live. as we've done since the first remote hearing i'd like to enter the this statement into the hearing. making it possible to hold hearings remotely. on april third 2020 the planning commission received authorization to reconvene through the shelter in place. this is our 16th rea mot remote. if you are not speaking, please mute your mic phone and turn off your video camera.

do not hit any controls that may effect other participants. we're streaming this broad cast live. we'll receive public comment by calling the toll free number across the bottom of the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling that number (888)273-3658. when you are connected and would like to speak on an item that is up for public comment press one and then zero to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. when you have thirty kekds secos remaining eum hear a chime indicating your time is up.

best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to call roll at this time. war ba.(ralroll cal. (roll call). thank you everyone. first on your agenda is items for continuance. descritionary review. items 2a and b discretionary review and variance are proposed

for july 30th. staff was requesting that we actually continue it just one week to july 23 and add this matter to the consent calendar. all parties will be advised that if this falls off of consent on july 23 if so continued it will be placed at the end of the agenda or need to be continued into september. further commissioners under your descritiodiscretionary review cr item 14a the discretionary review has been withdrawn.

item 14b, just the variance portion will need to be continued by the assistance zoning administrator. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take public comment. >> : your conference is now in question an answer mode. >> : this is your opportunity to call in to the eight hundred number. press one then zero to enter the queue. >> : you have two questions remaining. >> : hi. i'm sorry. point of clarification. what's happening with the 590

items. it's being pushed to july 23 does that mean we're not discussing that today anymore. >> : plans that satisfied staff, we're continuing it one week. >> : okay. i'm sorry. what indefinite continuance means. are we discussing that today or not anymore. >> : it will be on the agenda next week. if you are opposed it may not stay on the consent calendar. it will be on next week's agenda for consideration. >> : okay. is it on this week's agenda still or not. i'm sorry. >> : it is not. it is on this week's agenda but being proposed for continuance. >> : okay. it is still on the agenda today

we'll have an opportunity to talk about it today- >> : this is your opportunity to speak to the continuance right now only. >> : okay. >> : just to the continuance of one week. >> : i'm absolutely against it. i'm really concerned about the impact on the pregnancy i wan tt to have. i don't understand entirely what the continuance means. i'd like the opportunity to discuss this matter today if that's possible.

>> : it is being proposed for continuance for one week to jul. >> : we would rather discuss it today. >> : i understand that. thank you. >> : thank you. >> : let's go to the next caller. >> : you have one question remaining. >> : hi. i called to see if i can request for a delay of the hearing one2 project. it was scheduled for july 23 due to lack of public notice. it was scheduled for today due to the error in scheduling. people are supposed to enter the

meeting-otherwise they won't know. they will miss opportunity to speak out. it causes trouble to our neighbors. my question is that can we reschedule the meeting for this fall. because of the corona virus pandemic. thank you. >> : you have zero questions remaining. >> : sorry. commissioners. if i could get a point of clarification. i don't think we received a notice for elizabeth being withdrawn. >> : we all received an e-mail

that it was withdrawn. >> : yes. >> : david and elizabeth were withdrawn. >> : 219 has been withdrawn. >> : as well as elizabeth. >> : i will add 219 as being withdrawn as well. the matter is now before you. >> : wish to continue items as noted. >> : second. >> : thank you, commissioners. continue items as proposed.

>> : sorry. including acknowledging that elizabeth and missouri has been withdrawn. (roll call) so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously search to zero. the assistant zoning commissioner can comie chime inn those variances. >> : item 14b continue item to the next regular variance hear hearing. this is also a remote hearing and a link will be available on the planning department website. the intent is to have this item heard to approve the revised

plan dated july 15th 2020 the corresponding conditions of approval. thank you. >> : you also need-item 2b. >> : also continue that to the date specified. >> : now we will be on your consent calendar. all matters listed here are considered to be routine and may be enacted upon by a single roll call vote.

you should open public comment to see if anyone wishes to take either of these items off of consent. this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number to get into the queue. we only need to wish if you wish to remove either of the two items on consent off of consent to be heard on the regular calendar today. >> : you have one question remaining. >> : this is john on behalf of the project 355 bay shore bulled.

there was a condition of approval. i want to confirm whether that has been resolved or not or take it off to ensure. >> : all i know is that staff has a revised motion before the hearing earlier today. i do not know if it include the revised motion that you are referring to. in order to take this matter up we have to pull it off of consent. >> : just to be clear that we got the hours of operation correct and not needing to come back to the commission. iedz like ti'd like to pull it . it shouldn't take long. >> : very good. we'll take it off of consent. >> : thank you. >> : you have one question

remaining. >> : is the member of the public- >> : i'm so sorry. the terminology is a little confusing to me. should the people who are on line talking about 592 avenue, is that not being discussed today anymore? >> : it was on the calendar for continuance. >> : that's all i needed to know. >> : it sounds like it's not going to be on next week either. >> : okay. thank you. >> : okay, commissioners. the matter is now before you. i will remind you that bay shore

has been pulled off of consent. it's only item five. it sounds like we can take bay shore first under the regular calendar. >> : move to approve the van necessarness on the consent cal. >> : thank you on that motion to approve item five under your consent calendar.

awe.

. . >> clerk: seeing no other requests to speak, we can move on to item 7, department matters. >> i am here for director hillis who is out of the office this week. there are a couple of items that i wanted to share with you that the department is engaged on post-covid work. director hillis has told you about the marriage recovery task force. he's co-chairing an economic working group with the office of economic development and wo workforce and this group is focussing on housing production and small business recovery. they are planning on presenting ideas to the economic recovery task force in early august so we

can look forward to seeing the benefits of that work. number two i know you are familiar with the city's shared spaces program that mayor reed launched in may. wanted to give you a little update on this one. this is a program that helps support neighborhood particularly neighborhood businesses for the business and community activities. this is the reallocation of the public right-of-way, sidewalks or part of streets and public police in a safe distance and with fresh air. you have probably seen restaurant pick up and at this point we're pleased to share over 800 applications for the permits. and to make the need and i want to let you know that planning department staff for current

planning and the key role and the city wide design group is managing and coordinating the program for the city at large. and we also have planning department staff with the department of economic and workforce development putting together the equity program and insure full participation in communities. so far we have given updates to the small business commission and the entertainment commission and if this commission is interested, we could share more with you about these efforts in the future. so that concludes my update for you. >> we can review past events board of supervisors and there is no record from the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday.

the land use amendment and also called the hub and recommended on approval with modifications and the commissions modification and the department and the board to pursue a nexus study and in response to the commission's action and the mayor introduced june 9 during the land use hearing and expressed during public comment and improved by the commission and encouraging supervisors to move forward with the legislation. the other was a request to put the legislation on told until further equity work is complete. after public comment there was not significant discussion on the proposed plan by the committee members. they continued the item until july 20. the rules committee held a

hearing on the mayor ballot initiative and save our small business or s.o.s. and the lack of controls and certain destination type uses and uses not impacted by the online competition and general entertainment, movie theaters and arts activities and remove 311 neighborhood notification and principally use. and these controls have to stay in place after which time to change them. and less restricted in the time period. and supervisor ronen had the most questions for staff and the planning department and oewd. supervisor ronen stated the support for most of the items and questioned why the changes are not being done for legislative process as could be done legislatively. the mayor worked at the board

and would have been able to fine tune the legislation that is more foes kued. public comment was fairly split and supported legislatively and through the emergency ordinance and others supported the initiative and could get a far reaching changes like these through. i would note it is not clear if any of the changes could be done the emergency ordinance as those are usually reserved for more restrictive controls. as of just a hearing and the mayor can place the initiative without board approval, at the end of the hearing the committee filed the item and didn't take further action. the board considered supervisor peskin's ordinance that would allow the expansion of the central police station and the north beach and that passed the first reading. that is all i have for you today.

>> they adopted a resolution centering preservation planning with racial and social equity similar to what the planning commission had done and adopted recommendation for the approval for the planning code amendment on your agenda later today regarding continuation of certain nonconforming parking lots in the mission street and supporting 1315 waller street. seeing no questions, we can move on to general public comment. at this time members may address the commission. with respect to agenda item, 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 number of speakers exceed

the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. let's open up the public comment line. [instructions] again, members of the public this is the opportunity to call 800 number and press 1 and 0 to enter the queue. >> caller: hi. my name is katie and i am a counselor at hoover middle school, and i'm calling in support of prop e, affordable homes for educators and families. san francisco is in a severe housing crisis right now and we're in desperate need of affordable housing. every year at my school we have about 20% from our educators and have to leave the city because

they can no longer afford to keep their family in san francisco. this is devastating for us and the complete presentation as we know relationships are how we keep the students engaged in the classroom and these relationships are broken every time an educator has to leave san francisco. i currently own below market rate condo. it is essentially a studio and the standing family and i am looking to move so i can live at an affordable rate. we need more solutions here in san francisco. if i moved in navado and i am one example of so many educators being forced out of the city. we spend all of our time every

day and youth in san francisco and as an educator and support they need for other educators and in the city and we need your support to make sure there were opportunities that are educators who want to expand their opportunity to have opportunity to do so. and specifically i am interested in hearing about two bedroom and three bedroom condos and apartments for rent for that part of thing. we spend all of our time educating san francisco youth and keep relationships and not hearing them down for our educators and families in san

francisco and expand their families. thank you. >> caller: during the recent decades the loss of existing housing has been a significant issue of san francisco land use, unchecked, such housing laws have have profound effect on neighborhood character and on the financial accessibility of housing. now, those are not my words. those o your words and they are in the summary of the updated and revised part of implementation document for section 317 and they have been there since 2009 since that document and the 2010 version and to the june 2010 version.

and as i said, this is updated and i don't know if the staff alerts you to this and i sent you a copy of the summary page in an email about an hour and a half ago. with a little note attached. as i said, it is revised in the clarifications have been revised and nevertheless, even with the revised clarifications that does not negate the reality that they should be adjusted. i hope that you read it and the staff alerted you to it and updates you on how they updated it and take care, be well, be safe. thank you. goodbye. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. with the neighborhood council and coalition.

about a month ago you had a case on your agenda that was continued indefinitely and that was regarding 4211 26th street in noi valley. i continue reminding the planner as well as you during the general public comments that this is not a single family home and two units where there were tenants living there that the staff keeps representing this as a single family home that is being demolished to make room for yet another single family home. this is not the case. and after i brought it up to the attention of the staff and there were two water department meeters and there is a history of tenants living in the unit in this building and back because there was no record of two units, with the d.b.i. and the

planning is not going to consider this two unit building. even though this director shows that this is the two unit building. fast forward to today when we have another construction project and this time the director shows this is a one-unit building and nevertheless, they show there is work to be done for a two-unit building. so i am asking you, commissioners, for help on this front. we need to have a standard being applied to these reviews at the planning department. how do you expect the public to react to this? one, when we bring it up to your attention that depending on the planner and we are not getting anywhere. we do need to have some standards in the planning staff

when they review the buildings and the projects and determine whether or not these are single family homes and this is really important also and the developers gamed the system and thereby the project is worry and merits your approval. thank you. in most cases these are multiunit families that are being demolished and by technicality being declared by rhyme or reason and come together in a single family home. and i am asking you to intervene in this matter and require the standard or declaring whether or not the house is a single family home or is a multiunit. thank you very much.

