor up. >> commissioner moore: i appreciate it. i think that we're in support of both the functioning as a school and we're also obligated to protect and to enhance what is happening with the s.r.o. so i just strongly urge you to take that further, particularly by looking more closely at the plans and the component that you are illustrating in your market street elevation that is not reflected yet in the planned drawings of your stairs because you're showing a stair but nothing with a sculptural area that is shown in your rendering. so perhaps you could examine the

layout further if you don't mind. >> we certainly will, thank you for the comment. >> commissioner moore: thank you so much. those are my comments and i'm in support of the project. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioner moore. if i may interrupt and i do apologize, i have been advised that we have a caller in the queue and i suggest that we might accept their late public comment. >> clerk: yes, go ahead. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. (indiscernible) but, anyway, going back and just a second -- (indiscernible) serious concerns on the impacts of the t.n.c. and the delivery vehicles to the area. they're just a potential danger for pedestrians and children

attending the school. that's my thoughts here. thank you so much. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hello -- (indiscernible) and i have clear concerns about all of the traffic in the area. there are many accidents in this area and the track impacts on them and all of the pedestrians and the cars in this area have not been fully considered. i do not think that the school has adequately prepared a transportation management for itself. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioners, i apologize for the interruption. okay, why don't we talk to

commissioner fung next. >> commissioner fung: i think that this project is a good example of what we envisioned for the hub. the mixed-use nature of the project is very appropriate for the hub, especially the retention of the institutional use that has been in that area, in that community for quite a long time. i'm supportive of this project. >> president koppel: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: i would say overall i'm very supportive of this project and i'm excited to see that it would bring on-site affordable units to help with the income. and i think that it's important to contribute to the city's family housing stock and i think that we heard 30% of the units are two bedroom or larger. that's a step in a positive direction. and i attended urban high school

so, you know, in the middle of manhattan so i can attest to that being a transformative experience for children who are lucky to kind of grow up in a middle of a vibrant city that is san francisco. but i do have comments about the project more generally. but i understand that there's a main campus at 150 oak street and i'd like to see more attention paid to that intersection for ensuring that pedestrian safety for youth and those who are crossing that intersection to be heard (indiscernible). so my second comment is more in regards to kind of general uses of institutional spaces, not pertaining to particularly to this project, but just ways to think about more flexible and creative ways to give back to the community. i think that we think that schools, particularly during times of covid, serving as anchor institutions. many of the san francisco public schools have become sites of food pantries and so forth.

and even before the pandemic we have seen, you know, the shared schoolyard program where the schools open up the schoolyard during the weekend for the creation during the weekend. particularly in neighborhoods that don't have a safe space for children to gather and play. and so i would say in general that i would like to see institutional uses and to try to figure out ways to give back to the community. and really opening up their spaces and their doors to their neighbors and to have a broader goal in the city. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: i too am very supportive of this project. there are many features of it that i find very appealing and the vertical integration of housing and education, and seems incredibly appropriate for this, and i like the on-site affordable housing and the two and three-bedroom units.

i think that it's a fantastic location for a high school. it brings the teens to the center of the city. they can get use of public transit and have access to the main library and civic center. so i really applaud the developer in the school for finding a way to do this project together. on a separate note i want to commend the architect to what i thought was a highly instructive presentation and allowing all of us who watched it to understand how the vertical pieces fit together. so thank you for that. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm supportive of the development. i actually like the fact that the sidewalks are widened. and they're wider than i believe (indiscernible) on oak street and also at franklin by

eight feet. i think that is really important for students and, you know, residential workers that in this busy area that there is enough space for a pedestrian. i also would like to -- whether this is a comment i guess or a recommendation, in terms of the study or the looking into the bicycle lanes, there was one comment about how this bike lane on franklin street is not included as part of this -- of the bicycle lane. and i hope that the m.t.a. will also look into that and exploring different areas in -- well, not different areas but around this development on the possible bike pathways. i also commend the affordable

housing on site and offsite. i think that it is -- i appreciate that from the developer and having -- i believe two to three bedrooms. so i'm in general support of this development. and i also support commissioner chan's comments on opening the for the people. and it could be accessible to the residential workers in the area. but to explore how these facilities can be more opened up, that would be -- that would be more (indiscernible). >> president koppel: i apologize to interject one more time. but it is another caller in queue. can we take that now or wait. >> wait.

well, we'll let the caller speak after commissioner johnson. >> clerk: very good. >> commissioner johnson: i thought that i'd jump in because we're all sharing a bit of our perspectives. just to echo so much of what folks said, i think that this is a perfect location. i think that the whole city will benefit from integrating a school with mixed affordable housing use. i totally echo and i agree with conditions, with comments around street safety and also making sure that we're mindful of the neighbors who are around both buildings. i also just wanted to add because i appreciated commissioner chan's comments about how wonderful it is to be able to attend an urban school and i went to an urban school in manhattan and i'm really appreciating that opportunity for young people. the other thing that i would say to echo commissioner chan's comments is that in addition to

opening up and being creative about the opening up of institutional uses, i think that thinking about embodying the spirit of what a mixed development that sits at the intersection of so many neighborhoods and that has an international school at the base of it could represent. and so along those lines something that i talked with the project sponsor about was finding a way to potentially integrate and in the limited spaces where there is art and ways to really deem this, to find a way to represent the diverse cultural heritage and spirit of our city, of the school, and of this intersection of neighborhoods. so with those things i would like to make a motion. i would like to make a motion to approve the downtown project authorization, adopt ceqa

findings and to adopt shadow findings. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson, i would assume that would include the staff recommendations. >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> president koppel: and cross referencing? >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> president koppel: before we go any further, if we could allow the member of the public to submit their testimony. >> could we second that motion please. >> president koppel: noted. why don't we go ahead and let the caller submit their testimony. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. i have two questions. has the committee thought about what it's like for students who work one or two or three jobs and maybe have children and live a very highly stressful life and depend on their car to manage that highly stressful life? city college used to have up to

