retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www.

on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through the end of the shelter-in-place. this will be our 24th remote hearing. remote hearing requires everyone's attention and most of all when not speaking mute your microphone and turn off video camera. sfgovtv is streaming this live. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-415-655-0001. and entering access code 146 717 8911. when we reach our item, press

star, then 3 to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is up, i will take the next person queued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. >> commissioner koppel: here. >> commissioner moore: here. >> commissioner chan: here. >> commissioner diamond: here. >> commissioner fung: here. >> commissioner imperial: here.

>> at 1301, stockton street, conditional use authorization is proposed for october 8. item 2, 2018, 2124, conditional use authorization is imposed for indefinite continuance as is item 3, 2016 -- 3164g pa for the health care services master plan initiation. it is proposed for indefinite continuance. further, commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar i am pleased to announce that item 12, 2020-2118drp, the review has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance. so we should take public comment on just those matters proposed for continuance. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit comment on the matters proposed for continuance by pressing star, then 3 to get into the

queue. commissioners, i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. so the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial: continuance is noted. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners. again, seeing no members of the public requesting to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue all items as proposed. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us under commission matters. item 4, consideration of the

draft minutes for september 17, 2020. we should take public comment. members of the public, again, thinks your opportunity to -- this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star and then 3. the matter is now before you. do i hear a motion to adopt the minutes? >> commissioner fung: moved to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, on that motion, we adopt the minutes for september 17, 2020. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> so moved. commissioners, that is passed unanimously, 6-0. item 5, commission comments and questions.

>> commissioner moore: i have a question regarding the technology we've been using for our meetings. is there a possibility for commissioners to ask questions to people who are calling in? normally, when we're in chamber, we have the ability to call somebody and ask them to clarify, or ask additional questions. as we were online, it is hard to pose my question. is there a possibility for us to ask questions to the public? >> yes, commissioner moore. i don't see any reason why you couldn't ask members of the public under general public comment or commenting on a particular item. but i would suggest that before their time runs out, you notify me by voicing your request to

ask the member of the public a question. for example, maybe when their 30-second chime is up, or when you can feel they're concluding their comments, to just voice your request for -- or to ask a question. >> commissioner moore: mostly, it is as conversations evolve, other people comment and a question may arise and you want to go back to somebody who already spoke. it is more than incident than in the moment to interrupt and ask. >> jonas: that, commissioner moore, procedurally with the technical capabilities before me are extremely difficult. all i'm seeing when the members of the public call in, it's a phone number and it's not even the entire 7-digit phone number. we're only seeing a portion of the phone number, so it would be

nearly impossible for me to determine which person made the comment you're asking the question of. >> commissioner moore: thank you. that answers my question. appreciate it. >> jonas: okay. seeing no other requests to speak, commissioners, we can move on to department matters, item 6, director's announcements. >> nothing to report today. >> jonas: item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals. the historic preservation did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon, commissioners. there were no planning department items at the land use committee this week, but at the full board hearing, the board considered several appeals, c.u.a. and ceqa appeal and the various ceqa appeals for the mta slow streets program. first up, 1846 grove street, if

you recall this project proposed the construction of four single-family homes on a lot. the buildings were designed to minimize impact on the adjacent neighbors and featured green roofs. after several continuances for this item, many which related to the shelter-in-place orders, this commission voted unanimously to approve it. the appellant claims that the class 3 exemption was not allowed since that only applied to six units and this project included four units on one lot. however, the ceqa determination was not, in fact, based on a class 3 exemption. it was based on what is called a commonsense exemption. basically because ceqa categorically exempted six, the others would not have environmental impact.

with the ceqa appeal, there were primarily concerns with fire safety, access to the site is limited to one narrow passage on fulton street. they contend that the number of people living in the units could not safely leave the area in an emergency such as fire or earthquake. however, the building and fire department confirmed that the access was adequate and that the determination had not changed since. this commission also added condition to the cu, that if there is a design change, they need to come back to the planning commission for review. during public comment, there were over twice as many people calling in support of the project as they were in support of the appeal. those in support of the appeal stated fire concerns, quality of life impacts and bad blood

between the community and developers also came up. the people calling in support of the project made the point this was middle class housing, we should look at creative ways to add this to the neighborhood and adds to the overall cost of housing. they made a point that as far as fire safety goes, building in san francisco pose a significantly smaller fire risk and continuing to push development into rural areas and forests where we're seeing devastating wildfires. that -- [inaudible] -- change which increases the frequency and intensity of those fires. the arguments in favor of the project did not sway peskin. at one point he attempted to have planning staff defend the

occupancy. he then sought to get testimony from d.b.i. or fire while representatives from both were invited to the hearing, none attended. there was a fire expert on the sponsor side, however supervisor preston felt it was unnecessary to have the fire inspector clarify the occupancy code issue because he had a financial stake in the project. they overturned the cu because they disagreed with the occupancy classification. the motion passed unanimously. it is not under the purview of this commission or the planning department. note that while the project sponsor cannot build four dwelling units on the site, it can build two, effectively allowing the same project, just under different structure. the board considered four ceqa appeals related to the sfmta

projects, such as slow streets. the items were called together under one hearing that lasted two hours. an hour of that was taken by the mrent and staff presentations. the others were recently considered by the board and the board unanimously rejected all of the ceqa appeals. this allows for other slow streets and covid-19-related proejz to move forward. that concludes my report and i'm happy to answer any we say. -- questions you might have. >> jonas: seeing no questions for mr. star at this time, the board of appeals did meet last night and considered two items that may be of interest. 50 sueard street. and the planning commission heard three d.r.s on the property over the course of multiple hearings in 2019.

the planning commission approved the project with the sponsor to remove an adu. ultimately, the commission decided that the adu was not necessary. three appeals were filed on the permit by the original requesters. during the course of the appeal process, it was found that the calculations contained minor discrepancies, nonetheless, the project complied with 317 and was not considered a demolition. the board of appeals granted the appeal and approved the project. 3601 lawton street, the home sf authorization from july 30, 2020, to allow five-storey mixed

use building. the appellant argued that the site was toxic and the review was inadequate. it received a commonsense objection and is subject to the maher ordinance. while they raised concerns about the environmental review, they did not file appeal in a timely manner. they appealed the home sf authorization with similar arguments. at that hearing, earlier this year, the appellant was advised on the appeal process and time lines for ceqa determinations. the board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the home sf authorization. again, seeing no questions, we can move on, commissioners, to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission. when items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when

the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes, general public comment may be moved to the end of agenda. we should take public comment. i see two members of the public requesting to speak. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia. hope you're all well. i sent you an e-mail on sunday, two photos, before and after. it was a project with extreme alteration. and my issue there, it's a land use issue i think. it has to do with the ability of the rear yard to capture carbon. as i mentioned in the e-mail, there is a map done by your staff that shows that most of

the tree canopy in san francisco is on private open space. and i think it's important not to lose that tree canopy. even to any degree to wind up with a rear yard that is basically cement bunkers. on another matter, i want to talk again about 350 san jose from last week, which was very interesting hearing to say the least. and the two comments, two different commentators that stood out to me, which was at the end of the item. one was at 4:14, the other 4:20 if you want to look back at sfgovtv. i think there is a link between what they said. if it's thought about, and ms. pet rin said the planning department has a lot of design, surveys and plans and guidelines and sustainability goals that --

and long range planning as she said, that could facilitate a different project. and that could have been something on the rear, where it's big parking lot. there is a path through from san jose. there is a huge big cement area. and perhaps the neighbors and even the staff might have been rather than lifting and moving and basically demolishing the potential historic building, to put some units on the rear of that lot. and conversely, with what mr. cassidy said, in defense of his brother, was that, you know, they're spending a lot of money. i guess the point i have, or the question i have, is if he had -- if they'd done a smaller project, less extensive project where they still could have added housing, maybe four units back there. two levels or three levels. the neighbors were up set by the four levels and maybe that would

have worked and been a better project, moved along. and certainly there is a link between the two of them. i'll just leave it at that. i think they both had solid points. the expense of the project and the goals of the planning department. i'll leave it at that, because you're going to talk about item 8. thank you very much, take care. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is district 8 tenant. it's very common for a project sponsor or the owner of a building that is tenant occupied to engage the services of a landlord attorney to help with the process of getting the tenants to vacate so they can proceed with the proposed project. a buyout disclosure declaration that opens up the possibility of negotiations with a tenant to give up the right to stay is advanced initially.

the tenant is under no obligation to reply or agree to talk about a buyout and this form gets filed by the property owner or the attorney on behalf of the property owner at the rent board. of course, the tenant feels the pressure and the weight of this placement versus cash among other factors, including the pressure from the owner, the attorney on the phone, or whatever, to get them to move out. the buyout is required to be filed at the rent board if an agreement is reached. often times, the buyout is not recorded, so when the planning department inquires, the answer is no evictions occurred. i happen to have a copy of the settlement and release agreement signed by the tenant and landlord at the property three years ago that was prepared by the same law firm that handled the buyout declarations at 353

san jose as an example. in this agreement, that the tenant signed, it says the occupant and her agents and attorneys agreed to keep the terms of the agreement confidential and not to oppose or interfere with any of the owners' projects or plans related to the premises with any state or local agency. and also tenant had to stipulate to occupant understands and agrees this release relinquishes any rights under the ordinance they have, including but not limited to their right to reoccupy the premises. another thing he included, occupant release and discharges agents, attorneys, subsidies, et cetera, et cetera, to all

claims -- [bell ringing] -- and demands, causes of actions, obligations, damages, expenses, liabilities of any kind whatsoever. this time or respected time, et cetera, et cetera. so there are other factors that the tenant must sign so that they can get the money and leave. so that's the way it happens. and often times you don't know what happened at the building because it's not clear and most people don't get the buyout disclosure form. >> jonas: okay, commissioners, members of the public, last call for public comment. you must press star 3 in order

to get into the queue. seeing no one to speak, we can move on to your regular calendar for item 8, case number 2020-8417, for the economic recovery informational presentation. staff, are you prepared to present? >> thank you, commissioners, for giving us the time and opportunity for the hearing. the intention is for this to be a start of series of discussions with you and the public and kind of our future works program, priorities and how they're shifting in response to the changes. we're all experiencing as a result of the pandemic in our focus on racial equity in all of our work. so to start those discussions today, we're joined by the city economist who has been here

before to talk about the economic changes we've experienced and the challenges we face ahead. and then we're also joined by carmen chiu who has done great work. and she'll provide us an overview of that work. we've been participating in aspects of the task force, including shared spaces, which came out of the task force. she'll expand on that work. i want to thank them for their willingness it participate. again, the intention is to begin a conversation of our work and work program as we've all experienced the pandemic has disrupted our everyday life, how we work, get around, interact, shop, play and hang out. exposing the strengths of our city, but also the

vulnerabilities and the disparities. changing the way we think about the future of san francisco. changing land use pattern. there are big questions of what the new normal will look like. i don't think we have the answer yet, but as planners we need to understand and anticipate the changes coming and give you recommendations. give the public information and recommendations, give the policymakers data information and recommendations so we're able to respond and address these. as the presentation will show, small businesses and houses are struggling. the department is facing budget shortfalls and these hardships and impacts are hitting harder and heavier on communities of

color. we're looking to future hearings that will focus on housing, housing stability, affordable housing, small businesses, our public realm and open space and future of office and how we work. so happy to start with the discussion. with that, i'll turn it over to ted egan, our city economist. >> thank you, and good afternoon, commissioners. ted egan from the controller's office. you have a copy of my presentation that i provided to the planning department last week. we are constantly scouring for

economic information and i've made changes to that with the presentation i'll share with you today, you by felt -- but i felt the new information was important for you to have and confirm that you can see the presentation? >> we can, yes, ted. >> one second. pardon me, i need to make you -- you should be able to share your screen now. >> great, can you see it? >> jonas: i cannot. >> okay. shared too soon. my mistake. >> jonas: there you go. you can see it now. >> great. in april of this year, between march and april, the san francisco metropolitan division,

which is san francisco, lost 175,000 jobs. nationally, the job loss experienced wiped out the past 10 years of job growth. the months since then have been a recovery, but it's been a gradual recovery and a flowing recovery. from july to august, the metro division netted 6,000 jobs. and we're still about 100,000 jobs down or more from where we were prior to the covid shutdown. you may have noted that the unemployment rate in the city is coming down. that is partly due to the job growth that we've had, but it is also due to declines in the labor force, which seems to have something to do with migration out of san francisco. while we don't have a lot of direct information on that, we have a lot of direct indicators that suggest san francisco may be doing worse than other places in terms of holding on to its

population during these times. i wanted to give you an industry by industry look at how the recession is affecting different parts of our economy. this is actually a chart of the pre-covid times, the five years before covid in 2019. and what it is showing on the horizontal is the growth rate for the different sectors of the economy in san francisco. this is strictly for the city. and the other is the average wage of the industries. what this chart shows is the highest wage industries in the city grew faster, in some cases significantly faster than the rest of the economy prior to covid, that had the effect of creating disparity among sectors of the economy. you can see the low-wage industry, retail trade, food