>> caller: i am the policy and planning manager at tenderloin neighborhood unit cooperation. and back in 2019 we were definitely excited and a supporter of prop b and the historic ballot measure and our city believes in the need to build and increase affordable housing and the trailing legislation amendment and to allow extra height on the parcels and for what can be affordable housing across the city. more importantly, the fine tunings to prop b are relevant to the viability for affordable housing development and vetted

with the affordable housing developers and finance experts and purchased a project and in the due diligence phase for another potential site in the sunset and streamline approval and increases and the benefits from prop b are combined with senior housing funding and this is an excellent example. lastly, i would like to acknowledge the benefit of educator housing with the need of san francisco community. thank you for your time. >> caller: this is jonathan.

and the planning code 317 and quoted a portion of that which says that we should protect housing units from demolition and argue that we should expand the demolition units against those things and the demolition calculations that prevent the renovations and units and very little to do with the removal of the housing. and planning code 317 should focus on what the purpose is protecting tenants and insuring that housing units and rooms don't disappear rather than the demolition calculation. instead of expanding this demolition calculation, the planning department should propose to remove the demolition

and allow for expansion and allow for more units and more bedrooms. and preserving on the tenants and the number of housing units on the bedrooms from the calculation business. you have one question remaining. little bit about the prop b trailing legislation that is before you today. we have in support of the legislation. and elected leaders and

affordable housing advocates and to make sure that was the campaign with 77% with the the multiple coalitions to make sure that as we know this follows sand really important we focus on truly affordable population. we have many for luxury housing and since i can't afford it. and we need to make sure that everyday working families can stay in san francisco and i hope you will do the right thing and support prop b and make sure that working families can stay

in san francisco. thank you. recovery task force is addressing housing production and small business delivery and the opportunity residents for the the communities and the important training services and the sfmta is on life support and in light of the approval for the reservoir. i ask that retraining becomes an important component of recovery. thank you.

>> clerk: that concludes the general comment portion of the hearing. i do apologize. i wasn't sure when some of the callers introduced their comments related to prop b, but it appears as though three of those public comments related to prop b were certainly meant for items 9a and b for the affordable housing and educator streamlining agenda later today on the agenda. commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar. item 4 was pulled off of consent for case 2019-021084cua at 355 bayshore boulevard. and this is the conditional use authorization and it seems as though we can take care of this fairly quickly and i did need to introduce you to claire feeney

and she joined our department on the southeast time and a san francisco native and thrilled to be helping support communities in her hometown. claire previously worked with other municipalities and the excite to be back in local government. she has degrees from the university of southern california and university of pennsylvania. welcome, claire, for your first presentation. are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes, i am the>> clerk: the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff and the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 249.65, 303, and 303.1 to establish a formula retail grocery use in the pdr2 core

production distribution rezoning district. the project proposed would authorize 14,792 square foot general grocery formula use dba grocery in the one-story commercial building. and operated by a national chain grocery store until approximately 2018. there will be no expansion of the existing building and store front modifications proposed. and then the background subject tenant space and within the 300-foot radius and the formula retail concentration and about 33 commercial fronts on the ground floor.

and 24.4% of the approximately 12,000 linear feet of retail store fronts about 1300 and formula retail concentration of 10.7. if they were to increase the formula retail uses in the 300-foot vicinity to 27.3%. section 303.1 of the planning code and retail uses and there are not concentration limits to retail units. >> claire, you can clarify whether or not your amended motion included the hours of operation that wanted clarity on. that is the only reason we pulled it off of consent.

>> the original motion had the hours of operation to start at 10:00 a.m. each day and the project sponsor request we start the revise the hours of operation to start at 8:00 a.m. each day as many grocery stores operate in the morning. >> if the project sponsor can acknowledge that is satisfactory, we can do without the project sponsor's presentation. project sponsor? project sponsor, you may be muted. you need to press star 6. did we lose the project sponsor? >> jonas, he might have called in on the public pickup line rather than the commission line.

>> clerk: let's go ahead and take public comment then. >> thank you, and the planning commission here on behalf of grocery outlet. thank you for sticking with me for clarifying the hours of operation and leave it at that and i am here if there are any questions. we will have to go to the next caller. >> fantastic, commissioners. it sounds as if the project

sponsor is satisfied. >> commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung, you may be muted. >> my apologies. move to i a prove the conditional use. >> granted, commissioners. there is a motion to approval and second to earlier on the staff and on that motion, commissioner chan, commissioner diamond. and commissioner imperial and commissioner johnson. commissioner moore, and commissioner koppel. >> so moved, commissioners. that passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, we are experiencing some technical difficulties with the direct call-in line that we provide to

project sponsors and so as a result the backup solution is for project sponsors to call the public comment line when we take matters so it might be somewhat out of order when we take public comment in order to allow project sponsors to make their presentation, so just a heads up and more technical difficulties maneuvering as a result. commissioners, that will place us on items 9a and b for case 2020-10411pca and 2020-3036pca for the affordable housing and streamlining program and code amendments. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> thank you, jonas. >> planning department staff and today we will be going on two separate ordinances to propose to amend the planning code and

affordable housing and educator housing and streamlining and proposes to alter different aspects of the program and the two ordinances don't compete and make proposed modifications to either ordinance. it is sponsored by supervisor yee and proposes to alter the bedroom mixed development and the second ordinance is sponsored by supervisor fewer to grant additional height and allow parcels to qualify for section 206.9. jen lo is here to speak of behalf of their office and ordinance and we will have ian who will speak on behalf of supervisor fewer's ordinance before we give the department

presentation. >> thank you so much, commissioners. we introduced this legislation early on -- i just realized my microphone slipped. hold on a moment. >> clerk: we could hear you. you were fine. >> sorry. i had an another meeting and i didn't know if you were picking up on that and from a city wide level and keep with families here and attracting family or child friendly housing is having

dwelling unit mixes that include two and three bedroom units. so when we saw the educator housing project was green lit by voter, we were excited to help house the educators and struggling to find places to live. our proposal is to insure that the housing program and mimics other types of housing and require 10% and often difficult and difficult to build three bedroom units and we see that in other cities and it is possible to do that and political will and direction to guide with what

we've got and in talking with partners at the school district and talking to the mayor's office of housing and as well as the planning department and 10% threshold and feasible to set the standard to floor. and the educator housing units will have a mix of studios and three-bedroom units. in the staff report it is hard to sell three-bedroom units and i don't think it's so much that there is not a desire or demand for three-bedroom units as a mother myself and i know that many of you as well and with the

right size of housing to set the tone and the standard to not design only because it is more affordable and easier to do. we need to take a path and challenge ourselves to house different types of families and those with parents and to build the units and support and target the families in them that is a challenge at the board of supervisors. it is good and count on the

support today. thank you. >> i believe that who contacted me was unfortunately experiencing technical difficulties so supervisor fewer's office will try to call the public line and while doing so, i will go forward with staff presentation as a reminder to the public and the commission and these are two separate ordinances in one staff record today and there are two resolutions to be taking. one vote on supervisor yee's ordinance and that jen lo gave the presentation on and the other we will hopefully be hearing from supervisor fewer's office and to have him

connected. i will go forward with staff presentation and so as jen lo said, supervisor yee's ordinance will propose to require educator housing projects after january 14, 2020 to include 10% of units and three bedroom units within the existing requirement to provide two or more bedrooms and to occupy the housing without playing too high from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and heights allow these types of

developments on vacant lots. they recommend reducing to 3,000 square feet in the rest side where the electronics. and to be financially feasible. and for more than 100% affordable and educator projects to be producted. staff has not received any public comment besides what was heard during general public comment in this hearing and i

would like to lastly mission and in attendance and other questions you may have regarding addendum 6 to the housing element e.i.r. in your packets as exhibit c. with that jonas if you wouldn't mind if we try to see if ian has been able to reach the public line. >> that concludes your presentation? >> yes, it does. >> let's go ahead and open up public comment. >> your conference is in question and answer mode. >> very good, commissioners. and call into the 800-number and press 11 and 0 to enter the queue. hopefully the supervisor's aid has entered the queue towards the beginning. >> you have one questioning

remaining. >> ken tray and i am here with katie who spoke previously in the public comment. and the long-time former member of the executive board and teacher in san francisco for 25 years before i retired. and you didn't hear much talked about crisis in that world far away from today and the reality is if you visited any school in san francisco, at least that is with the pandemic, you would find too much talk about the difficulty of finding housing in our fair city. that is why teachers and school staff were so excited the prop 8

task was 76% of the popular vote. need and legislation to increase the number of parcels and the three-bedroom units in the affordable housing by prop e. it is hard to believe having three bedroom apartments could be in any way controversial. we entered the fight for affordable fight for housing and supported a mix of units from studios to three bedroom to support the wide range of needs of our members. too many of my friends and colleagues have left the city because they simply to raise a

family, grow a family, and they cannot afford any place in san francisco with three bedrooms and often two bedrooms so please support both of the legislative acts by fewer and supervisor yee. thank you. >> caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> caller: i'm sorry. good afternoon, commissioners. this is peter cohen with the council of community housing organization. we were very involved in the design of the prop b measure and has such wide support from san

francisco voters and the legislation in front of you today is just some fine tuning really of that very comprehensive measure. it was designed very intentionally to be a pragmatic piece of city wide policy that allows corner to corner in san francisco affordable housing by right with the number of incentives to make that work. and this is just going to make that availability of sites and then the feasibility of development all the better so it is a rather simple legislation in front of you today. the big policy was last november if odd thing is that we have had a pandemic in the middle and so arguably the legislation would have been here in front of you back in february or march. and so we just want to emphasize

and take from previous callers and significant housing policy if you were history last november was and this is just kind of finishing up the job. i do want to speak specifically to the staff recommendation and increase affordable housing with the site threshold and reasonable and not vetted. and designed prop b last november, we had a 10,000 square foot threshold already really as small at the edge of the envelope. reducing it to 8,000 before you was really outside of the box and very specific because there is sites that might have that narrow band between 8,000 and 10,000 feet.

there is a lot of questions whether those are even viable. anything other than that is kind of an idea to find it that isn't designed to respectfully ask the commissioners to support the legislation as it's been designed. not receive the staff recommendation. thank you very much. >> a commissioners, if we could bear with this one more second. audrey, if you could let the supervisors aid that needs to press 1 and 0 to get into the queue. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i am just calling to echo what

also support what staff has recommended. trying to have 100% affordable housing for educators will be really hard to deal with nonprofit outfits if we are dealing with 3,000 square feet. i am here to sfrort changes being pr -- to support the reproposition proposed. you have one question remaining. >> hello. this is ian from supervisor fewer's office. i wanted to thank everyone so much for having me today and really sorry about the technical

issues. i was on since 1:00. and i apologize for that. and supervisor fewer's office. thank you so much for hearing this today. as many have said, the legislation today that is really a small change to a much larger initiative proposition e and past from the november 2019 election and to thank, first of all, planning staff and audrey for the work on this and into the meeting. i want to appreciate your time here and one of supervisor

fewer's office and 100% affordable senior housing project moving forward in district one. and to the members of the community and folks from affordable housing that called in earlier to voice their support. we are excited that this project and others as well on the west side will benefit from the streamlined approval and the ordinance before you today will expand the opportunities and establishing the baseline height for the affordable housing project and we deucing the minimum lot threshold from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and the service level parking lot and worked hard with affordable housing developers and financing experts

to develop the original proposal and this amendment based on consulting with them and they determined really that reducing the lot size below 8,000 square feet would not serve any practical purpose for any size eligible that covers the base. and is supervisor did not support the staff recommendations to lower the minimum lot to 3,000 square feet. when it overwhelms prop b, we were very clear this proposal was about the large blocks that are feasible with affordable housing and we believe that drastically reducing the lot size from 10,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet across the board would give the impression to voters like a bait and

switch. at the same time not resulting in more of the affordable housing project. we ask that commissioners support the ordinance as is. thank you so much for your time. and apologies for the technical difficulties. >> clerk: the matter is before you. i will remind you these are two separate speess of legislation and should be taken up separately. commissioner fung.