100,000 students and hopefully we can get back to that level. but how can we given this project? my second question is -- >> president koppel: sir -- related to the balboa advise voir project and we're discussing 90 franklin. >> caller: i'm sorry, my apologies. >> president koppel: yeah. very good, commissioners. there was a motion -- >> you have zero questions remaining. >> president koppel: i do believe that commissioner moore and imperial wanted to also submit testimony. >> go ahead, commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm very happy to see the commissioner really joining in strong support for various reasons and i would like to restate my support for careful examining the pedestrian safety and overall well-managed circulation at the intersection of market and franklin, which is an extremely difficult

intersection to navigate. and i would like to see that the additional pedestrian-friendly measures are being taken in order to facilitate that. and that includes navigating with bicycles in a safe manner so that all can equitably move with each other. and i would like to say that i am actually delighted to see that oak street is starting to have meaning again. that particular street has been a no man's land from franklin to market for too many years and all of a sudden it seems to be an emerging dialogue between buildings and actions and uses that hopefully with this will be a meaningful street. and interested in retail in that portion and retail really being on the smaller street, that being oak. those are my additional comments that i wanted to express my appreciation for the

thoughtfulness of the comments today. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, before i make a statement, i forgot to mention this. i know that commissioner moore mentioned about the f.r.o.s and how there's such a little egress or space between the two buildings. and i really -- i would recommend for the project sponsors to explore -- to explore more in how to have access as well as since the classrooms and the s.r.o.s are in the third unit, to explore more on how -- because s.r.o.s, their units are really, really small. and light in these type of buildings is usually very limited. so i really recommend for the project sponsor to explore that

in a way that will also be mindful of the buildings right next to it, especially if there are low-income building. so i just wanted to say that, that comment. >> president koppel: okay, very good. commissioners, there is a motion that is seconded to approve this project. well, to adopt ceqa findings and shadow findings and approve the downtown project authorization. with the minor corrective edits. on that motion commissioner chan. aye. commissioner diamond. aye. commissioner fung. aye. commissioner imperial. aye. commissioner johnson. aye. commissioner moore. aye. commission president koppel? aye. so moved, commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0. >> clerk: and item 16 for case

2019-01998scua at 755 stanyan street and 670 kezar drive. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to present? >> yes. matthew chandler, department staff. the item is a conditional use authorization to install a new a at&t mobility project facility at 755 stanyan street known also as 607 kezar drive. and a parcel within the public zoning district. the public includes installation of 12 at&t ann 10 ans and 24 remote radio heads on existing stadium light poles and ancillary equipment including pole-mounted and ground-mounted equipment. and screened behind an iron fence.

verizon wireless has a project for the southside of kezar stadium heard at a future hearing in that the commission has the option to continue this item as well to review the scope of both projects at once. the project sponsors held a preapplication meeting at the san francisco county fair building at 1199 ninth avenue on thursday, july 11, 2019. at 6:00 p.m.. according to application materials, 10 community members attended this meeting and most of which were interested in discussing electromagnetic health concerns and project specific details including design and equipment and coverage. at the time of publishing the staff report, the department received correspondence from a total of seven members of the public regarding this project. five of which stated opposition and two requesting further information. since publication of the staff report, the department received correspondence from an additional 14 people. 13 in support of the project and

one in opposition. resulting with six members in opposition and 12 in support. those in opposition have stated concerns related to private design and potential adverse impacts to health as well as views. and those in support favor the project for increased wireless network facilities, safety, and emergency services. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning cold 303 and 211.2 to allow a wireless telecommunication service facility used for commercial communication systems in the public zoning district. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the wireless telecommunications service facility citing guidelines and the objectives and policies of the general plan. and the project will be located on existing publicly used structures, which are the most preferential locations cited in the wireless telecommunications

service facilities citing guidelines. the proposed facility will not significantly alter the existing appearance or the character of the project vicinity. it would not adversely affect the park or the open space, nor the access to sunlight or public vistas. staff recommends approval with conditions of the conditional use authorization. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions and the sponsor team is also in attendance and has prepared a presentation. >> thank you, if the project sponsor is prepared to make a presentation? >> hi, everyone. i'm from the recreation and parks department. and i just wanted to give a quick overview on this. i'm the director of property management here. this facility is located on the stadium light poles. its is on the corner of golden gate park, which is why we're

coming for a conditional use authorization. golden greagolden gate park in s is the site of gathers on kezar and robin williams meadow and sharon meadow. deefn during this covid time it's a very popular site for residents to recreate. and cellular service in the park has been spotty, and ensuring adequate cellular service is a public safety issue, both for members of the public and our park ranges who have rawrts next to kezar stadium and the park station who is also next to this site. we have been looking for ways to improve service throughout the park. this site was determined to be one of the lowest impacts, as we are already there with large fixtures on the top. we have worked hard to minimize as much as possible the additions on the poles, putting other things down at ground level and out of site locations.

we appreciate your consideration and following this hearing we'll take the approval of both the installation and the lease to the recreation and park commission for approval and additional input. thank you. >> president koppel: now to the project sponsor. you will have five minutes and any public testimony will be limited to two minutes. >> hi, president koppel and commissioners. thank you for hearing this. this is at&t. it's my pleasure today to talk about this joint project between rec and park and a at&t which hs been in the works for 10 years. golden gate park has several gaps in coverage and that is in itself a safety concern. years ago then mayor lee encouraged us to move forward to address that concern, and not to provide revenue for rec and park that has recently seen cuts. we have worked really hard with

the rec and park department to develop a site. and through this partnership and the community input at the meeting that you referenced we have tweaked and adjusted the design to what you see today and utilizing the infrastructure for the antennas and radios. and we are confident that this project will provide the necessary coverage to the east end of the park, without affecting the views or sight lines or interfering with the enjoyment or use of the park. additionally and in the event of an earthquake or a disaster, kezar has been identified as a potential emergency shelter site. so another reason why coverage is so critical there. and this site will also include band 14 which is known as first net, the first national responder network. so from a public safety standpoint this is a very important site in the city of san francisco. so in a nutshell, the site will provide coverage and capacity to an underserved area, increase and improve public safety

capabilities and bring in $84,000 a year to rec and park. on the next line we have a walk through of the site with her powerpoint and our network engineer from hammest and edison. go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i represent at&t and i want to start by thanking matthew for his work on the application. matthew, can you go ahead and move to slide two. matthew, are you able to forward to slide two? okay. the attached map shows the existing at&t network in kezar stadium and golden gate park. blue indicates unreliable service and yellow indicates marginal service. next slide.