services, grew more slowly. this is before covid. that is the pre-covid situation. this is what has happened since covid. the same vertical axis. financial services is up. information and professional services are doing okay in terms of job losses in the 5-10% range. but the low wage industries have suffered quite a bit, in particular accommodation and food services, arts and entertainment, which even through august are showing employment down 35%. and the recovery there is still quite slow. what this effectively means, the covid crisis has exacerbated existing imbalances in our economy. that have hard-hit low-wage workers the worst. this is an example of how san francisco is done on one important sector for low-wage

workers. the restaurant sector. this isn't showing employment, this is showing customers from open table. this is the number of seated reservations. in san francisco we're still doing outdoor dining and our numbers are slower than other places. that may change once we move to an outdoor dining scenario in the near future. thus far, our recovery in restaurants has been slower than virtually any other city in the country with the exception of honolulu. this is some of the new data that wouldn't be in your packet. we just got this on monday. it's the sales tax data for the city. we lost 43% of our sales tax in the year from quarter of 2019 to second quarter of 2020. not only is that the worst quarter we've ever seen, not

surprisingly, it was a terrible quarter in all aspects of the u.s. economy, but it was also worse than every other place in california. and they've informed us that the county of san francisco has done worse than any other county in the state of california in sales tax over the past year. one of the reasons for that is that while we've seen declines in brick-and-mortar spending at brick-and-mortar stores, that's not surprising given the shutdown, we see that across the state, across the country. in most places we've seen corresponding growth in online sales. this is a chart showing the sales tax by different categories in san francisco. the second quarter of 2020 over the same quarter last year. the state and county totals on that top line, that represents

online sales to locations within san francisco. and we've only seen 1% growth, which is effectively no growth, while we've seen up to 75% decline in our direct sales tax category. a much more typical pattern across the street is to see large declines across brick-and-mortar and large gains online. we see no gains. that is the main reason the sales tax has been doing so badly. i want to turn to indicators of transportation. this may surface issues moving forward. this is a positive sign. what it's showing is that prior to the covid shutdown, obviously we had a lot of traffic congestion and slow speeds. when we had a shutdown,

congestion declined, speed went up. 60 miles per hour. that has since went down. traffic congestion is getting back. it's 10% higher than it was at the start of the shutdown, which isn't much. and isn't much when you compare it to the transit ridership numbers. this is bart. this is ridership numbers for bart. obviously, a huge drop in march, but the point is not very much recovery. our ridership by the end of august was still down 85% from a year ago. and, of course, san francisco economy is particularly department on bart. most of the people who work in downtown san francisco get to work by transit. while i wouldn't say bart is the only reason that we have unoccupied offices in san francisco, bart is a contributor

to people's unwillingness to take part and willingness to drive instead is a contributor to our longer term economic recovery challenges. a similar weakness that has to do with psychology has to do with tourism. san francisco airport is obviously a major source for our hotel guests. i mentioned earlier the hotel industry is one of our single hardest hit industries. hotel occupancy is 20%. one of the reasons, people aren't flying to san francisco. i should say there aren't limitations on flying into san francisco. and there aren't any practical limits. many practical limitations on staying in a hotel. we will see if there this is just a matter of psychology and

people are postponing travel. obviously, this is a major impediment to recovery of a major part of the economy, as well as low wage workers in the city. finally, i want to talk about residential rent. regardless of what it means directly, it's telling us something that other indicators can't tell us about the population in the city. this is asking rent from the online listing service apartment list. and i think it's reputable data. it's showing san francisco having a drop since the start of the covid crisis that is deeper than any drop of any city in the country. we're on track for a loss of 11% in rent. one of the things that is concerning is the monthly drop in rent in san francisco is accelerating while the economy is beginning to slowly recover.

at least the national macro economy is beginning to recover. suggesting there are things particular to san francisco in this shutdown that were not just a mirror image of the national shutdown and recession. this last chart is just me looking at, is this just san francisco, or are high rent areas across the bay area doing the same thing? this is the data for other communities in the bay area and the vertical axis is what they're asking in march. and the horizontal is how much the rent has changed. this is a high rent place in the bay area, with one of the biggest drops, but by no means are we the only high-rent place in the bay area that rent dropped. a lot of places where a lot of tech workers live, sunnyvale, redwood city, are seeing drops

in rent. and it's some of the lower rent that have not seen major declines in rent. this could lead you to conclude that some of the news stories about tech workers able to work at home are moving out of san francisco, or moving out of the bay area. we don't have a lot of direct data that i would describe as official data on migration statistics, but this rent data is an underlying indication and perhaps the sales tax data, that we're seeing a demographic shift that is unique to san francisco and other expensive tech cities in the bay area. just to conclude, i always try to remind people that we're not in an ordinary recession or an ordinary public health emergency. it's a combination of a public health emergency and a recession. the consumer attitudes toward spending, towards travel in particular are shaping how the

recovery is happening and how the recession is unfolding. and what that really means is that if the public health decisions continue to improve and we move into gradual lifting of mandated shutdowns, we're still going to have a recession. we're still going to have layoffs, consumers less interested in spending. we're going to have lingering virus out there and that will lead to avoidance of behaviors that major sources of economic activity in san francisco. i would just leave you with three main points. the first is it's very clear, not just from the economic data but the public health data as well, that the recession has exacerbated inequities, balances in our economies even worse. secondly, this is going to be less and less about shutdowns creating unemployment and more about the recession creating unemployment or rather lifting

of the shutdown is not going to have the near-term and immediate economic boost that we might like or expect. and then i think the really ongoing thing where the data is still live and i think certainly my opinions are changing on a daily basis, are what activities are going to come back when? the sales tax data is just a warning sign for small businesses who don't have the resources to take a long-term shutdown or long-term recession. when will those businesses come back? how many of them will come back? what will their neighborhoods look like as commercial areas? those are major. i am a little more optimistic about the medium term prospect or tourism. there is no reason to think people won't come back to san francisco when they feel like traveling again. when that will be, though, remains a question. and then finally i'm getting more concerned about the future of downtown san francisco partly with the accumulating bad news

about the rental market. and the fact that we're talking about a very, very large share of the city's economy that indirectly supports many, many other sectors in the city economy. offices are being discouraged from being occupied for public health reasons and many companies are following that lead. and deferring commuting and work at home. it makes a big difference to the future of the city's economy if they are working at home from somewhere in san francisco or somewhere in the bay area, or if they're working at home from ca kawhi or some other country. because in the latter case, they're unlikely to come back and that will affect the economic future. this is not a question of economic recovery, but also a question of psychology and the direction of public health. i hope this gives you a sense of

where we are now and summary of the information that we have. i don't know if the commission wants to take questions now or wait until the end, but i will be here. >> commissioner koppel: if you're going to be around, that would be great. commissioners, good to see you. >> commissioner koppel: thanks for being here. >> i want to make sure i have the share-screen capability. >> jonas: i have made you the presenters, so you should be able to share your screen. >> great, let me try that. can you see this? >> commissioner koppel: yes. that works. >> thank you, commissioners, for having this hearing and for bringing these topics -- i know

you're going to be seeing a series of different topics around recovery and what different efforts are under way in the city. i hope this provides a little bit of additional flavor to what you're hearing. i serve as san francisco's elected assessor. i'm here today wearing a different hat, that is co-chair of the economic recovery task force. you may know that the mayor and board president yee pulled together the task force with almost over 100 members in late april. the task force consists of a lot of different folks from a wide spectrum of san franciscans. we have people from large businesses as well as small businesses, non-profit organizations that provide services in our community, our labor units. we have academia among a number of other folks. it's a very large task force, again with over a hundred people. rich, who is your director, and other departments are on the task force and have been playing

a critical role in helping to inform and lead some of the policy areas that i'll be speaking to you about in a little bit. i thought i would share the screen with you so you have a sense of the engagement process and the process we've been talking to the community. so it's just a high-level, our first stage was really to gather information and ideas from people. we wanted to make sure we understood priorities and then drafted a series of recommendations where we're in the process of finalizing it. we have not yet finalized it and created a final document. you're seeing a sneak preview. a few things i want to emphasize here, how extensive this public process has been. we have received 1200 e-mails and surveys from members of the public with regards to what they

think about economic recovery and what we should be pursuing at the city. we have convened, facilitated in 60-70 public meetings. some of them are larger hearings. some are presentations to commissions like yours and others are surveys with special groups across the city, especially the different sectors. another piece that i do want to emphasize, in addition to that significant public engagement, it probably is one of the only very, very large extensive public engagementings we've had so far. i think as ted mentioned for the city, this is going to be something we're going to be engaging in for a period of time. as much as it's the matter of how we get through covid, but to the extent that the shutdowns don't explain the closures or

job losses that don't come back, we know we're in a recession and what does that mean for the city as a way to come out of this stronger and resilient? another piece i want to emphasize, as we went through the process, the idea of making sure we consider equity impacts was deeply embedded in the process. we not only engage with h.r.c. and her team, but we had a community engagement and listening team that made sure that we did culturally competent outreach and reached out to communities underrepresented. we also took a look at survey results we had in participation and tried to figure out areas where we were not seeing as much participation where we expected more. we tried to get engagement that way. a lot of public process that went into this body of work. from some of the initial feedback we received, today i wanted to share with you two

major accomplishments of the task force and to give you a preview of the policy ideas that are coming and emerging. this is to help you prepare as you think about how you might want to prioritize the work of the planning commission. first, one of the things we heard loud and clear from businesses was the need to really try to create flexibility in this time where there are so many restrictions associated with running businesses. so aside from some of the forced closures of businesses and the limited openings as we go forward or limited capacities to go forward, one of the major concerns that businesses had was if they're allowed to open, especially with restrictions on what can be done indoors, there was a need to create more flexibility to operate, even if it meant to create flexible spaces outdoors. the task force -- one of the major initiatives we did work on, was to create and form the ideas behind the shared space program. i think you've heard of it already. i want to thank rich and his team, robin and others, folks

from the mta, public works, the fire department and many other departments, o.e.w.d. who have played a role of taking on the running and administration of the program. once the program was created, they took that concept and ran with it. you can see here the results of their work. it's been a very, very popular program so far. we recognize that operating outdoors is not going to be an option for every business or every neighborhood or every street, but it does create some level of flexibility for folks who are able to do something on their sidewalks, in front of their businesses, in parking spaces in front of their businesses, with street closures or potentially nearby surface lots that help them to be a lifeline to help them operate in some capacity. we've received over 2000 applications so far to operate outdoors. i think because of the hard work that the department did, making

sure that there was not a significant holdup, we see over 1700 -- probably more -- permits have already been approved where people are operating in some capacity outdoors. it's hard for you and i to see the energy as we go out and about in our own neighborhoods. we walk outside and see the activities happening around our city. of course, the pie chart on the right shows you what is most popular and the usage of sidewalk and parking lanes are the most popular so far. roadways are extremely popular, except they're a little harder, because it requires coordinat n coordination. so it's a little more complex and harder to get started than some of the other options. the second area in terms of the idea about helping to create more flexibility and opening is actually something that i heard ted mention. i wanted to just re-emphasize,

even though we see that we are gradually reopening businesses, we recognize that business is not coming back to the same level as they were before. part of that is a worry from consumers and perhaps even workers and others about what it means to reengage in the economy. so one of the things that has been a tenet of the city's approach is to try to make sure we're reopening as thoughtfully as possible and to provide as much as guidance as possible on best practices to be able to operate in a safer manner. this is critically important because ultimately, we need to make sure that people feel confident coming back to work. we also need to make sure that consumers and tourists and other people who come to san francisco also feel confident in knowing that we're doing everything we can to make sure that the environment they're stepping into is a safe one. so one of the things that the task force did do was really create working with the department of public health. a feedback loop from industry.

frankly, there was a process where the department of public health is putting out health orders and directives and guidance and other information. a lot of industries were saying how did this guidance come about? this may not be operationally feasible from the ground, so one of the things that we were able to do is embed in the department of public health process an opportunity for industry and for different practitioners to say, let me look at a draft of what you're proposing and give you feedback as to whether these kinds of proposals or mandate could work. and what we've seen i see a very health -- is a very healthy dialogue to make sure in instances where we can approach it from a different angle, or a different requirement, yet still meet the health and safety requirements or goals of the health department, we've seen easing on the restrictions. that has been helpful, because even if you open, if it's overly

restrictive and there are requirements not feasible to do as businesses, you're not going to see industry come back the way you would hope. this gives you sort of a snapshot of how the process is now evolved. we inform and work with the health officer to make sure that we're sharing information about best practices and things we're seeing emerging from industry. we also are working with the guidance section of the department of public health to make sure we're providing information from a health perspective, so it's grounded in reality. this is a win-win scenario, because it not only creates more clear guidance, but you have more buy in from industry. moving then to the areas of policy conversations. so in addition to helping to facilitate some of the safe reopening activities you've been hearing about.