>> i needed to unmute. and are there any educator housing projects that have been entitled or in the pipeline? >> yes, commissioner fung. and the scott key affordable housing project is in the pipeline and that is the last time the commission heard the legislation in late 2019 and two bedrooms, one bedroom and studios, and again i believe that the only current project in the planning pipeline. >> the last question would be related to the second amendment on reduction of the parcel size.

i understand staff's recommendation reducing it to 3,000 square feet ises a phi racingsal primarily -- is aspirational primarily, i assume. but also has staff looked at what building code requirements that kick in on smaller lots that would make it potentially less feasible? regarding the fact that you have to have elevator and number of exits, etc. >> yes, commissioner. thank you for the question. we have not looked specifically at building code provisions but we are aware that there are many building code requirements that come into play including el vators and additional means of

egress and common spaces that would make smaller lot size developments harder and also correct this is an aspirational number. we are looking at what the smallest number of parcel in theory could support based on the environmental impact which is attached as exhibit c and are reasonings for supporting the reduction from the 8,000 square feet to hear interest in the parcels in the past for this type of development using this code section that were found to be under 8,000 square feet. certainly not as small as 3,000. but we have seen theoretical or anecdotal interest in the past on parcels less than 8,000 square feet. >> thank you.

>> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. first, i want to thank ian and jen and supervisors fewer and yee for this legislation. i think it was said over and over again that people of san francisco are really excited about expanding affordable housing and teacher housing opportunities throughout the city. they are really grateful that the advocates could have stayed at the table to refine and revise to the goals of the legislation. this makes sense for the planning department to take a step back and bedroom mix and try to balance what it has experienced with the legislation here.

i really appreciated that photo analysis and support supervisor yee that making sure we stay with the three bedrooms. it is important. one question i did have for staff related to the threshold on parcels is i heard that i know that we want to aspirationally lower the threshold to the 3,000 square feet and let's see if legislation passes as is and what project sponsor comes to the department and this parcel and 5,000 or 3,000 square feet and is there a way for me to overlaw this legislation and what is the process now if one of the hypothetical projects did come up. >> absolutely, commissioner. thank you for the question. this may be best addressed by the zoning administrator in

terms of what avenues could be pasted together to potentially make that work. but under a straight reading of the qualifications needed to use this code section is the parcel or combination of parcels did not equal at least 8,000 square feet, the project would not be eligible to use the code section. and there would be something to allow it together. >> correct. sorry. i wasn't super clear. and there are potentially other code sections and bonus programs through the local or state measures instead. and in terms of this specific code provision and unless the lot or lots are going to be used

and 8,000 square feet or more and could not have used this provision and the lopsided requirement to use this code section. and this gap between the supervisor and by the department and support aspirational code and at the same time i am really sitting with the supervisor and folks who worked so hard to write the proposition to be thoughtful with the examples they are actively in conversation with and collaboration with the nonprofit developers.

just this idea that potentially putting and adding in the lower threshold would fuel unsettling advocates on this legislation. and i would support the legislation as is with the potential for a one-year or two-year look back. if, for example, the department or advocates are approached by people that say, hey, we want to use this and tried to go through the other avenues that would for me trigger the need to potentially change this. to get the projects moving forward and go revise it based on data of actually what is coming in. >> thank you for your comments.

>> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i wanted to thank the supervisors and their legislative staff for crafting the legislation. i am in full support of both pieces. supervisor yee's registration followed the support for child friendly design and i am delighted to extend this in amplification op prop b. regarding the second piece, i have given quite a bit of thought on the sizing and staff's desire to lower the threshold. when i come to really physically understand that 3,000 square feet is really barely a parcel of 25 feet deep and that is pretty much a small residential

parcel either in depending where it is and the economy of scale that can be achieved by an 8,000 square foot parcel is really not there. my understanding with the affordable housing and teacher's housing is going to be filled with union labor. and you come to the parcels and the particular provision most likely will not apply. quite a few cases like that in the last and we are observing religious institutions and basically lightening the portfolios in inner cities where church attendance has dropped to the extent that churches are being abandoned, we have never been able to fully realize the potential these larger sites held. [please stand by]

>> before i call on commissioner chan, i don't know if i can confirm that. >> commissioner chan: thank you. i want to start by thanking planning staff for your presentation, president yee and support -- supervisor fewer.

on the specific legislation, for president yee's legislation i'm supportive requiring 10% of the three bedrooms. i think this is a great way to provide more flexibility especially knowing that we might have different configurations for different families. i have questions about choice of the data analysis. i was curious to note where restrict the poor potential applicants to renters and only renters in san francisco. we might be underestimately potential demand. i'm comfortable supporting this baseline of 10%.

on supervisor fewer's legislation, it makes sense to allow projects to take advantage of additional height provided that we're mindful of historical resources and spaces. i am supportive lowering the threshold to 8000 square feet. it seems more flexible than existing 10,000 square foot minimum. i am kind of struggling about kind of lowering it to departments of 3000 square foot. i like to see more sound before making a decision. i think if the data could show that that potentially more eligible developments, it will be feasible beyond a hunch housing developers make use of

this. at in the moment, i'm not prepared to support before we have more comprehensive picture of feasibility. i would move to approve the planning code amendments without the modification. recognizing that we could review this one to two-year time frame. >> second. >> commissioner diamond: i'm supportive of both pieces of legislation. making the construction 100% affordable and housing is clearal very good thing. i did have a question for staff about the 3000-foot lower limit. in the future, assuming that legislation passes with the 800e future, should a project come that's lower. let's say 7500 or 7000 square

feet. if i understand correctly in response to commissioner johnson's question, it would require an amendment of this piece of legislation to go forward. do i also understand that the addenda that you done for this legislation covered for this legislation that we're looking at right now, covers projects as low as 3000 feet so that any future change to lower the threshold down anywhere from 8000 to 3000 would be covered by ceqa? >> thank you commissioner diamond. this is audrey merlone. the ceqa analysis that is required for all legislation, proposed legislation in this case, required an actual

analysis because the proposed legislation was proposing an increase in development potential. you're correct that if a future ordinance were to come to this commission that propose to further reduce the parcel five minimum, let's say 7000 square feet, our ceqa analysis has already been conducted to cover that amount. that is one reason that this legislation, it was introduced in february, it will be coming to the commission now. that ceqa analysis takes bit of time to conduct. therefore, part of our motivation for looking at as small of a parcel as possible, was in fact to ensure that we can conduct one environmental analysis that would cover a small of a parcel as we could possibly can see.

at least that aspect of the ordinance would not need to be reexamined in terms of the environmental impacts. if an ordinance came to the commission or was introduced by supervisor in the future to reduce the parcel size minimum, let's say to 7000 square feet, if something were to come to the commission for policy analysis, but the environmental analysis would be complete. >> great, thank you very much for that clarification. >> president koppel: commissione r imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i really appreciate commissioner diamond, question about the ceqa.

i'll go first with 100% -- with a fernandez o 10% of the threshe three bedroom. i support that. i do believe that there are three bedroom units that can be filled and usually, again, when three bedroom units are not filled, it's usually the case they are not income qualified. let's remember these are affordable housing. when you get into affordable housing system, there are requirements, residential selection and continuous or comprehensive paperwork for rather renters or homeowners. income requirement is usually a big piece why people are not getting into one bedroom and two bedroom and three bedroom. if three bedroom is at 60%

a.a.im.i. and there are differet incomes that maybe beyond 60%, that might be the reason they don't get filled. that's why the purpose of the educator housing is really to have mixed use families to be able to afford who are not usually afforded in usual the type of low income type affordable housing. i support that. in terms of the fewer's legislation, i do support the legislation as is. i do have -- again, as what previous commissioners have commented about lowering the threshold of 3000 and on top of that, what the staff has mentioned in terms of anecdotal

recommendation, i do wish that the planners would also look into or go into financial feasibility. what can be the 3000, 5000, 6000 square feet would look like affordable housing. what kind of units are going to be there. this is not -- when we're talking about 100% affordable housing, there's lot of financial aspects. is this workable? i wish there could be more communication with the planning and mostly when it comes to this kind of recommendation as to what the unit look like and is there really -- as what we've heard -- there are no current pipelines that is lower than

8000 square feet. as far as my understanding with educator housing legislation, the intent of that was to rezone large lots so that there can be 100% affordable housing multifamily units. that's my comment. i support both legislation as is. >> commissioner fung: in retrospect, regardless of my question earlier on smaller lot and the feasibility of those in

terms of additional building code requirements, it really doesn't matter what the size limit is in the sense that what happens is, somebody comes in with a lot of 7999 square feet and then you have to go through a policy amendment. which then drags it out. i have no concerns if somebody wants to do a project maybe commercially unfeasible. to me, that's great. i do have a request of

commissioner chan, if she would allow me to make the motion to follow staff requirements on the second amendment, fewer amendment, to allow the smaller limit so we can avoid potential additional process in the future. >> i want to speak to this. i know this is a question that come up. seem like from a few times about the what if we have something that is just below the 8000. we thought about that and that's why we have this provision about vacant lots and surface parking lots that would not be subject to that threshold. in the unlikely scenario that there is an affordable housing, 100% affordable housing

professional that wants t want - proposal that wants to be done on a lot smaller than 8000 square feet. if it were to happen, we allow for that because we have this vacant and service level parking lot provision in there. again, there's no actual real world experience that suggest that there's any way would be feasible to build 100% affordable housing project on a lot that's currently something else that isn't a vacant lot that's less than 8000 square feet. like it's just so -- i guess unrealistic at this point. the e.i.r. was down to 3000. this was the sort of unicorn project that came out where they

do -- they able to finance 100% affordable housing project on a lot that's smaller than 8000 square feet and has to be another building demolished, that could be done. it's so outside of the realm of what the experts are telling us. even pushing below 10,000 was already been pushing the envelope and went even further. we feel we have covered all our basis here. we answered that what if question, would hope that you would support the legislation as is. >> president koppel: aaron stark. >> i want to give little background on why we decided to go lower than what was originally in the ordinance. we were given two examples of

how this new threshold could apply and we were told these lots are 8000 square feet. when we looked into it more, they were less than 8000 square feet. i think church parking lots or something like that. we thought, well, rather than cutting it off arbitrarily 8000 square feet, let's see how far down we can go with the environmental review and leave it up to the commission to see if they wanted to go lower than that. as commissioner fung said, there could be a lot that's not covered by this. we were just looking for, we didn't see that as problem. if this commission feels that it could more harm than good then lowering it below 8000 square feet, that's your prerogative. we were in communication with the mayor's office and with the

supervisor office. we were looking at this carefully. we wanted oprovid want to -- wee you with greater options in your decision-making. i have question for the planning staff i guess mr. starr as well. when looking into the lower thresholds you mentioned, how many identified? that's not something that is provided to us in our material. it will be good to have those kind of information and i agree with commissioner chan in terms the data analysis being recovererecovered. looking into population citywide

instead of who are renters and homeowners are looking for affordable housing and what kind of basis. i think there needs to be some sort of -- there needs to be -- i need to see for my part, in order to agree with the planning recommendation. with the 3000 threshold, i did not see any kind of information or any materials regarding on that. >> thank you commissioner imperial. i think that at the end of the day, we're all on the same page that we want to see these kind of projects be built. just echoing what mr. starr said. we did carefully analyze at the beginning of this process back in february.