and the attached map shows the at&t wireless network coverage with the proposed cell site. kezar stadium and golden gate park are the primary areas that at&t are going to cover and the park and stadium are now showing green which is reliable service. next slide. this is the site plan showing the at&t will be installing antennas and remote radio units on two existing light poles in the north side of the stadium. the equipment cabinets will be installed behind the existing fence, north of the northwest light pole. next slide. this is a photo showing the existing northside light pole that will be used by a it and a.

next slide. this slide shows the photo then of the at&t antennas and remote radio units installed on the light poles with the antennas and remote radio units flush mounted to the pole. next slide. this is a view of the existing stadium fence and the proposed location of the equipment cabinet. next slide. this is the view of the proposed equipment cabinet behind the wrought iron fence and the equipment is screened with wrought iron to match the existing fence. that concludes my presentation. and as kenny stated, michael, the network engineer and bill hamet are on the line and we're happy to answer any questions that you or staff have.

>> president koppel: thank you. seeing no immediate questions from the commissioners or staff or the project sponsor, why don't we go ahead and open up q. and a. >> your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question press 1, and then 0. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to get into queue to submit your public testimony as previously stated. and public comments will be limited to two minutes. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: hello. this is june downey speaking. i object to this project. part is that is my view, the

kezar stadium and i look out on them. and so it does affect the view. and also (indiscernible). >> are you still with us? >> (indiscernible) say again? >> clerk: we didn't hear you for a minute. go ahead. >> hello? can you hear me? okay. golden gate, i oppose to install the ugly pieces of equipment.

and it's really not consistent with the master plan of the golden gate park master plan. and also the meeting, i'm in the largest neighborhood organization in this area, like 800 meters right next to kezar stadium and the (indiscernible) so, no, we did not get notification. and i'm also concerned about the noises that will be coming from this. thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can.

>> caller: thank you. thank you for considering this. my name is ryan magart and i'm a quarter mile away from kezar stadium and i use it frequently with pie wife and many of our neighbors. and it's unfortunate that this hearing is taking place under these circumstances. there's elderly people in the neighborhood who would like to speak in opposition and they're unable to, due to the nature of the technology and the inability to be heard. my opposition and many people's opposition to this is the radio frequency issue that this puts forth. i understand that they're going on f.c.c. guidelines and i understand that those f.c.c. guidelines have not been modified since 1996. very concerned for the safety of those in the neighborhood and based on these frequency and the

idea that this isn't near a residential neighborhood. it is not accurate. there are houses as i said less than .2 miles away from the site. there's also hundreds of people in the stadium, hundreds of people, fewer now, but still many people on a daily basis who use that facility who are there all the time. also concerned with the safety of the cell structure itself. that is incredibly windy area. and i'm concerned that the emissions and the apportionment of the equipment there will not last or hold up under the circumstances. and i agree with the previous speaker's statements about the lack of notice. we live in the area and we got no notice and the associations got no notice. in fact, there were a couple signs on the ground just a day

before, only on the actual stadium itself for all of those people frequenting and using the stadium didn't get notice. i'm very troubled by that aspect as well. i would ask the commission to adjourn this consideration. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> you have seven questions remaining. clerk: is the caller prepared to submit your comment? >> caller: sorry about that, i did it again. hi, my name is robert buckman and i live in lower 8, i am in support of the antenna. i would like to say in general that i think that it is a waste of time to hold conditional use authorization hearings for an antenna. we have -- later on in this meeting there will be a project to build over 500 affordable apartments and we're talking about antennas and this is

silly. thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> caller: hello. my name is estella lucera and i live across the street on kezar on frederick street. i am -- i have lived there for almost 70 years. and i don't think this is a good plan and i don't agree with this for our stadium and for our neighborhood. i think that this is an overwhelming thing for the stadium and how it will affect the neighborhood also.

they are obstructing our view and our noise level. i don't -- and so thank you very much. that's what i wanted to say. >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, i'm john molga and i speak in support to install an at&t antenna in the golden gate park. they want to send photos and video calling from the park. the increase in cell service and the capacity to provide much-needed cell service for the visitors of the park. additionally i want to echo the project sponsor with the increased safety of l.t.e. service and the first net capacity, the new network that at&t is building through the federal government and first

responders. and the increase in data service and the site itself is both necessary and desirable to the residents of san francisco. i end by echoing the previous caller's comments from earlier that it's crazy that you have to do this for a cellular antenna. thank you. >> you have six questions remaining. >> caller: bruce wall, san francisco resident and active f.c.c. amateur radio license holder. i am an at&t shareholder and my comments are for all network providers. if you read the description, it is for 12 and 24 radio heads. cellphone coverage is currently excellent everywhere outdoors within the confines of the city and county of san francisco for every cellphone company that has

a deployment here. verizon is currently over 12 towers installed circumventing golden gate park. and the installer, their technicians on site say that the propagation is for golden gate park and not neighborhoods. why do we need this at this location then? the description here is incorrect that it would serve golden gate park or neighborhood as per representatives and engineers have said in a lot of the writings and the literature that has been set out. i have spoken to some of them and they just keep repeating this in their documents and that they really don't have any technical response that speaks to what some of the other commenters have said. golden gate park doesn't have any cell sites within its confines. (please stand by)

remaining. >> is the caller prepared to comment?

hello? is the caller prepared to comment? >> jonas: let's go to the next caller. >> you have four questions remaining. >> caller: i like -- tell the person so it's like very clear. [inaudible] like when you're muted and start talking and it tells you you're muted. yeah, yeah. the other day i think -- but i was actually talk to my wife, so [laughter] -- >> jonas: sir, you're doing what you're talking about right now. >> i didn't bother interrupting -- [inaudible] >> jonas: why don't we go to the next caller? >> you have four questions remaining.