there is also a series and body of work happening currently to put together a number of different recommendations, ideas, from task force members to policymakers to say, here are the things that we think you should considers we go forward. -- as we go forward. when we started to organize the task force, as you heard over a hundred task force members, so it was an organizational effort to make sure we were organizing our conversations and had groups conducive to conversation as much as we could. so we organized and broke them out into four distinct sections. here's the key questions. the first was job and business. we asked questions such as, how can we ensure existing and small, and medium-sized businesses survive, adopt and thrive in a post-covid-19 environment and what do san franciscans need to re-enter the

workforce? we had a group called vulnerable populations. how do we make it easier for a growing number of people to access and receive the support that they need through recovery? in terms of economic development, this is a huge one. and thinks one that i -- this is one that i imagine that we're going to continue to focus on. but we ask questions, how can we restart businesses and promote the growth of our city while supporting and protecting our existing communities. and then finally, when it comes to arts, culture, hospitality and entertainment, you might wonder why we have this specific sector listed as a category as opposed to the number of different sectors that exist in the city. you heard ted speak about office buildings and other parts of the economy that also have challenges associated with economic recovery and growth. part of the reason this is

specifically pulled out was, number one, we recognize how important arts and culture and what san francisco represents in terms of attracting people to our city, but also to visit our city. but also because some of the most -- these are some of the most impacted industries that also potentially have the longest lead time before they come back. we can all imagine we likely won't be seeing huge music festivals or 10,000 people-type events coming back soon just yet. and so because of that, we really wanted to pay attention to focus on how to preserve some of that talent, infrastructure, so when we do, we're able to recover in a good way. for this area, we asked questions such as how do we preserve and strengthen san francisco's identity for the long-term? and how do we ensure that artists and cultural diversity is embedded in the communities

and sustained and uplifted it throughout the economic recovery? we received a lot of different comments. these are high-level topics, but let me tell you about how much work is behind this. we have probably, i want to say, close to 40 recommendations about what will be coming from the task force. we're currently working on a brief document to be able to provide an executive summary. if you can imagine, because it is so expensive, our executive summary is going to be over 40 pages long. for each one of those 40 different recommendations coming forward from the task force, there are also multipage, much more detailed policy brief that follows and will be released to the public as well and to our policymakers. so there is quite a lot of work behind the scenes to show you kind of the emerging themes

here. as you can imagine, there are a lot of topics centred around preserving operations and lessening burdens that i'm sure you heard of. job connection is a very important one. this is much more to do with things like age or continuing to connect people, job seekers to work, to consolidate our workforce program. in terms of promoting safe reopening, we talked about that, but in addition creating flexibility and other aspects, there is a huge body of work associated with recommending access to personal protective equipment and making sure we're making enough invest in contact tracing and testing to keep our workers, residents, consumers safe as much as possible. there is a lot of conversation around economic stimulus and so in this area, there is conversation around how do we continue to support the major development projects that have already been entitled to make sure they don't lapse?

how do we help to stimulate and encourage more development to happen without delay? so are there things we can consider such as deferral of impact fees and/or removing certain barriers we don't want to -- that are not necessary and are more administratively burdensome? there was a huge conversation around pursuing economic justice, making sure we're investing in our black communities and immigrant communities as well. making sure that we're doing things like bridging the digital divide. you heard ted speak earlier about -- he showed that slide that was stark that showed the switch between brick-and-mortar sales and then that switching into online sales that end up coming to san francisco companies and how san francisco only had 1% growth there. one of the big recommendations from the task force is the idea of connecting not only kids from low-income communities to make sure they have computer access and other things to continue to

succeed in education, but to connect businesses, small businesses in particular to online resources. how do we get them to be able to market their businesses online? is there something we can do to promote that kind of access given where we are today and where the city is going? there is a long -- a lot of conversation around building on our strong neighborhoods and cultural assets. again, one of the characteristics that i think is really unique about san francisco is how wonderful our neighborhoods are and how unique and distinct they are as well. how do we help to build on those strengths, community organizations that we have, to have development, but to make sure we're incorporating the arts and the other resources into that development to bolster those neighborhood assets. finally, the last two, which are not small topics at all. but really to invest in housing. so you can imagine within that a lot of conversation around

streamlining entitlements, trying to make sure that we're continuing to support multi-family housing. the needs of the vulnerable, around mental health, substance abuse and food security, especially during this time. what this really underscores when you see this -- you may not imagine seeing some of these items come forward in a typical economic response, right? you might not see meeting basic needs of vulnerable and so on emerging from an economic recovery task force, but i think what is really unique as ted pointed out, this is not just a health response, an emergency, but this is also an economic one. so it really is very much interlinked in terms of how we do in health and how people are able to stay safe and well not continue to spread covid-19. that is tied to the economy and what we'll doing in the opening. i can share more information

with rich and others as we go on and finalize the reports so you can see some of these areas in more detail. and in particular, the ones that really pertain to the planning department. and then for the last two slides. i'm going to go through these quickly, because it's always good for the public and you to have a grounding in understanding of the reopening of the activities in the state. these are san francisco's current status. you can see for the most part we're in green level in terms of the health care system's capacity to care for people getting sick. our testing still continues to be very, very strong. we do a lot of testing here in the city and, in fact, the highest in the state. and the highest in the country among large urban cities. in terms of p.p.e., we're doing very, very well there. where we're a little concerned, we have high new case counts, 5.9. so orange level.

how does that work vis-a-vis the state? you saw the state in august shifted to a color system in four different colored tiers, but they're slightly different. not to be confusing here. you can see some of the metrics that they have and the specials for them. the two primary metrics is number of new cases per 100,000 and the tests positive is the second. depending on which one is in the more severe category, your tier level sticks to it. if i have low test positive numbers, if i have case count numbers, the state will stick to the more severe level. just yesterday they announced a third metric called a healthy places index. i haven't updated the slide, but i wanted to point out a third metric. with this new metric, what

they're doing is looking at the areas that -- basically what they're trying to get at is to reduce discrepancy from the health and they will determine. if you're not meeting the requirements for this index, you're not able to advance to the less restrictive tier, however, it won't necessarily roll you back to a more severe tier. so this is sort of a new metric, but not necessarily a hard metric they're tracking. where does san francisco lie here? most recently our numbers showed that our percent positive number as of the 23rd was 1.58. that puts us in the yellow minimal tier. where it's more problematic, however, if we take a look at these cutoff, 5.9 in terms of the number of new cases per 100,000 as of the 23rd of the

month. but you probably have heard that san francisco is actually in the orange tier here this week. and the results of that is mostly because the state provides 40% discount on the number of cases because we test much more than the state median. and so while it's debatable we should have that level of discount, it is what it is and that's where the state puts us. what does that mean for san francisco? well, essentially, if you can imagine it, because our case prevalence is still at the red level, but the state has designated us at the orange level, we're operating more in between. frankly, we're currently opening things that are really in the substantial red tier so that you can see that this is one example of what that looks like. in every tier, the state has put out a number of activities and sectors, including when they can open and to what capacity. a very easy way to look at san francisco is to go on the

website, and also take a look at the red tier, the prior tier, remember we were here. our case count is still tracking to the substantial tier and we've opened up to the substantial tier level. i hope this provided a brief overview of what we're pursuing at the economic task force. we hope to wrap up next week in terms of the final recommendations that come out. we'll be happy to share that with you and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioner koppel: are you able to stay until after public comment in case there are questions? >> sure. >> commissioner koppel: thank you for the work you've put into the task force, which is tremendous dealing with the immediate reopening of programs and shared spaces to the midterm, short-term and long-term recommendations coming out of the task force.

i think a quick overview of what is next as far as the work in the planning department and then we'll open it up for public comment. commissioners, thank you to assessor chu and mr. egan in terms of the response the city is having. i wanted to take a minute to see how we're building on this wealth of information for our recovery path towards racial and social equity. as both presenters have discussed, this is a crisis that is exacerbating some of the existing challenges. so there is work that we have done recently that addresses some of the affordability

crisis, community civility is only getting worse. so we have the community stabilization initiative that came to you last year. the housing affordability strategy completed this year. sure housing recovery memo developing collaboration with other city agencies and most recently the planning commission equity resolution that flagged some of the key mandates for the planning department to focus on. so in this context, the staff will be identifying the recovery priorities for your discussion and deliberation. i also want to flag that as, again, presenters have indicated, this is not a simple crisis. this is not a crisis that we have experienced before, so it's

impacting our work as director indicated. it's the work that will be done in terms of the recovery is connected to the equity plan, to the housing element, to the cultural district and some of the specific community plans across the city. we're planning on bringing to you a framework of the priorities in early november. and based on the work and the task force and the community input we've been gathering, there are four large areas we're considering at this point. housing as you heard, bringing stability to our tenants, keeping and expanding the existing affordability in the city, as well as opening new opportunities for housing across the city will be crucial in this recovery. you've heard about the shared spaces program that is really

helping small businesses, our retail businesses and we'll be elaborating on that and understanding the progress that we're making as well as some of the additional strategy. so as you can see, this recovery strategy, it's about identifying some of the plans and policies, but it's also implementing as we discussed that even the scale of the pressure. the future work space, that is what our chief economist also indicated. there are many questions about who are -- where are we going to work, who is going to be working in the city? and we'll have to investigate that question further. open space has been a critical component as we shelter-in-place, there are many of our neighborhoods where we are experiencing overcrowding conditions, where the lack of open space created a major mental and physical health challenge. so we'll be bringing you a

framework for discussion and deliberation. and i just want to ask -- i just want to thank you commissioners for asking us to address this complex health housing economic and environmental crisis through a comprehensive recovery approach that can take us to a healthy and equitable san francisco. this is the end of my presentation and happy to address any questions. >> commissioner koppel: th >> commissioner koppel: thank you. >> jonas: commissioners, if there are no immediate questions, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to call into the 1-415-655-0001, enter the

access code prided provided and press star and 3 to get into the queue. we'll take the first caller. you will have three minutes. >> so, commissioners and presenters, my name is francisco, as i see it, i've had the opportunity to view the presentation of ted egan for the second time, carmen chu for the first time and the last presenter for the first time. let me start with the last presenter. when it comes to racial equity and connected issues, it's better that those issues be addressed by somebody who is a person of color. because as much as you try to

say something, you say nothing, because that's how certain programs begin and they make it very convoluted. and if we have a person, for example, like virginia harmon connected to racial equity, a person who has done a lot of harm, then i know that program is not going to go anywhere. now about carmen chu, i know she's an assessor, she means well, but she is all over the place. if you're at home and watching her slides, you couldn't make head or tail in terms of what was written down the front. so there goes carmen chu down the drain. so we are left with the economist who has -- i've been following him to are a long

time -- for a long time and he did a very good job. now as an advocate, the department of environmental advocacy and have been for 40 years here in the city and county of san francisco, and i see that we have a lot of disparity in our various districts. where the small businesses have suffered and we really don't have a clear picture of how many small businesses have left san francisco forever. so the district supervisors have to be representative. they've not done their job. the mayor has a task force of about a hundred people who are all over the place. and we do not have an incident manager -- [bell ringing] -- or commander to really lead. we do not have one.

so i'll leave you with those talks in the measly three minutes that i'm given. thank you very much. >> jonas: thank you. next caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i want to thank director -- sorry, dr. egan and assessor chu on the presentation, really interesting stuff. two things i know we're thinking about through this entire process right now is, number one, we all share, i hope, a desire to not go back to the way things were on a number of these topics. and i know there is a conversation about trying to build back better and that is the intent of everybody here, so

you know, we share that goal and appreciate that being a focus. the other piece to it is -- i was having a conversation this morning and we are in a once in a 100 year pandemic and trying to understand trends when we're really just looking at a snapshot in time is so incredibly difficult. ted specifically mentioned, you know, some of his hypothesis are changing, even on a daily basis when it comes to how many people are going to come back to work if san francisco for example. so throughout this process of recovery and recommendation that comes out of it, we want to encourage flexibility and the ability to, you know, measure and improve as needed. again, thank you for everybody, for putting together this really informative presentation. thank you.

look forward to your continuing to bring this kind of information to the commission. i have a question for ted egan, if he's still available? >> yes, i'm here. >> could you elaborate a little more on the statistic you

presented about physical sales being down and online sales not going up concurrently, what you interpret that to mean? and when you say online sales haven't gone up, i don't mean if that means san francisco residents are not making increase on online sales. or there aren't increase on online sales of businesses based in san francisco. if you could just elaborate a little further. and also your thoughts about that statistic and what it means. >> okay. let me take a step back and tell you that nationally when the shutdown happen in march and april, everyone across the country was noticing a large increase in online sales and large increase in sales by delivery services.

that was everybody saying, you still need stuff and if your store was closed, you're going to order from amazon. what we've seen is that pattern played out in other places, where you'll see a big drop in, for example, in-person apparel stores, but you will see an increase in online sales. and probably apparel is not a great example because people aren't buying as much, but in general, online sales have grown a lot in other places. when i say online sales, i mean online sales to residents in the jurisdiction, not necessarily -- in fact not necessarily at all by businesses that are based in the location. the reason it's notable that in san francisco you have a big decline in brick-and-mortar as you would expect and no real increase in online sales means one of three things is

happening. either people aren't spending as much money as they are in other places for some reason, or which -- hard to understand why that would be -- or their incomes have taken a bigger hit than other places which is also hard to imagine because none of the unemployment measures or other income measures we have are worse in san francisco. our unemployment rate is bad, but it's not relatively bad compared to the rest of the state. and that leafs only the -- leaves only the other answer, there aren't as many people in san francisco. since we don't have indicators of that, my -- [inaudible] -- see anything that is seems to be speaking to that question. that's why i particularly focused on that issue. it also corresponds to the rent

story we have in which not just departments, but many other places are saying, no, san francisco and new york, sticks out like a sore thumb from every other place in the country in the decline of the demand for apartments. and of course new york city had a major outbreak, san francisco didn't, but that's the difference between the two cases. i hope that answer clarifies at least your questions. >> yes, that was extremely helpful. did new york city experience anything close to the drop in online sales at least the way we are, or the lack in increase in online sales? >> because the sales tax is a state tax, we don't have a direct insight into new york city's sales tax situation, so i don't want to speculate on that. we have reasonably comparable rent data and new york is on par. >> thank you.