we've been told about two sites i believe in supervisor fewer's office as well as one in supervisor mar's district. i believe all the sites identified were institutional sites. the reason you don't see them in the report is very much they can't be relaid on as -- relied on as something to analyze. they were not public before churches were wondering what their options were. we saw that unfortunately one site would be far from feasible as you the church building itself would need to be demolished in order for the housing to be built. the second site was actually composed of two parcels, the parking lot was on one parcel and the church was on the other parcel. from the limited information we had, the church was not being

proposed for demolition. only the parking lot was being proposed for construction of housing and since that was his own lot that was well under 8000 square feet. the legislation is as proposed would not work. unfortunately, we never received much information about supervisor mar's potential site. we truly do mean they are anecdotal we had enough information to know that there was at least interest, if even if those projects themselves wouldn't be feasible. we're also aware of another parcel that is not vacant at this time is interested in utilizing the program. the lot at the casua casual measurement is 8000 survey. if a survey come out to favor the lesser of that number, then

that site as well would be looking at not being able to utilize this program. again, just circling back, we are not saying that this program will ever be utilized on parcels as small as 3000 square feet. in number is meant to represent covering our environmental review as low as it can possibly go. we want to allow the commission to consider other parcel sizes based on just seeing this has been amended to including a smaller parcels.

>> vice president moore: we are not the final word on how the legislation will move forward. we expressing vote and we're voting on it. i'm still inclined to vote as it is in front of us as proposed. however, ongoing discussions including what you just put to record, explaining the background to the 3000 square feet situation, can definitely be picked up by the supervisors again. even by modifying the verbage of 8000 would make it possible to have parcel 7799 to be considered. i'm making a motion that we approve the legislation as proposed. >> president koppel: commissione r moore, there already is a motion.

>> vice president moore: i did not hear that. >> president koppel: you seconded the motion. >> vice president moore: thank you so much. >> commissioner chan: i wanted to thank everyone for this discussion and for the background. i think that is really helpful to know. i'm glad that we are moving in the direction of wanting to beee aspirational. this comes down to sound data analysis. which is something i really appreciate. also, for what i'm hearing from the public and those who have direct experience building affordable housing, their recommendation is a huge threshold. i like to be respectful of that. at the same time, keeping open to the possibility that one to two-year time frame reviewing the potential development sites.

>> president koppel: there's no additional deliberation on these matters. i did hear a single motion to approve both pieces of legislation as proposed without staff recommended modification, i can call that item together. on that motion to approve both pieces of legislation as proposed, [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 10. [agenda item read] staffed are

you prepare to make a presentation? >> yes, good afternoon commissioners, veronica flores planning department staff. the item before you is continuation for serving nonconforming parking lot. this legislation was sponsored by supervisor ronen. i'll go ahead and invite amy to share a few words with you and i will follow up with staff presentation. am mamy here on the line, whener you're ready, you can share a few words.

>> i'm ready to go. thank you very much. good afternoon commissioners. i'm legislative aid to supervisor ronen who's the sponsor of of this legislation before you today. thank you for giving me the time to speak.

in addition to the small storefronts it on the ground floor and operating hotel, interior who was once the theater is gone. in its place there's a used parking lot that's been used an nonconforming cor use. right now in the midst of this pandemic, there's no viable redevelopment on the horizon for that site. especially not one that was conform with the historic preservation requirement. with all neighborhood commercial struggling -- no one wants to see the parks kept vacant for long. we cannot afford to stretch out commercial corridor further.

this legislation would allow viable development plan to celebrate and preserve the historic significance of this magnificent landmark property. i want to thank planning staff and veronica flores for her work on this. on behalf of supervisor ronen i'm requesting that you recommend this legislation for approval. >> thank you amy. just to reiterate, the ordinance allow parking lots located behind the hotel will continue for an additional five years beyond the current expiration date. the parking lot itself is not a historic resource. but the ordinance does pertain to a parking lot located on the same parcel as designated city landmark. what that mean means is any alteration or new construction on the parking lot still require

architectural review by the a.r.c. from the historic preservation commission. as additional discussion over proposal at this parking lot site compare to parking lots that are not on designated city landmarks. as commission secretary noted earlier, this item in front of the historic preservation commission yesterday, during which time they recommended approval of the ordinance. to date, the department has not received any public comments regarding this ordinance. lastly, the department recommends that the commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance because it supports the commerce and industry elements to support existing commercial businesses in the ordinance supports the mission area plan goals to continue existing legal nonconforming uses that benefit the neighborhood.

the department also notes that the ordinance would help prevent a vacancy on mission street which has been an increasing concern and all commercial corridors, especially under the covid-19 circumstances. this concludes staff presentation. we are both available to answer any questions. thank you. >> president koppel: that concludes the presentation. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to call the 800 number. commission.

i'm a long time resident to the mission. i like to reexamine this. i think my concern is that this is a large street flat double parking lot. although it's a historic landmark, by continuing to use it as a parking lot, i feel like it's on the property owner to not redevelop this area and continue using it to make money off cars parking there instead of using it for affordable housing, or any housing at all.

[indiscernible] >> president koppel: that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner fung: move for the approval of the amendment. >> president koppel: second. >> second.

>> thanks. i think it's worth noting to the person that called in, i know in general when you look at parking lot, i totally get that in supportive of that notion p.p. i think it makes sense to give the other than more -- owner more time to develop a viable plan, something many folks, including supervisors office and the department made important to us to think about how that can be better utilized. i want to say that for public

discourse. hopefully support the motion and the second. >> president koppel: thank you. that is a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter. on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 11. [agenda item read] is staff prepare to present? >> thank you. good afternoon members.

i serve as the data and analytic manager for the san francisco planning department. before we present on the 2019 housing data, i'll be providing very brief update on the delivery of mandated reports for 2020 and forecast of reports expected to be delivered within the following year. at this time, i like to ask her to share her screen as i continue on with the presentation. the planning department data and analytics team is responsible for the data collection analysis and delivery of the range of state and locally mandated monitoring reports. however, due to the evolving circumstances arising from the covid-19 pandemic, including the deployment of analytic staff, providing data and analysis to or ongoing covid-19 recovery efforts as well as hiring freeze from the projects budget shortfall which impacts the

department's ability to fill existing vacant analytics positions. the housing inventory and housing balance to reports are the two reports that have been completed thus far and are available on the sf planning.org website. they were published back in april. the following reports are going to be expected to be delivered on time and really this is specifically targeted towards the quarterly pipeline data sets that are issued. the target completion for the following reports are going to be delayed including the q1, 2020 pipeline data set. the remaining reports on this screen here and couple of community area plan reports including market octavia and downtown, those are expected to be delivered later on this year.

finally, the commerce and industry report as well as the housing and balance report that is due this fall will be expected to be delivered in the upcoming q1 of 2021. staff is undertaking an initiative to consolidate the reporting requirements with the goal of really streamlining these reporting requirements and minimizing the manuel data processing that is currently happening or that is required to compile these reports as well as to eliminate any areas of duplicative reporting and making the information more accessible both to the public and youthful to staff -- useful to staff. as you can see here, there are four broad areas of topics that are covered across these monitoring reports. they include everything from

area plan monitoring to housing production reports of various times. a report on the economy through the commerce industry report and finally, a report that discusses the impact fee fees fees that ae collected from various development projects and the investment of those respective fees back in the community for which development projects have been approved. in total we have about 15 reports across all of these monitoring initiatives that are published varying times throughout the year or at different frequencies.

there are two areas minimum where there are potential for consolidation for these reports. one is that we take all of these area plan monitoring reports and combine those with the interagency plan implementation committee also known ipic report. second opportunity really is also to take a fresh look at the emetrics that are identified across these reports and really find opportunities to refine them to support the city's major planning policy initiatives and identifying new sources of data to help enrich our understanding of how the city is changing overtime. staff initiating outreach this summer. both across city agencies that

depend on these reports as well as with community stakeholders and interest groups. a formal proposal will be presented to the planning commission following this outreach before the end of the year. with that, i like to turn it over. she will be presenting on the 2019 housing inventory and housing data. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with the data analysis group and land use planning team at the planning department. i will be presenting on the 2019 housing inventory report. the housing inventory is planning department annual survey of housing production trend in san francisco. the report details changes in the city's housing stock including housing construction, demolition and alteration. in addition to other topics. this report is 50th in the series and presents housing production activity completed or

authorized during the year 2019. the first part of this presentation will focus on trends and current housing production. the construction of new housing in 2019 total about 4850 units which represents 85% increase from 2018. the year 2019, also saw a loss of about 160 units which added together with new units comes to 4700 net units to the housing stock. this total net addition is an 82% increase from the previous year. the total 160 units in 2019 due to demolition is slightly higher than in previous years. 139 units that were demolished. 18 units last year of nonconforming units. now i'll be sharing details on types of units produce produced9

based on affordability and various housing programs. affordable housing made up 31% of new units added to the housing stock in 2019. 1456 total affordable units were completed. including 405 inclusionary units and 1 stetc 177 new secondary u. breaking the affordable housing units down. 335 units are affordable to house holds earning between 50% to 80% a.m.i.

switching to regional comparison now. san francisco accounted for 13% of total permits issued in the bay area in 2019. alameda county leads 27% total permits issued in santa clara county follows 22%. there were about 22,700 units authorized for construction in 2019. this had decreased 30% from the previous year which had about 32,700 total units authorized regionally. now i'll be going over findings. housing balance report is completed biannually to monitor report on the housing balance

between new market rate and housing production. the house balance is defined at the proportion of all new affordable housing units to the total number of all new housing units for a ten-year period. accounting for any losses units from protective status. the housing balance report found that the city housing balance is 21.5%. expanded housing balance which includes we have required units 28.6%. this expanded housing balance little more than 1% from the previous year. original housing allocation is represented housing need by income level for each jurisdiction. we provide the state department of housing with annual progress report detailing number of units authorized for construction that meet this allocation. we only report building permits issued or approved by d.b.i.