>> thank you. i support the proposal. i appreciate the work that staff has done along with at&t for this. i don't understand the prior comment that it's all based on meetings with people going into an in-person meeting. i really appreciate the forum that we have here to be able to -- [inaudible] i would ask city resident, the we have excellent cell coverage. i appreciate the providers are doing work to improve that, because we need it. i would highlight that i think it's great that we require the conditional use authorization to spend time on this with all the other things we have in the city. thank you. >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon. cory speaking at a neighborhood

resident in a personal capacity. and supporting the proposal here today. basic improvement make a ton of sense as someone who lives in the area and does not get any cell service and realises it's not going to impact me at my house. we should be doing everything to increase access for folks. is this necessary and desirable? i would say it absolutely is desirable and request that you grant the cu permit. thank you. >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. sarah ogilvie, san francisco resident in full support of the project. we know that 5g is safe. we don't need to listen to strange concerns regarding it when it's a benefit for the public good as well as $84,000

per year for the rec and parks. i think that's a wonderful investment that the parks can probably use right now. so i just want to express my support. and i trust the experts to make the appropriate design and construction so that it is a win-win for everybody. thank you. >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: i don't think so. it's all -- going to -- [inaudible] [laughter] -- >> jonas: sir -- let's go to the next caller. >> have a good meeting -- >> announcer: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hi, i live in the neighborhood. i'm very disturbed by not only

these 12 antennas going up, but the lack of notice and what i perceive as sort of a railroading of this through at a time when people can't get to a facility where they can communicate their disagreement appropriately. i think to start talking with experts knowing that 5g is safe is ridiculous. we clearly know there is no evidence that it's safe. we clearly know there are problems with microwaves and the human body. direct us in an area where people work out. where people live. and couch it in the necessity for safety in golden gate park and the speed at which people can upload their instagram

photos seems to me extremely shortsighted and not in the public health interests whatsoever. this was stated it's a public health issue to have this installed, which to me is no correlation whatsoever. the park system has never had wireless inside the park. the neighborhood is well served with high speed internet. this will not reach into the park. and i'm very, very disturbed by this. i'm very disturbed by the way it's moving forward so quickly and without a proper forum. and i'm very much opposed. thank you. >> announcer: you have two questions remaining. >> caller: our stadium. there is no evidence that 5g is safe. and putting up notices around

kezar stadium when people are supposed to be sheltering in place is not proper notice. please defer this to a proper time and proper notice. thank you. >> announcer: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi, my name is tony vargas. i'm a resident of san francisco for 37 years. i'm in support of this project. 5g is safe. we need better connections. where i live, i have that. this will help all communities. i do hope that they will help boost the -- significantly for the residential. thank you. >> announcer: you have zero questions remaining. >> jonas: very good, commissioners. the matter is now before you.

commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: question for the project sponsor. >> jonas: project sponsor, are you available to respond? >> yes, i'm here. go ahead. >> commissioner fung: if the intent is to provide service to golden gate park, park and rec controls a lot of land there. were there alternative locations within the park that could have satisfied the need for self-service in the park? >> so, yes, thank you for the question. so this particular location and this site will serve kezar

stadium and the east side of the park. we -- the signal can only go so far, so if we -- definitely this won't serve like the west end the park. it won't serve the beach. this will serve specifically the area we showed on the map, which is kezar and the east end of the park. we selected this location, because that was an easy choice with the existing poles. we felt like this was going to be the least intrusive of the other locations we looked at on that side of the park. >> commissioner fung: aren't there a lot of poles in the park? >> so in addition to those poles, we would also need an area for the equipment. and we would need poles that were tall enough that would fit the whole section of the park that we were trying to address. other poles that are in park are not tall enough.

and so that is why we ended up with this particular site. >> hi, this is dana. most of the light poles in the park are historic. they're these tall -- they kind of come up. we can't put toppers on them. we can't use them. the tree line in the park is considered one of the most beautiful parts of the park. so adding poles or adding others around there i think is by far the best least intrusive option. we looked at lots of them. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. so like several of the commenters, i have to say i've

experienced firsthand some of the challenges in the park around cell phone connectivity. i was heartened to see that this is a correlation between at&t and rec and park. and i appreciate the additional explanation of location with children to help us understand. i also know that some people have got a question around 5g and -- [inaudible] things in the purview and outside of the purview of this commission. and radio frequency outside of the purview. that being said, can we trust -- for all of those reasons, i'm prepared to support this and move to approve with conditions. >> second.