>> commissioner imperial: thank you. yes, thank you for the presenters, mr. egan, ms. chu and for the presentation. i have another question for mr. egan in terms of the rent. today there was an article that looks like san francisco rent is -- i think they said it's 20%. and if it continues, we'd be like new york, which is probably the highest rent. however, can you -- have you in the documents that are presented to us, when it comes to the payment of rents or mortgages, it's statewide, but i don't have captured data yet for san francisco of how much, you know, what percentage of the household cannot pay the rent or their

mortgages? can you we capture that data and can we correlate that in terms of rental or mortgages information? >> i have seen that data, which is available from private sources only at the metropolitan level. and i track it pretty frequently and i haven't seen anything like san francisco is -- the san francisco metro area is particularly bad about that. the rental -- the rent payments are generally below 90% from one month to the next, but i would say that this is an accumulating problem. when we see the rent declines in san francisco, it leaves an obvious question as to who is moving out or who is not coming in? and it seems to be a function at this point of upper income people moving out or not moving in and less lower income.

but that doesn't mean that the economic pain is not accumulating for the lower income workers as i talked about in my presentation. so i think there is a building up, a potential crisis about people either unable to pay rent or dipping too deep into their other assets or savings in order to pay rent. and that isn't something that is showing up in the data yet, but it's kind of out there on the horizon as something that could be a big problem. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. the reason i mentioned that, because you know, the city has to assess rental assistance and also in a lot of discussions when it comes to rental subsidies and you presented as well, that the low wage workers are also suffering.

especially, the most vulnerable population. but thank you. and i hope that there can be another discussion on that, or other data on that. one thing, too, for ms. chu on the presentation, i'm looking to the emerging things and one thing that strikes me as we are trying to look forward beyond covid-19, we all know that the pandemic may last and we don't know how it's going to last, but we also need to see that there is bigger issues aside the pandemic and that is the climate crisis. i'm not seeing that in emerging themes when it comes to environmental resiliency and how can we correlate that? that development in the city. i think there are -- well, there are federal discussions right now in terms of green new deal

and i believe presidential debate something discussed, so i was wondering if that is something also taken a look into and probably one big factor as an emerging theme? >> thank you, commissioner, for the question. just to go back to the question on rent, i think ted was speaking about the impact and one other piece i want to add to it, to the extent that rent also drives down, we may see a lot more appeals on property taxes, both for residential as well as commercial properties coming down the pipeline and that has significant impact on city operations as well. so we're watching that closely. and it's all part and parcel of this economic impact as a whole. as to your question about whether climate resilience and kind of those investments or those kinds of -- or that concept of thinking emerge in the task force, i think there is a few things. the task force recognizes it's a

public process. so if this group did not raise it, people did not necessarily -- it doesn't really emerge in the task force's recommendations. but that said, one of the things that co-chairs and other folks recognized, in addition to the immediate crisis, there is going to be a need to do continued work, so part of the recommendations i didn't speak to at length was the one component about making sure we're continuing to invest in resiliency and infrastructure, so that speaks to the sustainability and climate crisis issues that you were talking about. the city is doing work with regard to capital planning to say what do we need to do to reinforce the seawall and other things to build resiliency into our infrastructure and systems around the city. so i think we're going to need to continue to do that. there is a whole separate body of work around that planning process. the way we're all viewing it, this is an important element that feeds into and helping inform policymakers, but it is

not an exhaustive list. there are a lot of things that the city needs to be looking at, but in the longer term. when we pulled this task force together, it was the end of april and beginning of march when we pulled this group together. even from that time to where we are now, the tenor and what people are talking about is very different. so i think one of the things we really want to recognize is that as we know that this pandemic is going to be a long-lasting one and even beyond this we're going to potentially be in a recession scenario and we need to think about what to do to come out of the recession, there is going to be continual need to think about different elements. one element, for example, multiple elements we catch on the task force, that are happening, what are we going to do around public transportation? that's huge, right?

so if we're seeing that significant drop-off in ridership, we're seeing the transportation in a space of insolvency in several years if we don't do something significant. those are all of the things that drive a strong economy going forward. we know we can't let our public transportation system fail. there is a whole body of work around that. there is a whole body of work around education and making sure our kids are taken care of. it's not only important for development of children, but it's important for working parents. i think it's really going to take all of the city departments to fire at the same -- towards the same direction, row in the same direction to get out of this, because it is unlike any other economic impact that we've seen before. >> is there a time line for the economic task force? how long will it be working?

>> yeah. so the task force was convened end of april and it contemplates sunsetting october. so next week, actually. so the report will be finalized next week. the task force sunsets, but i'm sure the mayor and the board will continue to have other efforts that speaks to economic recovery as we move forward. >> commissioner imperial: thank you so much. >> commissioner fung: professor chu, a question. the analysis that was provided and your comments on the plan are all fairly high-level. can you give us a flavor as to what specifics may come down to recommendations for the planning department? >> sure. hold on one second. let me grab that document.

as i mentioned earlier, we have about 40 or so recommendations that are coming forward. each of them with pretty distinct policy memos behind them. so there is going to be a lot of detail that will come. in the area of preserving operations and lessening regulatory burdens, for example, there are three areas that i think could touch upon the planning department, that would be this idea about repurposing public outdoor spaces. so there is a lot of conversation around what that looks like, continuing to extend and improve the shared spaces program, as well as being creative and flexible on how we're allowing spaces to be used for entertainment. that speaks a lot to zoning or among other kinds of permitted activities that the planning department would have a central role in. there is in the leaning on strong neighborhoods and cultural asset section, there is a recommendation around

catalyzing neighborhood recovery through the arts. i think, again, to the extent there is permit planning code zoning that will allow for that to happen, i think that would be coming your way. in terms of splr exploring local stimulus, there is recommendations in promoting and reactivating spaces. although it's still early to tell how offices come back and what is the usage of the spaces and do we start to see a different way of working remotely, those kinds of things, there is conversation around do we need to be thinking about how we're using our precious space? and do we need to reactivate or recharacterize or use in different ways in the future? i think we need to see what the impacts long-term are from covid-19 to really understand that. there are few other ones, including supporting infrastructure investments. to the extent that the planning department has different avenues

to slow down, speed up the ability to invest in infrastructure or capital projects in the city, i think that's an important catalyst for economic recovery, a stimulus component. on top of that, the planning department has done a lot of work to entitle large development projects in the city, some of which potentially will be coming due in the amount of time that those projects have to complete their construction work. so there are some questions about whether there is a possibility to extend some of that timeline without having people go back for reentitlement process. there is a fair amount of questions around redesigning, permitting processes. again that impacts fee deferrals potentially, which is a big one. and, of course, anything that planning department can do to streamline and support the construction of housing is going to be also tied directly to some of the recommendations coming from this task force. >> commissioner fung: those -- quite a few of those are fairly

long-term type activities for planning. and recognizing that planning by nature is always quite lengthy in time, i'm wondering if there would be -- well maybe there is further discussions of course, but certain actions that could be shorter time frames as an example. what happens if we eliminated conditional use requirements within neighborhood commercial districts? i think it's something to bear in mind short-term versus long-term activities for our department. >> yeah, absolutely. i think there -- this is true even for our pandemic response in general. we've done a lot of work to try to provide immediate relief and

assistance to workers. we know there is going to be a level of assessment and work we have to do to help people through the pandemic period. then i think above and beyond that as well, we want to make sure we're thinking about structures or ways to incentivize and appropriate growth and development and bringing back businesses that may have closed down or new businesses in many of our commercial corridors. to your point, what do we do about conditional uses, i know those are policy decisions. there is a ballot measure talking about easing those restrictions. so all of those pieces are thing that people should be thinking about and seeing if they're appropriate for the city. >> commissioner fung: thank you. i have a question for ms. chung.

can you share the work plan for what you're doing with the commissioners so that we can see where your focus is and we can have concurrence on that before the study is actually presented in november? >> yes. yes. what we'll be bringing in november is the framework for discussion and deliberation. it will be the overarching scope. so you can guide the department in terms of the priorities. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> commissioner chan: thank you, dr. egan, professor chu, i have a few comments i wanted to make. it helped humanize the impact of compounded crisis, especially on

low wage and people of color. it hits home this is not just an economic crisis, but one of public health and climate crisis and so forth. i do share the notion that we're in uncertain times and taking in the data as it comes in, but there has been a lot of historical data in communities as well. i think the reliable indicators of what we could be doing to address those with -- [inaudible] -- current strategies and hope for the commission to take a few steps back. i know all of san franciscans have had their live upended and there is a intense desire to go back to normal, but to recognize that normal wasn't really working for a lot of people and can only build back better by collaborating with disadvantaged communities. thank you for your work and i appreciate your presentations.

>> commissioner moore: thank you to everybody for conducting a task force virtually with a hundred people participating. can you hear me? >> yes. >> the questions i have and could be answered by mr. egan or assessor chu does the task force have a specific time horizon for the recovery in mind? and if so, did the task force consider contingencies just in case, what if?

>> the mayor and supervisor yee provided, there was no kind of time line. it was open-ended to say, let's take a look at immediate, midterm and long-term solutions. i think as i mentioned, when you take a look at the convening of the task force and timing when that happened, the focus was the immediate impact. it was convened pretty quickly after the order happened. i think because of that, the focus on the task force's mind was on the immediate things that happened. you see a number of recommendations that come out that are related to the immediate relief to businesses, workers, and so on. i think in the course of all these conversations -- because if you try to cover all the time horizons, the immediate, the midterm and the long, what really got shortchanged was the things that need to happen in the long-term. i think some of the commissioners spoke about economic sustainability over time and environmental

sustainability. that just didn't come through in the conversation. i think because people participating were focused on what is happening immediately to businesses right now. so that's why i think -- and i think the task force recognizes -- there is going to be a lot of opportunities to continue to build upon the work that the public process and continue to think about what are the longer term things. >> commissioner moore: while we hope it's going to be over in next week, we see more and more people falling by the wayside, including the critical infrastructure which supports small businesses. we're seeing people just basically not being able to hang on anymore, so when we look, for example, at what closed last week, each time it's another shock and we don't have certainty that things will move forward as quickly as we hoped they would that in certain parts, not only in this country,

but across the world, unexpected resurgence of covid occurring. and each time we hear something like that, it puts out a -- it throws a damper for all of us. i'm wondering, have you dealt with that, or how to deal with uncertainties and getting a little more into the nitty gritty of how? >> i would say in terms of the ups and downs, certainly through the time we had the task force, we went through a resurgence. it wasn't just the resurge -- or the surge that happened in march, but we saw renesurgenessn june. we saw this immediate setback and feeling of oh, no, how long is this going to last? i think what we're going to see for a while is the ups and

downs. this is one of the things that makes it very difficult in terms of the way that we're going to open. in terms of how it is that the city is going to be approaching some of the reopening factors, again, we want to try to reopen as thoughtfully as possible to take a look at our health indicators to drive that. the other piece, you'll see this is happening much more in san francisco, but many other places, but the health department is creating the directives and the information guidance for businesses and different activities to try to inform people as much as possible about how to safely reopen. i think that's important because as i mentioned before, in order to have any economic recovery, we have to open up business again. in order for a real recovery to happen, there has to be confidence in the marketplace. confidence for workers to get back to work, but also consumers, that you and i can go back to restaurant. you probably have heard recently that restaurants are able to