by 2019 progress report shows that we authorized 3297 units towards requirements. this is the column highlighted in yellow. we met 65% of total allocation. now i'll be presenting the most recent pipeline report published for 2019q4. there were approximately 74,000 net units in the pipeline. about 19% of these units are affordable units. not all the projects under -- this number may changeover time. about 39% are entitled to

multiuse project as shown in that list below the pie chart. the full housing inventory report is available on the planning department's website, sfplaninplaning.org. this concludes the presentation. i'm available for any comments or questions. pla >> president koppel: thank you. we should open up for public comment. commissioners i apologize. citywide director had a comment. >> thank you very much commission secretary and thank you for helping me remember to introduce michelle littlefield to the planning commission.

this is her first presentation. she's been with us since december 2019, this is the first time you guys to hear about her work. she's part of managing this team and this work. as you heard, one of her projects is working to rationalize our data reporting and make it automatic. we welcome that. she worked to improve our housing data process under the mayor's office program. before joining us, she did similar work with the digital service and analytical program with redwood city.

she's very active in the bay area civic innovation network and code for america. she's cultivated public private partnerships with silicone valley tech firms and sanford university and frequent speaker on topic. we are very proud to have her joining sf planning. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is peter cohen from the counsel of community housing organizations. i thought i take a moment to call in and thank the staff for putting together this nice summary of all this data from the housing inventory. some of us really love to get into the data. kind of data nerd. what's really helpful with these annual snapshots is to step back

and help us as hopeful advocates to see how we're doing and really meeting our housing needs. one of the things about covid-19 that really i think open lot of our eyes even more so than normal is what an unequal impact this pandemic and the economic crises is having on san franciscans. when it comes to housing security, housing access, it's not surprising this falls along race and class. these are things many of us in affordable housing have known all along. we kind of get numb by these numbers in these reports. seeing these highlights in the staff presentation and context what's really happening on the

ground in the current moment and who really is winners and losers in our housing policy is important to take stock of. i want to comment specifically on one particular slide which is lot of numbers but it tells lot of things. on the regional needs allocation, so called rena and how the city has done so far with each income category relative to those goals. which are the housing element goals. it's really striking that for every category of below market housing, we're far below where we should be. not even 50%. whereas, the above model is already above 100%. it's not to say anti-market rate housing position. i want to make sure on the record that's clear. we need to have more of a

balance between that affordable production and access and market rate. that's what we see playing out now with covid-19. again, hopefully this is very enlightening to you as well as it is to us. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i really want to echo peter information, think being what's happening and how we can go about maximizing the number of homes and maximizing number of affordable homes in san francisco. one thing we can agree about, we need to find ways to -- [indiscernible]

one of the other things, geographical breakdown across the city. lot of conversation about increasing the amount of housing at all income levels.

continuing to try to do everything we can. if i'm not mistaken, mayor office producing 5000 new homes every year. it's higher than it has been traditionally in 2019. if there are ways that we can streamline this production, especially if it means more affordable housing, that's a fantastic way. [indiscernible]

>> president koppel: that will conclude public comment portion of this item. matter is now before you. this is only an informational item. if there are no comments -- commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for staff. the report shows how many units were entitled and completed this

year. i assume you have those numbers for the previous nine years. do we have the data that shows what units and those previous nine years have been completed? what the number of units that were entitled but were not completed? >> thank you commissioner. actually, if i believe we havet data. if that's something that of interest to commission, we can go back and do little bit more research. can you confirm that? >> sure. we do actually take a look at the pipeline of specific project. we know when it was filed when it was entitled.

that information is reported to the state. we can definitely follow up with that information if needed. if yo >> commissioner fung: you have a ballpark number how many units are entitled but have not started construction? >> that is in the pipeline. michelle, i'm not sure if you have that information readily available. >> let me take a look. let me take a few minutes here if there are other questions i can come back. >> commissioner imperial: presid ent koppel, i'm in there also.

>> president koppel: i do see you there. i have commissioner imperial in front of you. >> thank you for staff as well and having this data and being more accessible. i do have just one question. it's more regarding the density bonus program. i guess in terms of like -- i see the numbers that there's more developments using the city borders. can we explain why that might

be? is it geographic location? >> on page 26 of the report, we have number of units by density bonus program. we do not look into the exact reason why a certain program may have more units than another. we can follow up with you with further clarif clarity on that. >> thank you. >> vice president moore: thank you. i want to thank our group for doing an excellent job. each year i'm impressed by not only the complexity of the data but incredibly clear graphic format in which the department delivers data.

[please stand by]

thank you for the real talk. talking about the department in the midst of the current crisis we're in and also thinking about the long kind of arc of reporting is it and keeping us to understand how we will take a fresh look at the idea and how we look at and report on the new landscape and priorities and reand and and value and as mr. and and and i think and and puttingens tee and on the eastside of and majority of and and and dog housing so more than 10 units but the thing that comes up every year is we continue to fall short of really

having a balance and it's up in his comments creative ways we can better fund affordable housing and because we know the pain really sits at that and lack of affordable housing and and it's really struck by -- it's really great we're building family side units two and three bedroom units and also just thinking about from this an lens when we look at types of housing not only can help stabilize people but provide opportunities that have been stripped from communities of colour, it's not providing home ownership, affordable home ownership to people and that's the promise

we're not just having folks that are in low income or subsidized housing but we're providing a ladder for folks to develop to be able to not only stay in the city but drive and so that is something that i really wanted to point out and then you know, every year we talk about this. as long as i've been in the commission, the inbalance of where we're building housing, comes up when you look at the idea the marina is providing seven new units and the market is providing 2800 new units you have to ask yourself why is that and for many so means for why that is, but what are we going to do in the future to make sure that every district is contributing to the affordable housing youth that the city and the housing needs of the city and i have to point out that imbalance and i know that this

commission has repeatedly said it has the will to make sure that there is more housing being built on the west side of the city and places that are not at risk of displacement and we need to keep our eyes on the prize and making sure that we're meeting those goals in a way that is spread out equally across the city. >> so, those are my comments. thank you so much again to staff. >> commissioner chan. >> commissione commissioner chae muted. >> there we go. thank you so much fellow commissioners for your comments it and to planning staff for preparing these reports. making a date available to the public and the commission. it's really valuable to have this information and the standard and consistent format so thank you for that. i think in light of the memo

about staffing shortages, i want to acknowledge that i hear you and i look forward to seeing the proposals to consolidate the work plan and i feel like this would be an opportunity to maybe step back and ask some of the larger questions about how we're approaching data and why and provide observations and the first observation is really reading these reports, it struck me how the conversation around housing is often framed around physical widgets and things and housing as units and for me, it would be interesting to shift the conversation to think about the people who live in that housing, right. and we talk about housing inventory and production, how do we shift that intentional tee to talk about housing as homes and thinking you know, we are interested in the people who live in the housing and not just the counting of the housing units and i want to edge courage

us to think about a people-first approach to think about the value that we might have at the city and it has figure no our calculations and we talk about what we're building and where and what we're not building. the second observation i feel like we often treat they are isolated from the other needs that people have and than mobility needs and people have different needs aside from just having to live in the place that they have a room over there heads and so how does this figure into our calculations when they think of holistic needs and how do we situate our conversations around housing and homes with historical and present context and and so

fourth and how is housing just one piece of that puzzle the housing inventory is one snapshot in time and i'm curious to know how we can take a more proactive stance so using this document to figure out having worked incentivized more builders and trying to understand the barriers and builders and for public so that can see hopefully better projects before the commission. and so those are my broad observations and i have this two check comments on the reports and for the definitions of affordable housing on page 32, i was curious about the use of the definition of the metro fair market rent area for san francisco and it includes marin county and san mateo county and i believe that the meeting household income flight be higher for san francisco and we

night not just taking adjacent geography but matching it to our economic ties and were the location of jobs in the commute pattern might show and so a suggestion would be to look at housing and our economic ties and on page 13, the chart, you have to show this in your presentation about the number of units authorized for construction and and it might be a good example of later focus on housing units rather than a more

critical piece and inform and quality housing. so with that, thank you staff for providing these reports and it's important work and i look forward to seeing what you are working future. >> so i have a question for anne marie. and director hillis' absence. the report generates a huge amount of data, beautifully organized and addressing key data points that we're tracking. i'm curious what conclusions that the department draws from the data with respect to policy implications and what are we doing well and what do we ned to change as a result when we see this data. you know, where should we be putting more emphasis, what isn't working? you know, i feel like as a commissioner, i would benefit from guidance from the the

department. when you look at this report, what conclusions you the department draw about how we're allocating resource and what ships might be useful in light of what the data is telling us. >> thank you, very much. i don't mean to put you on the spot to say i need you to answer that right now but you want to know if you go through that process and that exercise and how do you report back to us on that. >> thank you, very much. many of our data reports are the data and sometimes they have do have some conclusions about whether we are meeting our, for instance, our arena allotment of the north of housing we need to provide at various income levels and it's they are providing data like our pipeline report. we recently produced the housing needs report which was a very deep dive into what the city is existing housing needs that was

looking back at many of these reports overtime so serial events and so the report is inconstant use by us and i think if it's something we're always valuevaluating for different prt reports and the housing element, et cetera. >> i would just push deeper and use the arena examples, which ok, you look at are the report we're not meeting them and what does it mean for us and it's a commission and are we going to shift what we're doing in order to do a better job of accomplishing that and have we already shifted but it's too early to tell. i feel like that's the missing piece is how we take the factual conclusions and change it into action on the department and the commission's part.

>> it will give us the vision for housing changes towards the next, you know, long range eight-year cycle and so that is one avenue where we can use it to actually set policy and goals and as you know, the general plan policies guide not only public actions that might be take not by this commission or the board but also they argue to review private development so that incrementally private development help us advance towards our goals. >> i believe we're about to undertake another review of the housing element that that data will be key in assessing whether or not the policies we have in place need modification. >> that's correct. >> ok. >> thank you. >> we'll keep thinking about it,

though. >> michelle littlefield, did you want to add anything more? >> yes, i actually thank you. i just wanted to respond to a question earlier about the units that have been approved or entitled by planning but have not yet filed for building permits. so i just wanted to share, actually, the final presentation if everyone can see my screen so there's a question earlier, i believe, about how many units are in the pipeline right now that have been entitled but have not yet filed for a building permit and so that would be this area right here and building permits not yet filed but have been entitled and wove got 1,064 net units in the pipeline right now that have not yet filed for building permits. however, we have 36 almost 3700

net units that have filed for building permits and in this section here, in this dark you clue talks about the major multi-face projects ands end of 2019 we had 28,977 units in the pipeline that have not filed for permits. >> wow, that's about -- i don't know if that helps. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, that would could be conclude this informational item. and hearing from none of the commissioners, we can move on to item 12. for case number 2019-014-0800 mack et street and this is a conditional use authorization and is staff prepared to

present? >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. >> great. >> good afternoon commissioners. alexander kirby and it's a request for conditional use authorization to establish a non retail sales and service general office use of 5,800 square feet, the third flor of 800 market street within the downtown commercial retail zoning district. it has conditional use authorization to establish non retail service uses at third floor in this district. the site is developed with an eight-storey building with retail through third floor and office at fourth through eighth floods. the space was last used in part by the exiting retail vendor which occupied half of the third floor between 2012 and 2017 and by an educational language