>> jonas: thank you, commissioners. i have been advised that we have a member of the public in queue. should we take that call? >> yes, please, go ahead. >> announcer: you have one question remaining. >> caller: hi. sorry i missed the comment earlier. i'm jennifer haas and i'm speaking in support of the project. i'm a parent of two kids in the area and rely on my son in the park. everyone wants their cells to work. i appreciate the time that rec and park and at&t has put into the design and i encourage the planning commission to approve the project today. thank you. >> jonas: commissioners, there is a motion seconded. on that motion, commissioner chan >> aarti:. -- commissioner chan aye.

diamond aye. fung no. imperial aye. johnson aye. moore aye. so moved. commissioners passes 6-1 with commissioner fung voting against. commissioners, that will place us on 3:00 p.m. calendar for items 17, case number 2018007883 for the balboa reservoir project. final subsequent environmental impact report. items 18a, b, c, d, e and f for case numbers 2018-00788env, cwp, map, and dva.

again for the environmental impact report adoption of statements, general planning amendment, planning code amendment, design standards and guidelines. map amendments. and development agreement respectively. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> hello, yes. i'm with the planning department. we'll share the screen first. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sin hong, the project manager of the balboa reservoir project with the planning department. before we start the team introduction and the presentation, i'd like to invite

supervisor yee's office to give opening remarks. are you there? jang? >> you may need to unmute your microphone. >> jonas: are you with us? ms. lowe? why don't you proceed with the presentation and if she's able to join us, we can go to her comments. >> will do.

so we are very excited to be here after multiyear community planning involving the planning and design balboa project. today i'm here with the rest of the team including environmental planning, city-wide plan division, the project manager and the office of economic and workforce development. and the developer team rachel community partners. this project is also result of a huge collaborated process among city agencies. carla payne at sfmta, the mayor's office of housing and community development are here with us as well.

this presentation covers a number of items as jonas mentioned. and has multiple speakers. i'll start with summary of items, a project background and overview of the project. the sponsor will provide details on the project elements. jamie poling will summarize the client pack and i will conclude the presentation with the key project i approvals under -- approvals under consideration today. the purpose approval actions under consideration today include adopting ceqa findings, and recommending approval of general plan amendment, planning code and map amendment and the project development agreement. we'll come back to approval item at the end of this presentation.

as shown on the map, the balboa reservoir site is southwest quadrant of the city and right next to city college of san francisco. this site is just north of the ocean avenue commercial district and is surrounded by sunnyside park and ingleside neighborhoods. this site is about 17.6 acres in size. and currently owned by the san francisco public utilities commission, puc, and the city college of san francisco for overflow parking. as part of the city's landfill housing program, the city agencies work 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 the designated public lands and this site presents great opportunities to realize the public land housing goals. it is underutilized. they can provide not only housing but many public amenities as called for in the balboa station, the site is in close proximity to the bart station and muni stops. this project is the result of over five years of community planning. and we are so excited to be here at the project approval hearing. a critical component of the community outreach is the balboa community the advisory committee. the brac. that was established in april 2015. in addition to providing a venue

for public input, one of the responsibilities was to establish development and parameters for the developers' actions. the brcac worked for a little over a year to develop principles and parameters. in 2017, the city chose a developer team, a partnership between bridge housing and avalon bay for development of the project. the city and the sponsor continued engaging the community in the planning process. and so far, we've conducted over 100 community events including over 40 meetings, workshops and presentations to neighborhood groups, planning commission and city college board of trustees. i would like to highlight that after the shelter-in-place order, we have three virtual meetings and three virtual

office hours to stay connected with the community. i would like to note that during the virtual hearings, virtual meetings, we have higher numbers of people, over 100 people, compared to previous meetings. the brcac development, principles and parameters present areas of community interest. and the project was designed, centred around the parameters. we worked with the community over the past five years. the project has evolved over the course of that time based on community input. these are core principles that have been key to the project. you will hear these key things during our presentation. the core principles include maximizing housing. providing 50% of affordable housing. creating four acres of open

space. respecting the scale of nearby neighborhoods. and collaborating with city college. the purpose project would build 1100 units with 500 affordable housing units. would create four acres of open space, include two acres in central park. would be accessed from ocean avenue and several bike and pedestrian connections. the building height will range from two stories to seven stories, providing a transition scale in respect to surrounding neighborhoods. transportation and parking issues is one of our main focuses. the project also involves -- include a range of committee amenities that my colleague will detail later. -- community amenities.

we heard the concerns around traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, parking and potential spillover parking in surrounding neighborhoods. the project itself is designed to promote sustainable modes of transportation and to reduce reliance on auto trips. but transportation and parking is a much broader issue that requires coordination with city college, our neighbor, and the sfmta. over the course of several years, the city college, sfmta and the sponsor have coordinated and made huge progress on addressing many of these concerns. the city college would improve the pedestrian path along ocean avenue and have adopted the study and hired a coordinator. the sfmta accelerated two projects in the area that would make improvement at the ocean

and frieda callow. it would provide $10 million in transportation sustainability fees. and implement plan and replacement parking strategy. i will hand it over to my colleague who will talk more. >> thank you. i'm with the office of economic and workforce development. i will be highlighting two areas of the development agreement today that have been the focus of community discussions. the first is city college. as you can see in the aerial image, the city-owned project parcel in yellow is directly to the west of city college's main campus. we have heard from the college trustees and stakeholders that the project must support the long-term health of the college. the project is doing so with the

inclusion of affordable educator housing which will assist the housing in attracting and retaining diverse faculty and staff. this would be among the first of affordable education care buildings approved or built in the city. second, we have heard that the project must maintain students' access to education. we've worked closely with the college administration and sfmta to prioritize investments in bike, pedestrian and transit improvements as previously described. the recent parking analysis shows that most students take transit or bike and walk to campus. so these types of investment best support students. in addition, the d.a. requires that the developer construct up to 450 public parking spaces that will support college drivers. the final number of public parking spaces will be determined using the

best-available use data at the time of construction. the development agreement codifies these college benefits as developer requirements so that the city can ensure they're deliver as the project is built out. next slide, please. the second area is affordable housing. we have heard from the balboa reservoir cac and a broad swath of the public that the project should have significant amounts of affordable housing for a range of incomes. the project will produce 550 affordable units, or 50% of the 1100 project units, an unprecedented amount. and the project's key benefit. the affordable units will be provided at a range of incomes from low to moderate, including the educator housing. the developer and the city, through the mayor's office of housing, are collaborating on the funding plan for the affordable housing. and will continue to work