open to 25% indoors. that is going to be very, very important, especially as we enter into the cold and winter months. from my perspective, one of the core things we have to do is to try to figure out the way forward to reopen as much as we possibly can in as safe a way as we possibly can. that's not going to be easy, but we're constantly working with the health department to figure out what is appropriate. as you know, the health officer is in attendance, so he makes decisions in terms of what is able to open based on the health indicators and we can only help to inform that process and share information as best we can. >> commissioner moore: just to close out my comment. i was in union square trying to drop by apple and i imagine with apple now partially open, you have to stand in line 6-10 feet apart, relatively empty floors when you come in and the amount of volume of business they

normally do compared to what they're capable of doing under the restrictions is a fraction. and i'm wondering whether or not that if actually a path for recovery or is it just basically to try to get back to normal? >> yeah, i think that even -- lot of folks have said this, too, just using restaurants. my parents used to have a small business, a restaurant. and for some businesses, 25% is not going to be the magic percentage that makes it economically possible. and i think that is where the challenge is. the city, a lot of things are opening up, so you've heard a lot of announcements on top of all the business activities that are happening in the private sector. they're also opening up schools for in-person instruction. so in our first wave, we expect there to be 10,000 educators and students coming back to in-person instruction this

month. i think if you take a look at all of that economic activity, all of that people to people activity, the health officer is watching all that carefully and making sure we balance the rights, so we don't have the ping-ponging to go back and forth between opening and closing again. when we spoke to businesses, like the restaurants, like what will 25% look like? some businesses said this is probably going to be the minimal, but i need to be able to operate. and especially as we get into winter months, operating outdoors is not a possibility. then for other businesses we've talked to, they said, it ran the gamut, i'm hanging on with takeout and delivery, it's okay. there was another fraction, saying i want to hang on. i think you're going to see that kind of range of reactions for

every single industry. it gives us an understanding of how it progresses and if we can take a step forward even more. you can't imagine we're going from 0 to 75% in one step. if we demonstrate we can do it and do it safely, then it allows us to make steady progress going forward. >> commissioner moore: thank you for explaining that, because that instills confidence. these are not high end thoughts. these are thoughts to a level where i wanted to have the confidence that we have metrics in place. i really appreciate that on your presentation as well as everybody else. thank you so much. >> commissioner koppel: are we good, jonas? >> jonas: i don't see any other commissioners requesting to speak.

>> commissioner koppel: thank you, commissioners, for the conversation. as we pointed out during the presentation, in the beginning, this is the beginning of the conversation. we'll get to -- as the task force issues its formal report, we'll get that to you. you'll see there is specific recommendations as well as more general recommendations. commissioner fung i know you brought up things like making it easier and eliminating cus for small businesses. we'll continue to update you with mr. egan's reports which he updates periodically as you saw updated. and we'll come back to you in november with more specific recommendations and a discussion on how the program can change and get your feedback again on that. it's going to be tied to the four larger topic areas,

housing, small business, neighborhood commercial corridors, retail, how we work office place as well as open space and public. so, again, thank you for making that happen. it was very informative. and thank you for your ongoing work. >> jonas: commissioners, we can now move on to item 9 for case number 2020-3009oth for the implementation of proposition e, limits on office development. this is a request for planning commission policy. >> jonas, would you pass me the presenter? >> jonas: will do, cory.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. i want to apologize on a couple of fronts. this is yet another set of detail, dense complex topic that we're going to be covering after that hearing we just had or the topic we just covered. also, this is not the prettiest of presentations. unfortunately, there is not a lot of opportunity for glitzy visuals, so, again, i apologize for how density is going forward. having said that, we did send out a memo that is designed to be more detailed and really capture as much as possible. this presentation will not cover that level of detail, but of course we'll have the ability to have robust q&a at the end. so i'm going to share my screen now. jonas, can you see my screen? >> i can. >> great.

we can begin. so as you may know one of the roles i have as zoning administrator is to do the tracking for the office development limit program. before you here today, we're going to cover three topics in the presentation. first, we haven't been before you in a while, probably five or more years to kind of talk about prop m and this program in a robust way and we have multiple new commissioners since that time. we'll spend time on the mechanics and where we are with the numbers. then we'll go over proposition e which was adopted earlier this year and how that impact the program. and we're going over policies to help us implement prop e going forward. what is the office development annual limit program? so it's a regulation to limit

office development in the city. city-wide. it's not specific to downtown or any specific zoning districts. it applies across the city and applies to larger office developments and that is 25,000 square feet or more. and each year we get an annual allotment of office space that can be allocated and that is split into two pots, we call the small cap and the large cap. the small cap is for projects shy of 50,000 square feet. the large cap is for projects 50,000 square feet or larger. the program was initiallidy adopted as part of the downtown plan. it only covered 50,000 square feet and above projects, but it was a limited program. and then it was set to sunset. obviously because it was adopted by the board of supervisors, it

could have been amended by the board of supervisors. in 1986, the following year, proposition m was adopted and that amended the program in significant ways. and it was based -- it was not the first effort to adopt the proposition, but it was trying to respond to concerns of office development impact on transit, housing and neighborhood character and the ability to keep up or not. so some of the big changes were it created the small cap and now they had to start accounting for the smaller projects. took away the sunset, goes on for perpetuity unless amended by the voters. because it was voter initiative, it can only be amended by the voters. every project that is 25,000 square feet for more has to go before the planning commission to obtain an office allocation. any unallocated office space

rolls over to the next year. it's not a use it or lose it. they can also revoke projects like conditional uses. in the future, this is due to inactivity. if a project has gone past the performance period and seems to be basically abandoned, or if they decided to convert to other uses. instead of an office project, they do residential project. you may recall a year ago we came before you with several revocations for projects similar to these circumstances. and that revoked square footage goes back to the cap that it came from. there are a few exceptions to those mechanics. first, state and federal office buildings, because local can apply to state and federal. those buildings are not required to come before the planning commission to get approved, however, the program still has to approve. so when they start construction

on a federal office building, all of that square footage comes out of the cap. port and redevelopment projects are a little different depending on specifics. but that square footage is also taken out, but usually later. and for them, it comes out when they get the permit issued for the building. each individual building. then finally, office buildings for the city and county of san francisco are completely exempt from the program. meaning they don't require approval from the planning commission, for office allocation and they don't count against the cap. so here's just some data about allocation over the years. you can see it's not even. the first 10 years or so, there was very little allocated. and because of that, and the rollover effect, the large cap got larger over time such that when the economy did rebound and you can see here really starting

about 98, so we're moving into the dot.com era, we go from low amounts of allocation to a big jump. you have $1.7 million in 98. you have over $2 million in 2000. you can see it drop off after the bubble burst a little bit. topping out again in 2008 just before that recession hit. you can see about five years of low allocation and then we get into the period we've been in for essentially the last eight years or so where you see the three largest allocation years in the program with 2013, 2015 and in 2019 last year. so where does that bring us in terms of the current numbers? for the small cap, we have 750,000 square feet. we do have a lot of projects pending for the small cap. now it would take time for all

the projects to move forward, and then obviously, each october 17, we get our annual allotment again, but this is one way we track just to keep the temperature of the program and the demand and supply and right now, if we took all the available square footage in the small cap and looked at all of the demand on file, we're going to be in the red for about 9,000 square feet. regarding the large cap, we're down to just shy of 25,000. so as of today, the planning commission would not be able to grant any large cap allocations for a project because that would automatically be 50,000 square feet for more. we have about 4.7 square feet pending in projects. some of those pending are projects at the port, that the planning commission has already seen and blessed, but because there is only drawdown, they will continue to draw down over time and we keep tracking that as a pending.

so if you look at the total pipeline for the large cap compared to what is available today, we're about $5.2 million in the red. again, obviously, this changes over time. so what is proposition e? again, it was adopted earlier this year. and it specifically links the allocation of office space to the production of housing in a few specific ways. so first it ties off space availability to the city's housing overall. [please stand by] [please stand by] please

>> and that market rate housing is subject to our inclusionary housing fee. the affordable housing may be on-site or it may be off-site if it's within a community of concern, and the affordable housing must be developed with the office space. the only exceptions to the agreement is where prop e does

call out that all phases of the development agreement should be considered when conducting the allocation, and then finally and importantly, no city funding may be used to develop the affordable housing. all of the hard costs for the project need to be carried by the developer. the second reserve is specific to central soma. similar premise in the sense that if there's office space in the large cap to grant any allocations, then projects in central soma may still be approved if they meet a number of characteristics which are generally similar to those held by the sites in central soma. this reserve is capped. it can only go up to

1.7 million square foot of office space allocated, but that is enough of a cap to capture what is necessary for the key sites in the program area. all allocations in central soma, no matter where they come from, whether they're the central key sites, that no more than 6 million square foot can be allocated until at least 15,000 units are produced within the central soma area, not just within the central soma s.u.d. this 6 million and 15,000 number, it began on january 1, 2017. to date, we've had about 4

million square feet of office space allocated in the central soma s.u.d. and finally, how do these reserve housing programs work? if there's not space in the large cap, how is the office space being allocated? it requires the program to account for that office space as being allocated, but over the next ten years. it's essentially kind of a no-interest loan for the next ten years. essentially how that works, if you're just using a very simple 100,000 square foot project, nothing would come out of the cap right now. instead, starting next year, when we get our initial lot,

we'll be taking one tenth of that allocation, so the effective allotment would be 865 instead of 875, and we do that every year until the full debt of that project is paid. again, it's similar to a no-interest loan for ten years. it helps us get that office space and the afford skbrabl housing now, but obviously, it limits to some agree how much large space is available for projects that the future that don't use these programs.

-- it can remove the anticipated uses of the site, if it's going to be, again, a single use project or mixed-use project, the intended occupancy or whether it's going to use t.d.r. or transferred development right. and it added specifically will the project include new affordable housing and will the project include new community improvements. so going forward, there will be

a couple issues that we cannot address at the planning commission level. if you're going to do the off-site housing from a project, right now, the board of supervisors does not have a specific communities of concern provision that they've adopted that we can reference. also, prop e does not adopt any prior adopted definition of communities of concern, so we're going to have to go ahead and ask the board to go ahead and adopt that. so with that, we can go into the recommended policies for the planning commission. the first policy is around the idea that a lot of these

provisions are -- used term housing units, you know, the production of housing units, whether it's the 15,000 housing units or the requirement to do 809 housing units relative to 1 million square feet of office space, but proposition e does not define housing unit, and really, the planning code, we generally don't use that term. for land use provisions, it's generally a dwelling unit or a residential unit. the only place in the planning code where we define the housing unit is the inclusive housing development program because we do apply our inclusionary housing program to group housing, as well. so we're recommending that the planning code adopt section 401 definition of housing unit, which is the definition we use in the inclusionary program to also be used as the definition in proposition e.

considering the challenge of defining these terms the way they're drafted, we actually proposed that the commission adopt a policy to not define these terms but instead adopt an ability to review the proposal on a case-by-case basis. the third is regarding the timing of the policy regarding affordable housing. it does make the except for d.a. to consider future phases, and also, prop e did include findings. those aren't in the code now but in the actually measure that was put before the voters. there are finding to support the proposition.

and then, additionally, the only reference point we have to something like this is the affordable inclusionary housing program. so our third recommendation is essentially to adopt the same except for prop e where, for projects pursuant to prop e if they're doing the affordable housing, affordable housing needs to receive its first certificate of occupancy prior to or at the same time as the certificate of occupancy for the office space. and then finally, policy four, again, i mentioned that if you

have a mixed use project and you have some market rate housing as part of this project and that's subject to the affordable housing project, prop e allows 50% of the fee to be credited towards the housing reduction requirement. unfortunately, it does not include any methodology for calculating that credit. so again, going back to reference the affordable inclusionary housing fee, that fee is determined by the mayor's office of housing and community development, and it's updated every three years. so our recommendation is to basically adopt a policy that the raw number of housing united represented by the percentage of housing units within a housing project that pays the inclusionary housing fee will be equal to the number of units being given credit for this provision. again, if you have 100 units of

market rate housing, and the fee requirement is set at 30%, that fee basically represents 30 units. in this case, you'd get credit for 50% of that, so the fee in this case would be 15 units. this seems to be the most straightforward way to interpret that and implement it, and our final recommendation. with that, i'd like to say this is kind of our first year run at interpreting and implementing proposition e. i'm sure, going forward, as more projects start to ask questions and come forward, we will find more issues that we need to come back and get your input on, but today, this is what we have before you, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> clerk: commissioners, if there are no immediate questions for the zoning administrator, we should open this up for public comment.

members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony on this item, and in order to do so, you need to press star, three to get into the queue. i do see one member of the public requesting to speak. we'll take that caller now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andrew junius, and i'm with the law firm of reuben, junius, and rose. if the goal of proposition e s is -- let's be clear, the affordable housing balance reserve requires an office developer to actually construct a parallel residential affordable housing project in order to receive a large cap allocation outside of the normal process. the example that mr. teague gives in his report brings this point home, a 300,000 square

foot project would need to have 340 housing units to qualify. the only way it is going to work is if the development community knows exactly how these new rules would be applied. this commission has heard time and again from the development community that consistency and clarity in the application of land use rules is incredibly important. in the case of proposition e, there are money more questions that need to be answered. one area is areas of the city where these affordable housing units could be located. mr. teague referred to this, but there's been no mention of it today. the san francisco county transportation authority has a

definition for communities of concern, but it's tied to prioritizing transportation projects and funding. clearly, housing ordinances should not be used in definitions in the transit funding. in addition, using the sfcta definition would eliminate most parts of the city from being eligible. the ordinance gives the board of supervisors to define this key term, we urge the planning department and planning commission to begin the process immediately of creating a definition that promoting housing throughout the city. we recommend a definition of community concern that is based on the planning commission's community housing balance report. that studies the balance between new housing rate and affordable housing production and forms the process for new housing development. that seems like a great place to start. again, we urge the planning department staff to start the process of clarifying that definition. thank you very much.