schools. the internal stair that connected the second and third floor retail use was removed in 2018 and part of the new lease agreement between the property owner and it's been vacant. there's no proposed office ten apartment for the space at this time. the department has received no public comments and support or opposition of this project and the approval of the requested youth is the project use of the existing third there were space and it's no longer viable foe retail tendency. particularly in consideration of reisn't economic shifts. so the space has no lynn and year and limited along the public rights of way and the loss of retail square footage and office would not be detrimental to the activation or character of the pedestrian environment along market for ellis street. o over all scoot age will be

reduced the number of retail space would remain unchanged for the property and and it's consistent with the general plan. for these reasons, staff finds the project is desirable for compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and district and recommends approval with conditions. i'll now turn the discussion over to david pen the project sponsor. thank you. >> project sponsor, you are on line? >> you will have five minutes,. >> does he have a presentation you need to share. >> no,. >> very good. project sponsor you have five minutes. >> thank you. and i was under the impression i had a little more time. i will try to be brief. hello, my name is dade speaking on behalf of the project team. thank you commissioners for your time and attention to this motion now before you, they

summarized the finance for and you this conversion and we believe it will better utilize the space which is no longer viable for retail and it proposes no changes to the building exterior and the activation of this vacant space will contribute to the vitality of the area and a way that is compatible with a neighbourhood and how the neighbourhood is currently used and enjoyed. it was conducted in 1908 for a use as bank and offices before in question is 5800 score square feet and 4400 square feed the most recent configuration of the floor was to tenant spaces as

was detailed and one half of that space was used by the retail tenant below diesel and and on the subject pace has been vacant since 2017 when the study group moved out the building and the retail tenant it turn it back as a condition of their lease renewal and is that one open stair was removed with permit as part of those lease negotiations and the third flor really is quite isolated from the street level and the space is accessed and an elevator lobby at ellis street the same one one gets to the offices on the fourth through eighth flor there's no public access to this narrow and incon stick you us

groundfloor elevator lobby which is entered via a key card and and since and the lease able space due to the building and and highrise building which 800 market is. these factors combined with others and use of this space particularly uninviting and unsight able and it's much more in charter with the existing office spaces at the floors above. efforts to lease this space has been on going since the floor was first vacated but since initial marketing 13 retail parties has toured the space and additional none of these reached the level for interest on an on sight from use space on the lower floors and they did not want to lease any space on the third floor. the businesses that turned down this include things like yoga

studios, electronic retailers and clothing stores and fitness retailers and accessory retailers. the only interest the landlord has received is is for office use. the landlord has marketed the space and these businesses have responded resoundingly it's just not a viable space for them and of course, this was all prior to the pandemic and it's worth recalling that the decline in retail was a global and local phenomenon before the pandemic even happened and the same time, the pre covid-19 he economy was booming and retail vacancy rise as an increasing number of brick and mortar businesses failed. that research, for example, more retail stores closed and 2019 than in 2018 and the nature of retail that is surviving in this new economy is not agreed' for large real estate, rather, these survivors are more efficient with regards to on side storage, they're utilizing their square

footage to drive sales and on premises and also online and they're focused on maximum visibility and not square footage and these are retail priorities that are stayed misses. and san francisco, even in prime retail centre like is no exception to the startling trend being exacerbated and the research has indicated that vacancy rates for c3r have grown by two-thirds. actual figures are hard to judge as many retail businesses that are not expected to reopen aren't yet showing on the market as vacancies. in conclusion i would just like to reiterate thee things. this space is just not viable for retail rack sann vacancy anh better suited and desired for and office use and activating

the space distribute. >> there are no immediate questions from the commissioners we can take public comment. >> press one then zero. you can call in and press one and zero to get into the cue we have no callers commissioners. >> the matter is before you.

>> >> commissioner mar. >> i am in full support of converging this space to office space and move to vote. >> i was muted this time, sorry. seeing no further comments from commissioners there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions and on that motion, commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan? commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson.

>> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that will place us on item 13. for case number 2019-005176cua and at 722 steiner street, this is a conditional use authorization, staff are you prepared to make a presentation? >> >> yes, i'm prepared to make my presentation. >> very good, the floor is yours. >> great. >> can i attempt to share my screen? >>

>> is everyone able to see the site photo? >> we can, yes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, shannon mug son department staff the item before you to is a request for conditional use authorization for a dwelling unit of 722 steiner street and 722a steiner street from a two family dwelling to a single family residents. the application was submitted on february 18th to 2019. the property is located on the southeast corner of steiner and grove streets in the alma square neighbourhood. it was built in 1982 by matthew ka it's the anchor of the painted ladies and a contribute or to the historic district. it holds an active historical

property contract. the subject property is a two-family dwelling consisting of a 4,493 square foot four-bedroom four-bath dwelling unit comprising the first through third floors known as 722 steiner street and a 919 square foot one bedroom dwelling unit in the basement and known as 722a steiner street. a one-car garage is located in the basement. a pa tishen at the basement level would be demolished to merge the two units. they would be removed from 722a steiner street. is the original use is unknown and the authorized use of the building is a two-family dwelling. telephone directory research indicates a dwelling unit with added to the basement and sometimes in the 1950s. water tap records show an application for increased water service was filed in 1967.

722a steiner street was legalized in 1978. per telephone district reresearch, the unit was occupied in 1953 to 1979. 722 steiner street zoner occupied and photographed indicates that 722a steiner street is vacant. the department has received no letters in support or opposition to the project. documentation shows that there have been no eviction this is the past 10 years and also shows that the property is subject to rent control. there is an open enforcement case for an illegal short term rental for 722a steiner street. staff denied a short term rental application on september 21st, 2018, because it appeared the property owner was not the permanent resident the specific unit being offered. the property owner submitted an appeal and at the time the appeal was being investigated,

staff found the owner was continuing to offer it after the september 2018 denial and an enforcement case was opened. the case can be closed if the property owner submits documentation showing the unit was an available for rental during the time of the investigation. and the appeal was snagged by staff august 1st, 2019 because of the period the property owner was not the permanent resident of the specific unit being offered. the property owner submitted a new short term rental application for 722a steiner street and on august 23rd, 2019 and the application is pending. the property owner is allowed top rent the 722a steiner street as a short term presential property while the application is pending. if the conditional use authorization is granted, the property will receive a certificate for the short term rental property because the property owner will be a permanent resident of the merge

dwelling unit. for the proposed project to proteasome proceed the commission must grant a conditional use authorization first thing that the planning code section 217 and 303 for a emergencier at a two-family dwelling to a single family resident within an rh2 zoning code. it finds the proposed projects are not compatible with the rh2 zoning district and the objective in policies of the general plan. the proposed project would result in a loss of an affordable rent control units and having stock in the area. staff recommend this approval. this concludes my presentation and the project sponsor would also like to speak and he has a short presentation. >> su you may need to press sta6

to unmute yourself. >> commissioners. >> sounds like there's a delay. i'm not sure. there's not a delay for us. there's a stream and broadcast delay but if you are in the system there's not. i am aware that some were having technical difficulty to get in so if the project sponsor is listening please call into the public comment lines they allowed for that testimony and the project sponsor does join us

there, we will provide them five minutes and then shannon did you mention they have a presentation? >> yes, they have one slide to present. >> ok. >> well, hopefully the project sponsor will join us through the public comment line. let's open that up. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press one then zero. >> members in the public and the project sponsor this is the opportunity to call the 800 number and press one and zero to enter the cue. do we have any call they are. >> he have one question remaining.

i want to deny the merger and i also want to afford the recommendations to deny (inaudible). we've had so many mergers of units and in the neighbourhoods and what we need is more housing not less and so to not reward and please pass the merger. thank you. >> so i'm not sure how we can afford the project sponsor an opportunity to make a presentation. let's go to commissioner deliberations and if you can keep the public comment line

open and hopefully the project sponsor can join us. >> this is the project sponsor's wife. i am not sure why he cannot get on but i am here. >> you'll have five minutes. >> all right. um, is it possible for you to show the slides we have? >> shannon? >> is this the one slide? >> one moment, please. >> we were told to join the team

so that's what we did. sorry about that. >> is that slide showing it's just a text slide? >> >> it's the photo you have in your presentation. >> >> let's go to our deliberations and you keep can you turn down your computer. there's a broadcast delay coming in through the feed. >> very good. object project sponsor. slide with bullet points is up you have five minutes. >> all right. um, i'm just going to try to

call my husband real quick to see if i can get him on the line. hold on. >> is that slide showing? >> whoever has the broadcast delay piping through your microphone, please turn down your television. >> y. i'm here. >> your time is up. and my husband is on the phone. so go ahead. >> hi, can you hear me ok there? i'm sorry. i'm had a lot of technical problems calling in. >> great, good afternoon, commissioners, together with my wife we own and live in the historic anchor painted lady at

steiner and grove. it was built in 1892 it's a heritage for san francisco and attracts tourists from all over the world. since we purchased the home six years ago, we've undergone major renovation to restore the home. shannon ferguson helped us secure mills act to preserve it. nothing is easy to restore. it requires creativity and resousfulness and always more costly than expected. there's an facade with stain glass you can see in the photos and facing public on three sides and many historic elements inside and outside that we preserve. backing up in time, the homeless historically is single family dwelling since 1892. owner occupied like 14 families before us. in 1978, it was converted into two legal units and you might ask how that happened? so, sfpdi issued a seven-page list of code violations including an illegal department

at the time. the owner then misrepresent sented on the permit application. it was actually a two-unit building. the inspector did not carefully check the facts. water and property tax records showed that it always was a single family dwelling and approved it. i met with joe duffy, of dbi and he reviewed the original application and concurred, the facts had all been checked the apartment had not have been approved. however, he advised the only way to change this now would be to go through a dwelling unit merger process and despite the legal change in 1978, city reference showed no tenants for the past 41 years and the apartment has been owner occupied all that time. inside our home is our only retreat from the chaotic tourist scene of alamo square. we should feel connected to our family in the home with a natural flow and integration space between the floors and

alsoing having an department creates major risk to the historic elements of the home and over $100,000 of damage occurred last year and when water flooded the apartment unnoticed for three days and finding and ensure they accept the risk with this home with an apartment as we come impossible task. one of the photos that shannon showed was the apartment in its destroyed state from the flood as we repaired it last year. the request to return its home to its original single family dwelling status, by making some minor but important modifications inside, opening up access to the space from the staircase from above, a space will feel connected and like one home for our family. we'll have two bedrooms instead of one actually increasing housing. since the home has been owner occupied almost its entire history, we feel merging it does nothing to reduce housing stock

in san francisco. and as stewards of such a historic and important home the city of san francisco, we feel returning the home to its original single family status will be beneficial for preservation. thank you for considering this. >> that concludes project sponsor presentation. i understand that we have a couple of public commenters still in the queue o so let's take those. >> you have three questions remaining. >> >> caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> let's go to the next person in cue.