together to secure subsidies and employ creative ideas related conveyance and regulatory agreements if the project is implemented. i would like to know turn it over to the project team to continue to highlight the project's benefits. and in particular, those related to the community's desire that the project create a livable, thriving neighborhood, meaning new public gathering spaces, sustainable living, safe and pleasant pedestrian experience and amenities to support children and families. thank you. >> thanks. good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. i'm with bridge housing. bridge is a san francisco base non-profit that has been building affordable housing since 1983. we're part of the master development team along with avalon bay, selected by the city to implement this commission, the city and the vision for the

balboa reservoir. we're proud to present to you the project our team put together. our team includes polak, on design, housing habitat who will build and the balboa reservoir cac and community members who participated to refine the site design and the community building at the reservoir. staff walked through the community process and background on the site. our team would like to share how that process shaped our proposal into the project before you today. the community demonstrated a deep commitment to the success of the balboa reservoir, offering countless hours and thoughtful comments. we had wide ranging conversations with community members how the buildings relate to the surrounding neighborhood. and how our transportation program will improve trips on the avenue. we discussed ways to improve

walking and biking conditions throughout the area and to bart. community members had detailed questions about the structure for providing educator housing. some shared information about the use of electric vehicles. we received comments about specific plants and trees that would work well on our site. and others wanted to ensure that the affordable housing had equal access to the park. we'd like to thank the cac and the community for their continued investment in the balboa reservoir. now i'd like to introduce peter waller with architects, who will review the design framework with the site attention to the community input. peter?

>> shall we move to the other part while peter is coming back? >> that would be a good thing to do. >> we'll move to jeannie's part. >> hi, there.

frieda. >> jeannie, i'm going to speak up and say i think i found my problem. can you hear me now? >> okay, do you want to go back to peter then? let's do that. peter waller. architect. on the design framework -- we can stay on the first slide -- the key organizing piece is the open space. that is the key to making this a family friendly neighborhood. so we placed this open space where the most people possible could experience it on a daily basis, where it was conveniently accessed for the neighborhood. organized it in a way that would

get good sun, but protect it from the wind. and organize it so we could program it with a green space, a gathering, up the hill, play area, community gardens, sheltered area, people to gather. community space overlooking the park. so the park is a respite from the busy surroundings, but has enough amenity spaces to be active at all hours. importantly thought about the placement to the surrounding. coming up from ocean avenue. park is on access with that. across the top of the park, north drive connects out to frida kahlo and provides direction to sunnyside for neighbors to come through the park. and then lee avenue, welcoming staff and students from city

college. and westwood park to the west. pedestrian and bike connection. complementing the central park is the s.f.p.u.c. open space which is a more active recreation area. food trucks. other uses that evolve over time. provide space for the child care which is a critical family amenity for the site. and this space also provides an important pedestrian connection with the lee avenue, whole foods and the rest of the neighborhood. next slide. we should be on the pedestrian circulation slide at this point. so one more beyond this. so together these two open spaces are really the laert of a larger -- heart of a larger pedestrian network. that is really the focus of this design, layered over the open

spaces, biking and walking. that network goes to the streets, the town homes and into every block. and it extends obviously out to the surrounding neighborhoods. and thinking about this as a family friendly neighborhood, we're very aware that generations of san franciscans have been raised in these surrounding neighborhoods and we really want to continue that tradition in this community. we really want to support that tradition in the larger neighborhood with these new amenities in terms of open space. and then on building design, the goal standards and the guidelines are twofold. one to create a sense of place. two, to get a fit with the surrounding neighborhood. and so the larger buildings -- hopefully we're on the slide showing the overview of the neighborhood -- the bird's-eye view. larger buildings are placed adjacent to ocean avenue and

along lee, which is our shared street with the evolving growing city college campus. and the building stepdown to three and two stories next to our neighbors in westwood park. within the neighborhood then, every block is required to have additional carvings and roof articulation and full story step-backs so that each block has a tapered quality. so the neighborhood as a whole fits comfortably into this hillside neighborhood context. and that we avoid large areas of flat roofs, monolithic buildings. lee avenue, shown across the bottom of the slide, there are taller buildings, but it's a critical gateway street for us and the shared street with city college. while the buildings are taller, the blocks are relatively short in length. there are lots of openings.

the streets and wide openings to the park. and there is a continuous active ground floor. this will be a very comfortable walking and biking street. then lastly, the final slide is on sustainable design. and we had an opportunity on this project to work closely with the planning department on piloting the sustainable neighborhoods framework. which really helped us delve into sustainability at all scales. to look at elements such as indoor air quality, equity, reresiliencesy, all the pieces that come together to make a place that is healthy in a deep way for families and all households. we created important reach goals. electric vehicle charging stations. we set a goal of making all the onsite parking spaces eventually have vehicle-charging potential. we set a goal of 25% of the

power on site through rerenewable sources. and lastly, critically, the project has qualified as an environmental leadership project under ab900. that means it will be 100% greenhouse gas neutral in construction and operations. so it's been a real pleasure, this design process, working with the community, advisory group. i feel like all of these things we pursued are deeply grounded in the principles and parameters that group set forth. back to kirsten. >> thank you, peter. and again, thank you, commissioners. we're seeking approval for 11 units of family -- 1100 units of family friendly housing. we discussed the amenities and we're proud of those elements.