>> hi, commissioners, and thank you to mr. teague. chloe angeles, also from reuben, junius, and rose. one critical aspect to the feasibility of the housing reserve option is confirming that a project with 100% of the units offered at 1:20 a.m.i. levels would both satisfy the housing balance requirements and be exempt from inclusionary housing program requirements. this seems pretty clear, based on the text of prop e and planning code section 415.3, but without confirming this point, it's unlikely any developer will be willing or financially able to pursue a prop e housing balance reserve project. also essential to making a housing balance reserve project work is clarification that such a project would be eligible for

a jobs housing linkage fee diversion if the fee is not waived altogether, as well as for impact fee waivers otherwise available to affordable housing projects. prop e prohibits certain housing projects from being e bei being -- from being used. given the current scope of jhls fees on nonpresidential uses, such fee diversions are crucial to making the financial housing projects financially workable.

>> clerk: members of the public, last call for public comment. in order to submit your public comment, you need to press star, then three, commissioners, i see no additional requests from the public to speak. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: mr. teague, i have one question on item 3, where you said in the case there is a development decree agreement, there would be additional ways of meeting the affordable housing requirement. i'm wondering if it would be

properly explained. would you mind getting into that one more time. >> sure, no problem. prop e basically states that whenever -- whenever a project that is a development agreement is going to use one of these reserve provisions, kind of bohr owing from the future, and therefore, they're required to do the affordable housing, if it's a development agreement, the planning commission shall consider all the phases in the development agreement, which is to say that unlike nondevelopment agreement projects, which there's basically one phase, which you need to do the affordable housing up front, the planning commission would have the ability to allow the required affordable housing to be produced at a later time within the development agreement timeline. it does not require that to happen. it does not say that the planning commission has to allow any particular project to have some or all of its required housing in a later

phase or at a later time, but it does give the policemen planning commission the ability to do that for the a projects. >> vice president moore: it is very hard to understand since we are struggling with rhna goals and falling far short of those goals that we would delay the ability for an indeterminate amount of time. that seems to be somewhat contradictory. would you comment on that, please? >> not sure i can comment on the intent behind that and whether or not it would be contradictory. i think in general, it provides more flexibility within the d.a. framework, which is generally what d.a.s are used for. you could guess that the intent was not to prohibit a development agreement outcome that was actually more advantageous in terms of overall affordable housing, but i can only guess because the

intent of that ballot measure was not included in the measure itself. >> vice president moore: thank you. that was my question. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so prop e was adopted conveniently before the pandemic, and i'm trying to get my head around what prop e means in the context of the report we just heard. are we expecting any applications for -- let me put it this way: what applications are we expecting for office development in the next few years that would be affected by prop e? are there some in central soma, some outside central soma? in light of the last six months pandemic affecting the office economy how do we see this proposition e playing out? and add into that, you know, a likely increase in rhna goals, which means if we don't meet

those, an even greater deduction from the annual allocation avenue year. if we could sort of step back and look at this from the big picture, i would appreciate that in the context of what we just received. >> sure. just to begin, we do have a number of central soma key site projects that last year received allocations for, like, the first phase or the first half or so of their projects and would need a second allocation to have approval to dole out the entire project. so those part twos of those projects will be coming before the planning commission at some point in the future. i mean, that's still the plan that i'm aware of, and prop e affects that in the sense that it does kind of set those boundary limits in terms of the 6 million and the 15,000. it doesn't affect it that much in terms of there seems to be room and the provisions are drafted in such a way that it seems like those projects should be able to move forward

under those prop e provisions. in terms of citywide, you know, i'm not aware of any specific projects that have reached out, at least not to me specifically on, you know, a desire or intent to move forward on one of these intent types of project. director hillis may want to speak about the larger aspect of that question. >> director hillis: well just specifically on projects moving forward, i think we've got seawall lot 337, and a potential allocation for an office project there, which again, as corey points out, could drive the balance negative. we also have, as part of a d.a. project, but i don't think they're relying on kind of the d.a. provision in prop e into potential allocation for station a, or we know this is coming to you for further pot ror owe hour station projects, which should be coming next week. so your broader question,

though, commissioner diamond, about what changes, you know, prepandemic and post pandemic gets complicated. i mean, one, i think, you know, if not for the pandemic, a lot of central soma projects would have come forward earlier in their key aspects in phase two and would have driven that balance fairly negative fairly quickly and left little room four outside office projects for those taking advantage of some of the other reserve provisions in the initiative. so, you know, to some extent, that haesn't changed much. if central soma projects come forward, it's got the potential with the forward project to drive that allocation negatively, leaving little

room, regardless of the economy, for additional office projects to seek an allocation for sometime, depending on how many of those central soma projects come forward. he aga again, i think it's tough for us to predict long-term kind of where things could go post recession, but i think you're right, too. as the rhna numbers increase, and our rhna numbers double, that could ramp up if we don't increase the amount of affordable housing or reducing the amount that actually gets put into the allocation annually any way, whether that number is negative or not at that point. >> commissioner diamond: i'm just mindful of director chiu's -- or maybe it was mr. egan's comment of trying to streamline the process. any way, it was directed more at retail, i believe, when they

were making those comments. but do you view, does the department view these policy recommendations that the department is asking us to adopt to make it simpler, easier to adopt the revisions of prop e. >> director hillis: yes. i think there were some questions that came out that corey can perhaps share his interpretation. so there's things that we wanted you to interpret and put in the code. there are other things, like the community of concern definition, that we want to come back to you and ask the board to change in the code their definition of what -- or look at kind of that definition of community of concern to make that clear. and then, there are other interpretations the zoning administrator needs to make, but he can speak on those, but

to make those clear and easier to implement. >> commissioner diamond: right. i tend to agree with one of the comments made by the commenters. this is an incredibly dense piece of legislation, and the more we can provide clarity, predictability and consistency, the more likely it is we will see project sponsors to come forward. anything we can do to provide that clarity i think is useful, and obviously, i know it can't be done all at once. i'm looking forward to your comments, including work by the board of supervisors to add clarity. >> director hillis: and i think where we're going to see potential projects, given where that kind of allocation number is, is one that will produce the affordable housing at the same time, whether it be through a d.a. or not, at their office project, and we do need

to clarify how that would work, through both more definition and clarity by the zoning administrator. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: director hillis, if i may, is this a time to look at potential relocation? there are many projects that have sat around for a long time? is there a way to look at certain projects with regard to how we look at the cap? we know priority projects within central soma, however, with the office allocation, there may be things that will be candidates for relocation with those who still want to come forward and build an investment? >> director hillis: absolutely, and we've had discussions

around that because there's two ways that past office allocations could be put back into the pool. one is the project sponsor putting it back and writes a letter to the zoning administrator to give that allocation back to the extent that they were expected to build or it could be revoked through an action of the planning commission. so i think mr. teague can speak more about kind of the units of the project that are out there that could possibly be revoked or that allocation given back. >> yeah. we went through this process last week, and you may recall we had three projects that came before you for revocation last year, and then, we also had two projects that went through an administrative kind of voluntarily core picture of their space. so there aren't that many projects left in the -- in the prop m universe that couldlike eligible for education.

we're kind of always keeping our eye on that, and we actually also track all of the projects to make sure that we're staying sincere in their efforts to move forward, so that's always something we're going to be doing moving forward, and i'm sure with tighter and tighter amounts to allocate, we'll continue to do that. >> vice president moore: it comes, obviously, as a disappointment to hear that ocean center had to ask for an extension or at least indicated that they were not able to assemble the deal that they had hoped for, and it's with those large sites that play critical roles in the overall completion of power, building the transit center, for example, where those projects [inaudible] they are painful to see that they will leave missing teeth in the overall downtown. >> director hillis: yeah. and i think the hope is that that project can happen, but we will certainly keep you updated on projects that have received

allocation, that significant time has elapsed between the time that it received the allocation or construction or movement on a project is not happening. i should note that just on specific projects that will come relatively soon, 598 brannan is scheduled for midmove, with about a 200,000 -- mid-november, with about a 200,000 allocation. that's a central soma project. and then, the potrero station, station a, is coming to you in october, with an allocation about 500,000 square feet -- or between 400 and 500,000 square feet. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have a question for you, just, i guess, for clarification on the recommendation number four as to -- you gave out the

example, but it was kind of hard for me to capture what that means, but it sounds like a housing reserve can be up to 50%, and then, can you clarify that calculation because you may not be able to reach the housing reserve? >> yeah, sure. sure, i'm happy to elaborate again. so again, kind of the essential premise of prop e is to basically say if you want to move forward when there's no office space available to allocate, you have to produce 1 100% of the demand you're creating for affordable housing, and you need to create it right now, in conjunction with the office of housing development. the one caveat is gives, if, as part of your project, you're doing some market rate housing, and that portion of the project is subject to our affordable housing fee, up to 50% of that

credit can be applied to housing units produced. and then, this provision allows 50% of that to be credited towards your affordable housing requirement, so in that case, you would get credit for 15 units of affordable housing based on the affordable housing fee you paid for that portion of the project, if that makes sense. that's the most direct conversion methodology that we

have to use within the code. >> and that is -- that type of calculation is something that already exists already? >> if you're doing a market rate project right now, you have an option of doing on-site units, which is a number of actual physical units. you have a percentage of off-site units, or you can do a percentage but only pay the fee. and so the fee that you pay represents that percentage of units you're required to provide, and so it's a similar -- it's a similar concept, and because it's a similar concept, and we already have this fee created by m.o.h., it made the most sense to piggyback on that, especially since prop e did not provide any alternative

methodolo methodology. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, i will just simply remind you that this is an action item if you so choose. >> president koppel: i would entertain a motion to approve. >> vice president moore: move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: seeing no further questions, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution with a planning commission policy for implementation. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 and places us on item 10 for 2019-016388 cua at 1760 ocean avenue. is staff prepared to present? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. i'm passing you the ball. >> good afternoon, planning commission. jeff ball, planning department

staff. the project site is 51,500 square feet in area and is developed with a mixed-use building constructed circa 1990, indicating 28 units on the lower floor and a 25,000 square foot commercial space within a one-story penal codum fronting on -- podium fronting on ocean avenue. the space was form ely occupied by a cvs pharmacy. the remainor of the space is occupied by a kind knee dialysis center and a u.p.s. retail -- kidney dialysis center and a u.p.s. retail

center. the proposal will involve interior tenant improvements to provide 36 treatment stations, one isolation treatment station, six exam rooms, three staff offices, a lounge, and support spaces. there is no expansion to the existing tenant space or building envelope proposed. the main entrance to the facility is at the corner of ocean avenues and dorado terrace. the project proposes to operate monday through saturday, from the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. the project will replace the existing dialysis center that currently operates within the same building located within the adjacent commercial units

and is approximately 8,000 square feet in size chlts the existing facility provides 24 treatment chairs, and this project proposes 36 chairs, a 50% increase. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must issue a conditional use authorization to allow a health service juth and to allow the 5:00 a.m. opening time within the ocean avenue m.c.t. zoning district. 6:00 a.m. is the permitted opening time by right. the department has received three letters from neighborhood groups in opposition to the project. the groups in opposition to the project include the ocean avenue association, ocean gardens homeowners association and ingleside merchant association. specifically, concerns have been express expressed that th

proposed use is concerning, and that the loading and unloading patients causes pedestrian and traffic concerns on ocean avenue. on monday, shirley medina presented a letter on behalf of the associations but continued to express concerns of traffic and congestion from the existing dialysis. earlier today, the commission has been provided a letter from board president yee. in response to the community letters and comments received, the sponsor has hosted a series

of virtual meetings with the community over the past few months. procedurally, the scope of this project did not trigger an environmental review of transportation issues, nor was it subject to better streets plan, but in response to the public comments receive on the existing and paratransit loading issues, at the existing project sites and to be expanded upon by the project, the project was reviewed by the streets design advisory team. the s.f. pound that the paratransit vehicles will be less likely to block traffic lanes on ocean avenue due to the new location being located closer -- or the entrance of the new location be located closer to the existing loading on ocean avenue. and subsequent to this meeting, there was a review and have been subsequent meeting between

sfmta, planning department, and the vendor of the proposed transit. given the critical service provided by the project, the department and sfmta found that the benefits of the project with the attached conditions of approval outweigh the conflicts. planning provided two unique conditions of approval for this project within the draft motion. and although no improvements have formally been reviewed yet by sfmta, additional loading on ocean avenue seemed to be possible and will be assessed by m.t.a. in the future. the owner shall continue accord

jags with s.f.m.t.a. and trans-de 1red. -- trans-dev. as provided in condition of approval number 14-a, the sponsor shall submit a driving and loading operations plan in order to reduce potential conflict due to loading activities and to accommodate new loading demands. it shall be submitted along with a building permit and approval showed prior to the certificate of occupancy. the sponsor provided a draft of the dlop for informational purposes within their supplemental materials. i would like to provide a note of clarification. item 6 guidelines states that

guidelines have been prepared and are attached as an appendix through the dlop. this draft dlop was intended to serve as the permanent dlop. the department would also like to include an item from the dlop to be added as a stand-alone condition of approval to be included in exhibit a chblt the new condition of approval would be entitled dedicated street loading attendant skm in review with the city korn's office would read as facility operator shall provide a dedicated staff attendant to help facilitate flow of vehicles and use of the loading zone to prevent the need to double park or block traffic. the attendant could assist with boarding and off boarding vehicles between the transit vehicle and the facility as practical and permissible.