>> you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. san francisco land use coalition. i am calling to support the staff's decision and oppose the merger of the two units. while the owners did mention that the two units were not rented parole in the past 41 years, i must admit did i not do my research to make sure that's the case, however, even if we take that on what they told us as the truth, which i sure hope it is, still, creating an extra unit is adding to our housing stock and it's not wise for us, at this juncture in time, get rid of an extra unit because we want to have grand, single family home in a historic

resource districts. the house has 4,255 square feet and 4,255 square feet that can easily provide two very comfortable and large size units. i do understand renting one unit is not going to be a dmr unit, however, it's an extra unit ha someone means would be able to rent it at this point. lastly i want to edge courage the commission to secretary owners at a time in 2014 when we bought the property where this was the city's policy was not to allow purgers of units and at this point, having seen the housing inventory report and the number of our production having dropped down i don't think in light of that and it is wise for

us to get up one conditional unit so i urge the commission to not authorize the merger of the two units and i support the staff and their recommendations to deny the conditional use authorization and allow these units to be two separate units as they are today. and, furthermore, i really think that one of these two units could be a fantastic home for someone so i don't know understand why the owners are stating they use the units empty then there are list to damage from water and what not and can cause the units to lose its resources and if you rent it and i urge you to deny the conditional use authorization and to not give one additional unit of our housing stock.

thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> >> hello. i'm calling in as a neighbour of 722. and i know that the current owners are using the building as a multi-generational home and in that case they would like to better connect one generation with children with the adults in the family. so they are using the housing to its maximum potential by having several generations living in the home and part of seeking the single unit that are connecting the home and really in addition to restoring it to its historical status and better connecting it. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners.

that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. the matter is before you. >> >> this matter is a disapproval so if there's a desire to approve you would need to make a motion of intent and allow staff to draft a motion to approve. >> commissioner fung -- >> this space in the lower part of the building as the owners

indicate was last occupied as a separate unit in 1979, 41 years ago, and i will note per their information they provided, it was used as another unit that only until 1966 so that is 50 odd years ago that it was regularly used as a second unit. i'm prepared to support the conditional use for dwelling merger and i would move the motion of intent depending on where the votes are.

>> well, looking at the unit and included what is the owner leaving unit as an airbnb. i am inclined to support the department's recommendation to save the units as a separate rental unit in order to also take our obligations to not merge dwelling union units. it seems very complete and accurate and we confirmed in deed the current owner has used the unit for income introducing airbnb and it makes me believe that that could be enough evidence.

>> who is speaking? >> mute your phones, whoever is speaking over commissioner moore. >> i'm asking staff to restate the part where the unit has been used as an airbnb rental unit. >> thank you for your question. so, the unit has been used in the past for an -- it was an application was filed on september 21st, 2018 for a short term rental and it was denied but it was denied on september 212,018th because the property owner was not the permanent resident of 722a. that was being offered.

and i know it was listed on airbnb and other type web sites at that time and i don't believe it's listed on airbnb or such or vrbo right now. perhaps the property owner could also clarify. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes, so i'll address that question. yes, so, we were denied an application for short term income producing representative als and contrary to what shannon has written in her executive summary and i don't understand why there is an open enforcement still open because we did address this at the time to close it and we have not rented any airbnb since the permit

application was denied in 2018 so basically there's no short term rental of this unit. >> can you explain what and again staff presented a fact that i cannot dispute on the inyou'd and i'(inaudible). i believe we, as a commission, shouldn't and can't support dwelling unit mergers particularly at this time. the existing home is sufficiently large with 4,333 square feet but it is ample space for even multi-generational living and it's for that reason i cannot support the merger but ask that the follow staff's recommendation for its approval so i'd like to make a motion to

disapprove. >> second. commissioner. >> thank you. i as well support the planning staff recommendation of disapproval. i think it's good for us in the commission to ensure and to also implement the zoning loss that we have here and this is rh2. if that's the case, it will be a single family home that is not appropriate for this zoning. so if that case, i am also in disapproval. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. you know, i'll just add, i think we're certainly i a i empathetio the changing needs of families ander generational families. in this particular case, the

listings that i have been able to see of the house when it goes up for sale had that it was two units. it also the listings that are still available online for this unit. it's a lovely potential rental unit and i think when we -- i think two things, one, it's important to ask to be very consistent in our policy as planning commission and as commissioner moore said, we've had a policy of not allowing dwelling unit mergers because we have to think about the lifetime of the housing stock and wanting to make sure in the future, there is an opportunity both, you know, for people to rent that apartment, maybe now and then also in the the future. and so for those reasons, i think that staff has made a compelling argument that i go with along the way that this condition has districtly rolled on this and along with the

opportunity to really continue to meet the needs of our count city housing and staff and for all those reasons i also support the disapproval. >> commissioner diamond. >> questions for the owner. when you bought the house, you knew it was a two-unit building? >> when we purchased the house there was an inconsistent information on that point. the city tax records showed that it was a single family home and the other records at the building department permits said the department was legalized. there was inconsistent information and it's also part of our request to clean that up. >> so, i am quite sympathetic the commissioner's argument for 41 years it hasn't been used as

a second unit. the fact is i think, you had noticed when you bought it and there was a strong argument that it was a second unit. it was a two-unit building. in light of ha an that and the t practise and the desire fon consistency, i would vote for disapproval. >> commissioner chan. >> yes, i think ditto. consistency with policy, to preserve a rental unit, and also just the consistent application of zoning policies, i am supportive of staff recommendation to disapprove. >> if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to disapprove. on that motion. [ roll call vote ] >> actually there was a motion. i made the motion.

and it was to -- it was a motion of intent. >> you are waiting to hear from other commissioners but that motion never received a second. >> and i made a motion to disapprove. >> ok. >> my vote is no. [ roll call vote ] so moved. that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner fung voting against. that will place us under you are discretionary review as items 14a and 15 were withdrawn or continued. placing us on item 16 for case

2017-002545 at 2417 green street. this is a discretionary review. please note, on january 2020 after hearing closing public comments, you continued the matter to april 16th, 2020 with direction and by a vote of 6-0 and commissioner richards was absent at the time and subsequently on april 16th, may 28thth and june 18th, you can continue without hearing to today's date and commissioner chair and commissioner imperial, you have not yet been seated on the commission on january 9th when we first heard this matter and so in order to participate today you will need to acknowledge on the record ha you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes, i have. and yes, i have. i have reviewed materials and (inaudible). >> great, thank you both. as this is our second hearing of

this matter and as is customary we're reducing the time through the chair each dr requester will receive two minutes to present the project sponsor will then receive six minutes and public will receive one minute. hopefully all the dr requesters and project sponsors have successfully joined us on the direct call on the slide. if not you have to use public comment line. i see staff is prepared to present so i will relinquish the floor to him. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, chris mei of planning department staff. you have before yo three requess for the discretionary review submitted in april of 2017 which propose one and three-storey horizontal additions and at the rear and third and fourth flor

vertical additions and the place within the existing family dwelling by two feet. the area we have increases from 4,118 square feet to 5,115 square feet. the project proposed alterations to the front facade and interior modifications, including the expansion of the existing basement level garage to accommodate another off-street parking space and the partial excavation and terracing of the rear yard. following the three dr requests the project sponsor revised the project which including a one bedroom adu with the first floor as well as some alterations to the front facade in order to accommodate workouts from the planning department. on june 26th, 2019, signing staff issued preliminary mitigate negative declaration. [please stand by]

. . . >> to mediate between the project sponsor and d.r.

requesters in an attempt to negotiate something acceptable to both. two staff meetings on june 15 and july 10. as a result of the meetings the project sponsor has redesigned the project resulting in the reduction of the rear of all four floors totalling 718 square feet, reduction in the amount of excavation at the basement level by 86 cubic yards, and at the first floor breezeway directly adjacent to the uphill neighbor's property line measuring 108 cubic yards. the revised project still proposes an a.d.u. on the first floor measuring approximately 900 square feet as well as an additional parking space in the basement level that no longer includes the lowering of any existing areas at the areas

proposed. planning staff reviewed the projects and have determined that the reduced massing at all levels maintains adjacent neighbor's privacy as well as access to the space and is consistent with the residential guidelines and the neighborhood design guidelines and is proposed back from the side lot lines to match the neighbor's light well windows on the west with a buffer to the a.d.u. and responded to the planning staff's request for the natural terracing of the year yard for the primary unit and the a.d.u. below with the emphasis on soft landscaping to be more cohesive

and reduced in size by approximately 78 square feet to the entry to the a.d.u. and more legible and walk in it for the dwelling unit and the planning department and accounts for the first floor and the new floor area added to decrease in size from 418 square feet and 3,531 square feet. access at the garage level. planning staff determined that the revised project does not create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. and problems involving rear additions and steep excavation and is not unique and to approve

the project as revised and reaffirming m.n.d. and the site specific measures contained therein. and i will turn it over the the project sponsor. >> we should hear from the d.r. requesters first. so if any of the d.r. requesters are online, you will have two minutes. >> this is richard drury. can you hear me? >> clerk: i can. i am glad you were able to join us. >> you have two minutes. >> i will be speaking for both --. >> you will then have four minutes, yes. >> thank you. this is richard drury representing d.r. requesters phillip kaufmann and carlos. mr. kaufmann lives in the

architectural gem which is designed in 1893, sorry, by the father of the first aid and that is his own home. and is immediately adjacent and uphill from the subject property on a hill so steep that the sidewalk has stairs. the homes are bonded with zero lot line and the substantial excavation threatens to undermine the variations of the neighborhood health that has existed until recently when a private developer often his forever homes and the house immediately and adjacent and downhill from the house proposing to construct a massive home with extensive excavation into the shared mid block open space affecting kaufmanns and other neighbors to block light and hair to the historic house

and the lampert's downhill and the developers wrapped up five notices of violations including a code enforcement declaring the house and leaving gaping holes in the roof and allowing air and rain to go through the rainy season. the city's own mitigated negative declaration stated and i quote, the project construction could comprise the structural integrity of the historic foundation at 2421 green street. the negative declaration continues, the proposed project could directly or indirectly cause causing substantial with the loss, injury or risk of death that is a quote from the mitigated board of declaration and the board of supervisors has twice considered this matter and found that the project presents

unusual circumstances and hazardous materials that appears as a result of the circumstances the project may have significant hit on the environment. and yet the staff tried to issue a third ceqa exemption and prepared and never prepared the negative environmental impact. and made clear that they wanted the developer to eliminate the a.d.u. and eliminate the expansion of the parking garage and the commission's motion stated, quote, redesign the project with sensitivity to the historic resource, eliminating the extra parking and a.d.u. if excavation can be avoided. president koppel said, i'm not going to be supportive of excavating on this project. commissioner johnson stated, excavation in particular is particularly worrying. and with the lesser or no

excavation. commissioner fung stated the large issue with the adjacent building and would be a starting point to redesign the building and minimize the risk to the adjacent building including studying the eliminating the excavation. and disregarded the commission's motion and due to 930 square foot a.d.u. and doubling the underground parking garage and the building envelope expands three stories high and the rear yard open space and blocking content to the historic resource which provided finding that the project threatened to undermine the in grip foundations that date to 1893.

the architectural historian's letter and the project will adversely effect the historic qualities and states that the project can comprise the structural integrity of the historic foundations at 2421 green street. and worked on the project at 125 crown terrace and exhibit d to the letter. and adding insult to injury and the preliminary mitigated declaration. and the final mnd and that is critically important. >> that is your time. >> thank you. >> is the third d.r. requester available? >> yes. can you hear me? >> we can.

>> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. and i represent susan berg and mark lampert who leave east of the site at 24 green and thankful for the time that city effort and staff have made to mediate this case. while we appreciate the project sponsor engaged with the modifications and come up short and can't support the current line. and not fully complied with the direction with the planning commission motion and not gone far enough with the concerns of the clients and with the association. thank you and i'll hand the presentation over to my client susan now. >> thank you, deborah. and thank you to the planning staff and to the commissioners in listening to the meeting this

afternoon that you all put in an enormous amount of time here in case upon case and i do want to assure you although it's certainly does sound like this is a case of the not in my backyard situation, i really do want to assure you that we have a group of neighbors here and three d.r. requesters surrounding the developer's property. all of us have bought our homes to raise our families and live here forever. actually, we really do mean that forever because that is what it has been. >> and the developer from day one held the pre-op meeting and 15 neighbors and welcome to the neighborhood and buy this place and remodel and stay within the footprint. don't comprise some of the last open green spaces in san francisco. it is not just about calhallow, but that is what we're here

about today. the green space is in this whole city to be protected by all of us. we asked him to remodel with that one in the neighborhood -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. that is your time, ma'am. >> we've gone back and back. thank you. >> clerk: is the project sponsor online? >> you have six minutes. >> this is property owner, and is it possible to have chris may put up the presentation slides? >> and share your screen -- >> before the time begins. >> the slides are up. >> thank you. and start with slide one. and start by saying the team has worked exhaustively and to address neighbor concerns since the last meeting over 7 months

ago and the project has been revised numerous times in the side of the proposed addition which was modest and supported by staff for three years and to be at 295 square foot addition. the slope is not steep by any means and a licensed surveyor and 12% and are clearly separate and they have all been refuted repeatedly by staff and experts and the buildings and there is no way they were joined. and we prove that with documentation and switch to slide 4. and address the concerns of 2421 which is mr. kaufmann. we eliminated approximately 50% of the proposed excavation for this project and started around 200 cubic yards and to put that

into contact and that amount of material is removed from the site. and one day of trucks leaving the site to take 200 yards away is a small amount. and to be 8 feet away from the property line and that is through solid bedrock and engineering geologists and it's all part of the ceqa analysis and the red hatched area on slide four shows the area of reduced excavation and if you could switch to slide 5, chris. at this level we eliminated all property line excavation and don't even apply to the proposal in front of you and no longer proposing on the excavation and

property line. and go to slide six. at the levels two and three, we reduced the rear addition and staff supported for three years and reduced that by -- [inaudible] on the floor and there is a blue hatch that shows that and we are 13 feet away from the rear yard setback which planning code allows that is 13 feet smaller than what the code allows. slide seven please. at the proposed third floor, we went above and beyond any request from planning or planning commission and even the neighbors hadn't requests this and decided to eare move a portion of the existing building at the lightwell of 2421. so we're not only using a generous 4'6" side yard setback and proposing to eliminate the

portion of the existing lightwell and going to be a better condition than exists today. slide 8 please. at the fourth floor we completely eliminated the addition so there is zero addition at the fourth floor. and if you could go back to slide one, two, and three. and the one on the right-hand side and the unusual ground floor bay window partially below grade facing my property. and concerns about light and air and reduced the size of the a.d.u. which is much needed in light of the comments about the

prior agenda item and asking to take the a.d.u. out, but i understand it is policy to leave it in. we have reduced the size of the precious a.d.u. and taken it 3 feet away from the side yard of 2415 and pulled it back from the rear yard, and no way impacts the mid block open space with the d.r. requester building next to us which is 30 feet deeper or something to that effect and three stories tall. and if you could put through slide nine and 10 for reference, this shows a cross sectional view with how minimal the red dash line is and shows the outline of the existing building and really what a modest addition we're asking for 295 square feet. in closing i would like to state again we have worked exhaustively and i can't overstate that with the neighbors including two multi-hour meetings with planning staff and city attorney

assisted and neighbor discussions and unfortunately, after all this effort and work and good faith efforts to modify the project, the d.r. requesters have taken a position that zero project is what they have demanded. no addition and no extensions and regardless of what the planning code says. and please approve this project. thank you very much. and that includes the project sponsor presentation and open up to public comment and as a reminder, members of the public will be limited to one minute as this is the second hearing. >> members of the public, this

is your opportunity to call in and press 1, then 0, and to get into the queue. >> is the caller prepared to submit your testimony? >> i am. can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you. christine pelosi, resident of san francisco, and mother of an 11-year-old who spends time at the property also and relevant to this discussion and the former city attorney and the biggest case was what went down the hill and landed at 201 a couple of decades back and i am about that area. and with the neighbors to

protect my father-in-law's home and the e.i.r. that was contemplated by the board of supervisors months ago. thank you for your consideration. please make sure that this full house and street and when there is construction and jeopardizes the left side of the hill. that should be taken into consideration. >> you have two questions remaining. >> small business owner and 35 years in san francisco. i oppose this project and doing a favor to oppose it because if this thing goes awry and any

time you get people involved in something, thing cans go wrong. there could be a catastrophic event here. and still blocking the windows and the light and when our neighbor to come in and try and create something that is dangerous and disruptive. hello? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. so i wouldn't want to be in your shoes if this thing is approved and we're meeting every night. and digging out and excavating is he going to go too far and --

things go wrong in a situation like this. >> thank you. and don't change plans enough to make this thing safe. you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. the mater is now before you.

don't jump in all at once now. >> as this was the second hearing, there was no rebuttal afforded to the interested parties, but the matter is now up for commissioner

deliberation. if there is no motion, as a discretionary review, this is a principally permitted project and it will be approved as proposed.

take your time, commissioners. i am not sure how much longer we should wait. if there is no motion or deliberation, the matter will approve the project. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: is environmental staff on the phone? the preparer of the addendum on the phone? >> commissioner, i don't think they are. they were invited a little bit

too late. i don't think they mate it on to the invitation list, but i may be able to answer some of their questions on their behalf. >> commissioner: i just want to understand how the mitigation measures that was in the neg dec and how does that excavation measure just get attached to the site permit? and does it get attached? if we don't take d.r., does that still get attached to the site permit? >> so what would happen if the commission approved the project, they would have to take d.r. because it is different than the original project. if the commission wanted to disapprove the project, they would have to take d.r. and if the commission wanted to approve a modified different version of the project, you have to take d.r. as well. when the commission takes d.r.

after the hearing, planning staff summarize the commission's action through a d.r. action memo which memorializes the decision and so in that d.r. action memo and the commission holding the mnd additional mitigation measures. >> if i understand correctly, we want to approve the project in the current plan and take d.r. to approve that project with the mitigation measure to approve the d.r. >> thank you very much. and just for clarity, and if for instance the commission fails to make the motion and those are the plans that will ultimately be approved. we need to take d.r. to approve

those plans and the most recent revisions that the project sponsor and those are the plans that we are currently reviewing. and the staff is proposing that on top of those to approve with modifications. >> commissioner: if we don't take d.r., it seems like they were presented and the project would be approved and how does that mitigation proposed? is that on the site permit? >> if the commission wants to approve the project as revised, you would still have to take d.r. and plans are different than before the original neighborhood notification back in 2017.

not exactly, chris, and submitted those as the revision to that project d.r.'d in front of the commission and the project that is before the revised plan and refer to the city attorney and this is a question for the city attorney and don't take d.r. and the project is currently shown in the most recent plans on the move and the mitigation efforts. the mitigation measure would be attached to the site permit when it gets routed to planning and as a part of plan approval. and the measure would be included.

>> that is helpful, thank you. commissioner? >> commissioner: i just would like, again, when it comes to architectural d.r.s, i would like to -- i am not an expert but seeing the effort of what the project sponsor has done and looking into the revised project and revised plan in terms of the reduction of the excavation and also taking into conversation of the lightwell for the passage of care ranked next door.

i do find the revised plan acceptable. i am willing to take the d.r. as with this revised plan. i think they have followed and i would still like to hear other commissioners opinions on this. i am supportive of taking the d.r.. >> clerk: commissioners, if i could clarify. i have mucked things up here. if you choose not to act and not to take an action and the approved plans would be certainly those that were first submitted with the building permit application and without the revisions that have been offered up today and to accept the revisions that the project sponsor has put forward today, you should take d.r. in order to

adopt those. apologies for the confusion. >> commissioner moore: thank you for that explanation. it is crucial to understand that in order for this project to be considered with the modifications presented for us today and looking back at the other meetings over the years and i have attended on this project and with the increasingly more difficult for commissioners who more recently joined to fully understand the extraordinary history of what has gone into this project. this project started a z a dead sinker and had unanimous support in the current form which is way back win in 1919 and early 1919 that there was nobody on the commission who was going to

support i because indeed it was a major threat to the historic house that is the most amazing resource and historical refours. it is a lovely home and i had the fortune of visiting the home and appreciating the grand your of the architecture of that vintage. however, as that project moved forward and by six or seven or more file on the project is taller than the traditional new york telephone book used to be. some got more responsive to pushbacks and morphed in front

of this today. only this project as it is today and in front of the history and into the d.r. requesters and including the commission who repeatedly said to hours and hours of listening to the project and would be a lot easier and i think the jenni rivera feeling about this project would be based on the common understanding and indeed the project and still code compliant sites itself and like this and many other neighborhoods in a manner that is pretty much defined as a pop out. and still basically used the existing plates is nearly a 719 square foot increase.

and it took a long time to understand it and the project applicant described the garage at home and other than going outside and upstairs into the building. and expand the garage and not significantly much to have the ability to come directly from the garage into the unit done by elevator which stops on the floor of the a.d.u. and then goes up to the upper unit. i have spent enormous amounts trying to understand the project and trying to really see it in context and all other d.r. applicants surrounding it and i personally cannot see that this project is impacting the manner

that are describing it and is down sized and done in a matter that is respectful. and technically the ability to pull back the garage foundation and the adjoining historic foundations of the coxhead house was most important move. both of these conversations over and over again and i personally do not have any major objections to what is in front of me. i would like to hear other people speak, particularly commissioner koppel's ideas interesting and is also to follow the project for an extensive length of time.

>> commissioner, every one of the talking points and this project started off at a certain place and leaning towards the project today. >> commissioner -- i have to say this is one of the few times where we have all sat taking a moment to take it in, i think. the reason is extremely eloquently expressed by commissioner moore. we have seen this project through many iterations. we have been quoted before and

just continuing to have concerns with the excavation and the amount being done and historical resource next door. and i just have to echo what was said again in looking at this revised project. and does alleviate concerns we had around the stability of the neighboring house and i think it's tasteful and thoughtful and i wish we had been here months ago or even longer just in the motion of being neighborly and being able to have this project move forward. and moving forward with the design is peaceful and thoughtful. i am in full support of the

project. and i would take d.r. and approve as revised. >> commissioner: second. and missioner chan. >> thank you, commissioner moore. and the background application. and i am comfortable with the staff recommendation to take d.r. and this project as revised.

>> commissioner: i feel like this plan is a significant time and taking d.r. and to allow for the approval of the most recent modifications and include reference to the mitigation measure as well. if i could amend the motion to do that, absolutely. >> clerk: this is a motion to take d.r. and approve and the project has been revised with reference to the mitigation measure. on that motion, commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner simon. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> a commissioner moore. >> aye.

commission president koppel. so moved, commissioner. and that passes unanimously 7-0. and that concludes your agenda for today. much earlier than i expected. as we are adjourned. >> thank you, everyone. >> thank you. [roll call]