we're very proud of those elements. the most salient housing issue is, of course, affordability. and our greatest offering to future families is 550 units of affordable housing. another important part of the affordable housing plan came from collaboration with city college which was the impetus for our project to provide approximately 150 affordable homes for educator households. based on the results of a city college survey, these will be affordable to households earning 80% of the median income. we look forward to collaboration with city college on educator housing and the broader coordination around design and construction with their facility's master plan. we look forward to the ongoing community collaboration. supervisor yee has extended the cac to provide a venue for community input through the

development of the site. we'll have collaboration on detailed design and programming of the park as well as other elements. our project will be developed with 100% union labor under project labor agreement. the jobs that the project creates will play a meaningful part in san francisco's economic stabilization and recovery. today, we're proud to seek your approval on a proposal so we can continue our work with the community, the city and the college. representatives from our design team and various parts of the development team are available for questions. and i'd like to thank you, commissioners. and now i think it's jeannie. >> good afternoon, president koppel, and members of the commission. i'm from the planning department staff. the first item for your consideration is the certification of the final subsequent environmental impact

report, or e.i.r. i'll present the review process and conclusions. the project site is within the balboa park station plan area and the planning commission certified the area planned e.i.r. in 2008. ceqa allows for subsequent e.i.r. which is a new e.i.r. that comes off the analysis plan and then focuses on topics that result in new or more significant impacts than those identified in the area planned e.i.r. we did a subsequent e.i.r. analysis for this project. next slide, please. the e.i.r. analyzed two different options for the project. the developers proposed option for 1100 dwelling units and the housing option with 550 dwelling units developed by the city. we analyzed four project variance.

variance one has the parking garage above ground. variant two moves it too the north. variant three assumes no bike access. and variant 4 shifts the north access road further south. please note that the project before you for approval today is identified mostly in the e.i.r. as the developers proposed option. next slide, please. i'll summarize the e.i.r.'s impact findings. the e.i.r. identified three significant and unavoidable impacts during project construction. these involve noise, regional air quality and localized air quality. the significant air quality impacts would occur only during a compressed three-year construction schedule which the project sponsor determined as the shortest feasible schedule. next slide, please.

the e.i.r. conservatively identified two transportation-related impacts. one involves potential conflicts related to existing loading for the whole foods store along the lee avenue extension. lee avenue is currently a dead-end street but would become a through street when the project becomes operational. the other impact involves transit delay under conditions due to growth at the project site combined with growth at city college. next slide, please. the e.i.r. identified four project alternatives. a no project alternative. reduced density alternative. an alternative that allows passenger vehicle access to and from westwood park. and a six-year construction alternative. the only build alternative that would reduce significant and unavoidable imis packets is the -- impacts is the six-year

construction schedule. significant transportation impacts during project operation would occur under both options and all variants. while the access alternative and the reduced density alternative would reduce transportation impacts, they would not reduce them to less than significant. next slide, please. the e.i.r. identified mitigation measures related to these topics shown on the screen. as part of today's approval you're asked to adopt ceqa findings that adopt these as conditions of project approval. next slide, please. this slide identified the key dates of the project's ceqa review. over the last two years we've held public meetings on the scope of the analysis and the draft analysis and we responded fully to comments. the planning commission had no comments on the draft analysis

during the public hearing of the draft e.i.r. in september of 2019. the responses to comments document in combination with the draft e.i.r. constitutes the final e.i.r. which is before you today for certification. the final e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the environmental impacts of the project, alternatives and mitigation measures. on this basis, we request that the commission adopt the e.i.r. certification motion before you. this motion does not approve the project, but instead it certifies that the e.i.r.'s contents and procedures comply with ceqa. this concludes my presentation on the e.i.r. certification and i'm available for questions. i'll turn it back now. >> thank you, jeannie. in the interest of time, i will quickly go through proposed action items. can you all hear me?

just to make sure? >> yes, we can hear you. >> all right. general plan amendments to ensure that the project and general plan are in alignment and to ensure that the general plan with specifics of the proposed project. the proposed amendments are in the balboa park area station plan, the recreation and open space elements, the land use index, and the housing element. these amendments are initiated on april 9, 2020. today we submitted a new version of the gpa ordinance which includes technical amendments recommended by the city attorney's office. the police act on the new version of the ordinance today. the project also requires planning code and map

amendments. the from public district to a new mixed use district and range of height from 40 and 65 to 48 and 78 feet. i'd like to point out that the community engagement will continue after the project entitlement. this community engagement requirement is written into the sud. at a minimum, it requires one public meeting. and all open spaces in the project require minimum of two public meetings. i'd like to take the opportunity to mention our recommended changes to the planning code ordinance since the ordinance was introduced to the board of supervisors.

supervisor yee has been promoting family friendly development on the project site and recommended changes to the sud. these changes include requiring a higher portion of unit with two bedrooms or more. appointed area in common usable open space. and oversized parking spaces. also, for your approval today, is the design standards and guidelines and the development agreement. it includes regulatory standards supplementing. the d.a. is a contract between the city and the developer and includes numerous exhibits such as housing plans, open space, and the t.d.m. plan. finally, i will end the presentation with my last slide.

a list of action items for the project. this concludes our presentation. i would like to mention this is -- this project is 8900 project. thank you for your time. >> jonas: very good. through the chair -- >> before we end the presentation, i would like to reintroduce jen. >> hi, this is jen lau, sorry about the technical glitch. thank you, president koppel, commissioner and all the staff working diligently on this project over the course of the past five years. president yee would have been here today, but he did want to

emphasize the importance as a community engagement, which is why we formed the community advisory committee in 22015. as was mentioned, it is going to be extended so they'll continue to be part of the process even after the project is potentially entitled. and i think that might also help with some of the mitigation that was mentioned previously around environmental impacts like noise and air. we do believe that having very tight communication with the project sponsor is key. it's important to us to not look at this as just a housing project, but one that completes the neighborhood. we're so fortunate to have neighborhoods surrounding this project that have been fit for families and intergenerational households. and we hope this will contribute to that, which is why he, along with mayor breed, has committed san francisco to becoming a child family, family friendly

city. and that's why you're seeing some of that work by really defining family and child housing looks like. what that looks like for the communities and generations to come. i think you're going to hear a lot of community input today. i'm so grateful for that because i think it comes in earnest. we want to build a community that is going to outlast us. that is going to be something we're going to look back at and be proud of for generations to come. i just want to note a couple of things still in discussion. just for the context of the commission as you weigh in today. none of them is affordable housing. this is the corner stone of the project, 50% to be affordable. and that very much because the community pushed for that. and we're really proud of that factor. and i just want to note that we intend and we want and are committed to ensure that these units of housing are going to be