t finally, i would like to note that finding e of the draft motion has two separate and conflicting responses, and the following language shall be stricken from the record. per page 11 of the draft motion, the project does not include commercial office development. although the project would remove a p.d.r. use, the project does not provide housing as a top requirement to the city. with that, the department finds the project is on balance, consistent with the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial transit district, and the objectives and policies of the general plan in that they will provide a necessary and critical health service and will occupy an existing vacant storefront. the department finds this project would be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.

this concludes staff presentation, and i'm available for any questions. were y >> clerk: and were you going to introduce the aide? >> i'd like to introduce jen low, administrative aide to supervisor yee. >> thank you so much for hearing this item today. i know it has been continued a number of times, and i do appreciate planning staff for facilitating a number of conversations with the project sponsor, along with the merchants representatives, neighbors, as well as transit earlier this week. we just want to convey the challenges of this existing condition on ocean avenue. we've got a lot of physical limitations to what can be provided, and i think the existing conditions are already a challenge, and that is

something we discussed at great length during our meeting with neighbors [inaudible] unfortunately, a resolution was not able to be brought forward, so what we're asking you, through your review and your analysis, if a conditional use authorization is granted, we would like you to consider a number of considerations and conditions so that we can provide time and evaluation to see if we can find a solution to this. to president yee, vision zero and traffic safety is of utmost concern [inaudible] they're blocking the intersection where cars are acting erratically [inaudible] and so that's ultimately [inaudible] here before you today, we typically like to allow for conditional use authorizations to kind of

go ahead through the planning process without our intervention, but with this particular way [inaudible] this considerations, and i'd like to go through them today really quickly. as of now, there are existing conditions that we're not able to solve [inaudible]. >> clerk: jen, miss low, i'm sorry to interrupt you, but it appears that you're having some technical difficulty. if you'd turn your video camera off, we might still be able to get your audio clear. >> okay. okay. can you hear me better. >> clerk: we can, yes. thank you. >> thank you. and so the first that we'd like

to ask for is i think an evaluation of whether or not the parking lot could be maximized for use in terms of trying to accommodate the increased number of vehicles with paratransit and other patients docks and finding a way to address the load restrictions as they exist now. [inaudible] therefore, if we're not able to provide for increased loading capacity, we'd like the commission to consider a path or phased approach to the number of patients served until a resolution is set afford. i know that sfmta is still contemplating the possibility of allowing the project sponsor to expand the loading zones. it's not an easy lift, they're analyzing it, but should that become an available option, we

should evaluate whether or not we can increase the number of patients served at this facility. but until now, we should [inaudible] limit it so we can phase in the number of patients being seen. >> vice president moore: i cannot hear, miss low. >> oh, you can't hear me? okay. hello? >> clerk >> clerk >> clerk: unfortunately, you're cutting in and out toward the end there a little bit. >> i guess i'm having some technical difficulties. can you hear me better? >> clerk: we can hear you, yeah. >> [inaudible] also, the

traffic flow, and one thing we learned from transit and the paratransit provider is that having someone that's dedicated is beneficial, also [inaudible] a significant ongoing commitment to community engagement also as part of the dlop process. i think there's concern from the neighbors that they may not feel part of the engagement process with the planning department when the dlop plan is drafted and then fully implemented prior to occupancy, we'd like to see that there is some regular engagement through the drafting of that plan as well as a commitment from the

project sponsor to meet regularly with the neighbors so they can troubleshoot some issues arise. lastly, we'd like to set in some time of regular reporting, a six-month lookback after regular operations so we can evaluate how things with working at the site with the dlop planning phrase and any other resolutions that are brought forth. we'd also like the commission to rehear some planning staff how things are going a year out from operations. what really -- this case has really brought to light is that dialysis centers in san francisco, but not every space is ideal for that given that it's intrinsically connected to the use of different types of transportation services. and so with that, the -- we'd love for the commissions to consider in the health

institution master plan, how we can think ahead for other locations. there are some land use and transportation policies that we may need to look at, and so-so that's something that the board of supervisors and the department of aging and disability and adult services can look at. i think it's a long-term plan that the city needs to look at. i'm so sorry. i'm not even sure if you can hear me, but i appreciate the time and effort that you've taken in considering this, and i hope you can take this in consideration in your deliberations today. >> clerk: thank you, miss low, is that it for you today? >> yes. >> clerk: thank you. i will just remind the commission that most of the comments that miss low made to you were forwarded to you via e-mail today. so at this time, we should go

to the project sponsor, and if -- mr. hansel, are you prepared to submit your presentation? >> yes, i am. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is keith hansel with [inaudible] architects. i'm here on behalf of and with our client, presidio medical care. i have virgil on the phone with me from persenius to answer any questions about the operations. i can speak more to the design of the project. okay. so this is our first slide, showing kind of context walual this building we were asked to design inside it. this is at the corner of dorado and ocean avenue. you can see that the entrance is right on the corner, and

that would be the space that we would be occupying. okay. you can go to the next slide. for context, here's the location, dorado and ocean avenue in the nct-1 zone. next slide. okay. i wanted to include one of the things that were brought up by the neighbors in our conversations, they were concerned that people were coming into this use, and they were not people of this community. so we wanted to show a slide that -- that kind of designates the -- some of the patients' locations, their home addresses, so you can see them scattered throughout the greater san francisco area, with the clinic -- the existing clinic being shown out there with the little tag kind of in the middle of this slide. so as you can see, they're spread out a bit, but there is a lot of people from this neighborhood, from this area that use this -- this very

critical clinic that -- that, you know, is life sustaining for them. okay. jeff, you can go to the next slide. this is a bird's eye view as indicated by planning. we have residential units that are built basically on top of the building. i think there's three-story condominiums there, so our -- our tenant improvement, obviously, has a great impact on the neighborhood, impact on people who live, you know, not only adjacent but right above, in some cases, the space that's going to be developed. okay. you can go ahead and go to the next slide. another view, kind of more looking east. we're zoomed out a little bit far, but there is the cut-in of the loading that they're

currently the white zone. you can kind of see it a little bit in the circle. that's the -- the -- kind of the area of contention on the project. this is where paratransit trans are currently dropping off patients, kind of -- the current -- the current clinic is sort of in the middle of the block, so paratransit not vvand of hit in the center of that spot so they can allow their patients to be entered into the facility. if our project were to be approved, our conditional use were to be approved, the patients would then be entering on the corner there, so more of the cut-in of the loading area could hopefully be used -- or used more effectively, that's our thought or our hope.

okay. you can go to the next slide. just another view. this is looking kind of to the south as opposed -- you can see dorado terrace is a very steep street, which is something that we had talked with the contractor for sfmta, for paratransit deliveries of the patients, and they had indicated that dorado terrace would not be -- would not work for them as far as a drop-off area just due to the slope of the street. it exceeds their requirements from an accessibility standpoint and also have a -- from a patient view that they have. okay. next slide. okay, and then looking west. they're a target [inaudible]. okay. go ahead and go to the next slide.

okay. this is a front street view of the clinic again, a little closer up. there's the transport, the light rail station there right there on the median of the street. next slide, please. this is the parking structure entrance on dorado terrace. it is extremely low. the claerps is onearances is o which prevents any transit vans from entering this structure. okay. next slide? >> clerk: how much more time do you need? that's pretty much your five minutes for your presentation. >> if i could have another 30 seconds, maybe we could just shoot through these next few slides. this is the existing clinic, 1738. next slide. this is the new proposed clinic, 1760. you can see it's a little

bigger, br 13,760 square feet of useable space. next slide. this is a floor plan layout, next slide. next slide, just elevation views. next slide. okay. i just wanted to end on this slide. this shows the -- you know, the [inaudible] one in seven people, chronic kidney disease. it's very, very crhronic. disproportionately affects african americans, hispanics. this is a very important need, very common and growing a lot in this country. thank you. that's the end of my presentation. >> clerk: thank you, mr. hansel. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony on this item. if you wish to do so, please

press star then three to get into the queue. go ahead, caller. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> my name is dan weaver. i'm the executive director of the ocean avenue association. i have a brief statement to read here. in july, starting in july, at three virtual meetings, project sponsors refused to discuss the transparency needs of this building or of the planning and design of the street facades. this project should not go forward until these issues are addressed in a public process, and i suppose we'd have to have a design in hand before we can

make evaluations on this. also, the facades should be painted of the building, should be painted, a mural or other artwork should be created, and the building frontages should be landscaped. the sidewalk on ocean avenue, which already has had a number of feet removed by sfmta due to the existing dialysis operation, the sidewalk should not be narrowed anymore than it is -- has been, and existing landscape should not be removed because that's something that happened the first time around, and this is a busy transit boarding area that requires a decent sidewalk there, at least 8 feet. over the years, city leaders

have found is extremely difficult to find -- found it extremely difficult to find or speak to the current manager of the dialysis facility. there should be a manager to speak to during opening hours. also needed is better parking facilities because this facility is being expanded from the existing facility by about 50%. none of these issues have been settled by project sponsors. they've said, isn't that a nice idea to a number of things, but they've never committed themselves to anything. the need for facade transparency for this project is primary. the refusal of the sponsors to address this now is not acceptable. finally, i have to add this: with no ability for commissioners to ask questions, this virtual meeting is

inadequate and should be changed to allow questions and answers. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david blumenfeld. i've lived in the neighborhood where the dying sis center is located for over 25 years. i'm the president and a board member of the homeowners association which is on top of the dialysis center. it seems that this proposal will be approved as a done deal despite the concerns raised by the people that will be affected by it the most, those that live in the immediate vicinity of the project. the project is recommended with approval with the amazing

statement that the project is found to be characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, and i'm not sure how anyone could come to that raised by the concerned citizens, as do issues of parking, traffic, and safety. i wrote a letter to the commission on july 20, in opposition to this project. the traffic situation will get worse in the areas around the dialysis center due to the increase in patient volume which will increase and escalate noise, traffic, and safety issues. currently during the traditional business hours 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. the transit vehicles block one of the lanes on ocean avenue. due to illegal paratransit van

parking, motorists have a difficult time returning right onto dorado. with the presence of a muni island, it is dangerous for most vits to access dorado from web ocean avenue. also, allowing the clinic to operate from the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. is of particular concern. the paratransit vans have loud back up beepers, and drivers often sit at the clinic waiting to pick people up again for lengthy periods of time, idling their diesel engines. this was a bad idea 30 years ago when it was first approved, and it's a worse idea now after all the build up of ocean avenue after this period of time. [inaudible] you will not be

giving these issues the proper attention they deserve. i ask you to reconsider the examine request for approval and not to rubber stamp this. thank you for your time. >> hi. my name is steven butray, and i'm a resident of dorado terrace, and i'm here to oppose this project at least at this time. and i need to make clear that the existing business already fails to have capacity to load and unload passengers, and the location of the door has nothing to do with it. when the vans occupy the complete loading bowl and then overflow into other areas, moving the door is not going to solve that problem. both the report from planning staff and from the client's

representative stated that that would be the case, but it's simply not true. experience shows otherwise, and the safety of pedestrians and of drivers both at the intersections of factson and ocean and dorado and ocean demonstrate that. as you've also heard, public trust has been eroded by the handling of this project early on, and only recently as the public became more aware of the project has there been engagement, and that's simply not trust building in the least. rather than coming to us early, they come to us now. that's all i have to add to this conversation. thanks. >> hi there. my name is shirley [inaudible]