dedicated for affordability in perpetuity, so we're tightening language there and we want to make sure we enforce that. we're working with the developer and city partners to ensure that. the other piece we're working on is around the relationship and the partnership with city college and the trustees there. we're entering an uncertain time. it's been very challenging for the college and especially given this health emergency, we all have to work creatively and collaboratively. and we look forward to that. particularly around the issues on transportation and parking. and so i do want to note we're in continuous conversations, working on the m.o.u., developer between city college. and the developments commitments are laid out in the development agreement. and also ensuring that we kind of tighten the transportation elements so there is public

benefit to that around the parking and transportation measures. i just wanted to make sure that i put on record that is something we're going to continue to work on and tighten up. with that, i'll leave it to the commissioners. thank you so much for having this hearing today. and thank you so much to the staff as well. >> jonas: very good. commissioners, if that concludes staff and sponsor presentations? >> correct. >> jonas: very good. i have been informed by my operations team that we're having a little technical difficulty. so, we'll need to wait one moment before we go into the q&a mode. so commissioners, if you would like, you may want to begin

asking any direct questions of staff or project sponsors. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: -- >> jonas: you're probably muted, commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a question for -- if she's available. >> yes. yes, here i am. >> commissioner moore: could you briefly talk to us about a phase-in strategy or is this project intended to be built all at once? it's a reasonably large site with four challenging corners. if you could, i'd love you to talk about a phase-in strategy. >> sure, happy do that. -- to do that. if you can put the site plan up while i'm talking, that might

facilitate people's understanding of my words. there are a row of townhouses on the western edge of the property. and then there is seven multiunit buildings. and our concept is to build it in two phases. or two-and-a-half phases. the first thing we think would happen is the infrastructure, of course. and then we would build out the town home with the central park and the four buildings surrounding the park. so that would be phase one. and while that phase is happening, we would have two parking lots on the edges of the facility for city college to service them during the construction of phase one. and then we would move into phase 2. building all the way to the north and the buildings closest to ocean avenue on the south. what we really like about this, the park would be really well contained during and after phase

one. so you would get a clear sense of what the development will be like in the long-term. >> commissioner moore: and then the last would be building out the western edge? >> i think the western edge, the town homes, what happened either in concert with or shortly before phase one. or they may build it all out at once. we imagine it will be early in the process. >> commissioner moore: could you also briefly speak about the time frame for implementation, when are you thinking of starting and how long do you believe it takes? >> yes. i certainly can. we have, upon approval with the

board, we have some time and attention to turn to the detailed design of the infrastructure and approval with the city while we also line up our detailed design of the buildings and affordable housing financing. and so we think that we could start in end of 2021, or early 2022 at the earliest. and then we anticipate that it would take about six months to a year to do the horizontal work and then we'd follow that with phase one of vertical development. and then there may be a little bit of overlap between phase one and phase two. or there may be a little bit of time in between phase one and phase two for the vertical development. so the construction period could span a full six years. >> commissioner moore: okay. thank you so much for giving us that oversight. i hope that you, indeed, will be able to stay on track.

we've listened to lots of presentations about very interesting housing projects. and few of them have materialized. this is a slightly different and more urgent project. and i congratulate to the sensitivity by which this is designed and by which you are describing the phasing of the project. thank you so much. >> jonas: commissioners, we're still waiting to bridge -- oh, it appears we may be back now. let me see. maybe not. sorry. maybe premature. okay. would commissioners have any additional questions for the

project sponsor or staff? if not, i would recommend that we maybe take a five-minute recess and allow the at&t conference bridge to reconnect. >> commissioner moore: i assume we are recessing? >> jonas: well, i mean, recessing in city hall is a little different than here. we just have to be patient and wait for the at&t conference line to be rebridged into the platform so we can accept public comment.

>> please call the 800 number and enter access code one and zero to be entered into the queue. we will try to go to the q&a for public comment. >> members of the public, through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> if the caller is ready, you may submit your comment. >> caller.

why don't we try the next caller. are you prepared? >> caller: i was on hold a long time. >> you have two minutes. >> caller: i am a homeowner and association member. this is my comment. planning commissioner was quoted as follows. the balboa project needs work. there is no m.o.u. with city college and the improvements are not tight. the m.t.a. has not been present. i am worried about the traffic mess. if i were still on the planning commission there are key demands to be met i would vote for it. the m.o.u. and better traffic

mitigations. all most month mitigation is offered to what they acknowledges are significant impacts. they should withhold until the issues are addressed transportation and air quality. they played fast and loose with delay by dropping the table with the ascending data from the final report. knocked off delay doesn't make it disappear. old data in place of new data. -- the city must remove parking to allow for transit only lanes and bicycle lanes. committing to maintenance and updating the signals on ocean avenue. success of the project depends

on public transit not private vehicles. safe reliable service is necessary. while we can be sure the crowded vehicles and long wait times will not attract residents. [ inaudible ] >> it is a fundamental feature in our pandemic and post-pandemic world. >> thank you. that is your time. >> you have 17 questions remai remaining. >> i am christopher peterson. i strongly support the housing components of the project. san francisco is serious about addressing climate and affordable housing it must allow must more pedestrian oriented multifamily housing.

the balboa site is a an ideal location. it is in the half of the city that needs to do its fair share. the proposed project comes close to realizing the potential of the site. the two changes will allow it to achieve full potential. we should eliminate the proposed 450 space parking garage and replace with more housing as described in the additional housing option in the e.i.r. the only rational for the parking garage is to perpetuate the high rate of automobile commuting to city college. the e.i.r. acknowledges more parking will encourage more driving