and i am also on the h.o.a. board with david blumenfeld. we represent ocean gardens homeowners association. there are 26 units above the clinic, and what we'd like to do, we'd like to get a continuance granting so that we're not wasting anymore time today trying to get to the biggest unresolved issues. if a continuance isn't granted, we'd like to take the time during this hearing to state the following conditions that we'd like to put forward in writing from persinius prior to construction. we are in agreement with jen low. we do need a full-time traffic manager. this position being at or near the front of the clinic to direct traffic, including any construction vehicles, especially during peak westbound hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. the traffic manager should also

manage the medical waste pick up trucks which double park at dorado entrance, as well. like steven had also said, there is a lack of commitment from persenius. we don't hear from them very often, and when we do, we don't get much information, so we'd like to get a once-a-month community meeting between them and ogha, the h.o.a. and ocean avenue association. we do have an e-mail blast that we can send out to the community to go ahead and get these things set up, but we do need to have these meetings. the other thing we'd like to have is a contact person at persenius to call for trash, smoking, and homeless people outside the door. and finally, we'd like to

discuss adjusting the business hours. the space is going to double, the hours of operation should be shifted to start at 7:00 a.m., like all the other businesses on the block, and end at 9:00 p.m. thanks for your consideration. >> hello. can everybody hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> super, thank you. this is jillian ladd. i am a concerned neighbor and kind of late to the game, but i did participate in some of the call-ins previously, and i think my neighbors have done a pretty good job of summarizing our concerns about this

proposal. i have a more fundamental concern as a neighbor who walks her dog and has a kidney problem. i i am concerned that this company who wants to take over with more client spots has spent 2,000 times as much fighting basic minimum standards on proposition 23 that's coming up in the next election. they fought it last time, and they're fighting it this time, and why can't they invest it in something that's going to benefit the patient instead of ram these projects through and become bigger factories, which is what you're performing right now. outside, we talk about the traffic. it's a muni island next to it so that when the train is there and transport vehicles are backed up.

it's ridiculous. people do dangerous things like try to do u-turns over bits of the island, and it's exceptionally dangerous to pedestrians and to other traffic. we discussed in one of our meetings the location and asked the team if they had actually come to the site and taken a look, and there was a kind of yeah, well, yeah, well, but we're going to do it. sliexz, we've already invested in a plan and doing it and everything, but we're just listening to you because we think that would be good p.r. and i haven't heard any real responses. i'm also concerned that moving it to the corner is going to co-opt the only blue handicapped parking space in the neighborhood, which is on the corner of ocean and dorado between the proposed clinic location and -- and the entry. so i'm concerned about the loss

of that to loading vans. i'm also very concerned about patients and the [inaudible] and the potential for making u-turns in those vans, and the damage that that can do. and i'm really concerned logistically about the inside of the facility. you guys drew up plans before covid-19. i'm wondering what hvac improvements, what ultraviolent improvements you have done to make your patients more safe, to make the community more safe. i haven't heard anything about that. if you're going to have two times as many patients in not twice as much space, but you're going to be producing twice as much hazardous material [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. ma'am. that's your time. >> thank you. >> clerk: members of the public, this is last call, and your ability to press star,

three to submit your public comment. commissioners, i have no other members of the public wishing to speak. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: let me, first of all, thank supervisor yee, jen, -- jen low, and ben for all of their work. i do understand the sensitivity of this project, and again, thank you for the supervisor reaching out with proposed conditioned that i will be in favor of today. let me call on commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: the -- i had requested some additional information from the project sponsor in two areas.

first was in their drop off-loading plan and operations plan, i requested a diagram based on the maximum number of vans that they received to show how they could be staged and parked. we have no idea of how many vans come. the number of van drop-off ds d pick-ups are listed in a chart. i have no idea who prepared the chart, and it talks about it on a monthly basis based upon the times of the day. however, looking at those numbers that's quite

significant, i did not receive any diagram as to how the drop-off plan would work. the second area was, you know, to see whether -- with the understanding that it may require some alteration and some additional construction work is to utilize the parking area as a potential drop-off. the project sponsor's only indication of complying with my requests is to section the entry portion of the garage, the height of the -- clear height and the garage itself. the only thing that they provided was a verbal comment

today regarding 8'2" clearance at the entry, but who knows whether those entry points couldn't be altered to accommodate these vans, which is 8'8". given the fact that the information has not been provided, i would be prepared to make a motion to continue this case until that information is provided. but let me also explain to the neighbors and the community organizations that have provided -- i've supportive of this use and would like to see them be a congenial neighbor to the neighborhood.

>> president koppel: good points, commissioner fung. let's go to commissioner moore next. >> vice president moore: commissioner fung raised a number of very important points, coinciding with a number of my questions. paratransit and patient handling are specific rules which are harder to understand. i wish paratransit would be here today so we can ask questions and get a better insight in what has its own regulations and a science of its own. that not being present, i think we may have to ask for further technical input. i would support a continuance, but with a strong emphasis to be used wisely to address pretty much all the issues that came from supervisor yee's office as read into the record

by lemgislative aide jen low. further issues, hours of operation. i believe that the question about transparency. for many, the portion of the building that the dialysis center is trying to move into was indeed a transparent facade. it was a video store for many years, turning into a c.v.s. pharmacy. a community activating use, which is the dialysis is not.

i believe all of those discussions, together with the five points raised by supervisor yee, should be part of the continuance, and i would not want to come back to a hearing in a few weeks by which all and every of these points has to be addressed. so i'm in support of a continuance if commissioner fung would introduce the motion. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i am supportive of the use. a dialysis center is critically needed, and i believe that the additional conditions suggested by staff together with the conditions suggested by supervisor yee's office help me to believe that these issues can be resolved, but what i am not supportive of is the 5:00 a.m. start time. if the standard time is 6:00 a.m.; i completely agree

with commissioner moore that in a mixed-use project that is residential above, i just don't see any justification subjecting the residential neighbors to the noise that comes from the vans at 5:00 a.m. [inaudible] as to why they think a 5:00 a.m. start time is justified in a mixed-use environment, i'd be opening to listening to that now. that's a question for you, but i'm not seeing it. >> virgil, you want to -- >> president koppel: sir, we can go to one more commissioner, and then, we'll let you respond. i just want to make sure that we can get all the questions out, and then ae we'll allow you to respond. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes,

i also agree with commissioner moore and commissioner's fung's comments. i actually -- also one comment for -- as you know, as planning commission and department of public health, we're anticipating a joint hearing for -- pretty son, and one thing that, of course, at that joint hearing is to consider a location of centers in neighborhoods. and this -- and this kind of topic also comes up because this dialysis or potential dialysis center is in an n.c.d., and also, the traffic is also a big issue around that, too, the two-way lane. and my issue as being

reiterated by commissioner fung and moore are the off-loading areas. i don't think right now that there is a sufficient offloading areas, and even with the garage space, we also don't have a plan as to how that's going to be utilized, so that's -- that is -- you know, in this, going to the continuance, that would be something that would be -- i would really interested to see. i think it's really important, also for me, i really wish that the paratransit or also would input with the department of public health in terms of the rate of patients. personally, i do not know the rate of patients coming into the dialysis center and how long, and we have to take into consideration the times of the paratransit offloads.

those kinds of informations are not in front of us, and i would be happy to answesupport, as wa continuance, with the four or five conditions that were put forth by supervisor yee's office. >> president koppel: okay. mr. hansel, you're up. >> clerk: mr. hansel, did you want to respond? >> commissioner fung: is he muted? >> clerk: no, i unmuted him. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> clerk: mr. hansel? >> yes. do i have the floor? >> clerk: your opportunity to speak has been recognized. >> okay. thank you. first, i'd like to go back a little bit to speak to mr.

fung's statement. mr. fung did request materials from me two days ago. unfortunately, he was asking for some sophisticated diagrams and drawings that i was not able to put together in that short of time. however, i did answer his questions in a very detailed manner. i have an e-mail back to him, explaining that the -- the existing bulb-out looks to be -- i don't have the exact information, but i believe it's about 60 feet. the paratransit vans are about 20 feet. more than two paratransit vans would not fit in that bulb-out as it currently exists. we are considering extending the bulb out towards faxon.

they've come back very recently and said that we possibly can move the light standard if we're willing to attach the guy wire to the building, so we're looking at that. i also addressed the parking garage entry on dorado terrace. the parking garage entry on dorado terrace, i did say in my e-mail to mr. fung, is 8'2", not high enough to accommodate a transit van. it would essentially be a one-you way transit back out. they absolutely refuse to use that as a possibility. as far as trying to undermine a building with four -- three levels of residential and the concrete structure, i don't see that as even in the realm of possibility to try to dig that

parking structure out. it's just beyond -- beyond anything that could be done on a project like this. speaking to the -- the items that were brought up by jen low, cars blocking the intersection, i think this is part of something that we're trying to work on with sfmta. i mean, the paratransit vans are already doing this. this is something that's been happening for 30 years. we're perhaps not creating this issue, so we are attempting, like i said, to work with sfmta to see if we can possibly extend the bulb-in, and then, also, we've already conceded that we could hire a traffic coordinator or a transit acc d coordinator that could receive these people on the street, and trans-dev said it would cause them to have less time there.

[please stand by] -- patients just are dropped

off. and so all of the patients being dropped off in the morning, if we started at 5:00, then the next -- what we call turnaround where they drop patients off and pick up new patients for the next shift is now delayed until about 8:00, 8:30. and so it wouldn't be -- and, you know, it would not affect the traffic as much as what we would consider sort of rush hour. if we moved to 6:00, then the dropping off of patients would clearly move into the time of what, you know, of obviously of the rush hour, and into a time where there would be more traffic. so we actually are imposing 5:00 to actually mitigate some of the traffic issues. >> clerk: commissioners, i have an additional request for public comment. should we take that caller now?

>> president koppel: yeah, go ahead. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. caller, are you reaped to submit your testimony? >> caller: hi, sorry, i was muted. i just wanted to address the comment -- shirley again from the homeowners association. >> clerk: you already spoke and you can't speak again. sorry about that, commissioners. >> president koppel: if possible i'd -- if possible i would like to address some of the things brought up. one of the callers had indicated that we had refused, i think is the word that he said, is transparency. that is a falsehood. we did talk about transparency. we're not proposing to change the storefront window system so

the transparency change is zero. there's no change to the existing. now these are medical patients so there are potentially hippa concerns so we'll have to have window shades but not blocking windows. that's not what we are looking to do. >> president koppel: jonas, do we have a motion? >> i have a comment still. >> president koppel: commissioner fung, go ahead. >> commissioner fung: the arg tech for the project sponsor indicated that he provided me with the additional information and i disagree with that comment. i don't think that he provided me with an adequate response to any of the things that i asked for. i don't understand why it's so difficult unless it relates to what some of the public speakers and the supervisor's office has

indicated as a lack of the desire to enter into meaningful discussions. however, not having the information that i have requested, adequate information, i am prepared to move to continue this. to a point where we could get all of that information without it coming piecemeal. >> clerk: commissioner fung, did you have a timeframe that you're interested in. >> commissioner fung: let's give them one month. >> i second that motion. >> president koppel: i'm sorry, can i call on commissioner diamond really quick. >> commissioner diamond: i'm after commissioner fung. >> president koppel: you're right. >> commissioner diamond: i believe that all of the verbal information in the last few minutes should have been further elaborated and reported in our

package to indicate to me that many of the questions that you are asking us have not been fully worked out. that is in support of the commissioner fung's observations that the architect did not provide him the answers that he had been answering for. many of these things seem to be in fliks and report the as a -- flux, and reported as a question. i'm supporting continuance. i am supporting the continuance and i'm not satisfied around the start time and i recognize the issue raised about whether or not starting later creates more traffic problems. i feel like all of that needs to be part of the discussion during the continuance period.

>> clerk: commissioners, that concludes your deliberation. here's a motion to continue this matter to november 5th. on that motion [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and places under -- oh, -- excuse me -- item 11, for case 2019-016420cnd at 424-434 francisco street. this is a condominium conversion, on september 3, 2020, after hearing and closing public comment you continued to september 2020, commissioner koppel you were absent on september 17th, without hearing and you continued to today's date.

and just to confirm, commissioner koppel, in order to participate you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> president koppel: yes, i did. >> clerk: great, thank you, commissioner koppel. as a reminder to the project sponsor and organized opposition and the members of the public this is our second hearing and so through the chair the project sponsor and organized opposition will receive three minutes and the members of the public receive one minute. are you prepared to present? >> yes. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. the planning department staff. the item before you is a condominium conversion request located at 424-434 francisco street. the project proposes the conversion of an existing three-story building into condominium units. the commission heard this on september 3, 2020, and directed

staff to conduct records research. also since september 3, the support has been focused back into the commission. and a revised commission was sent to the commissioner this is morning and the revision included the removal of the general plans housing element objectives to the policy 2.4, and instead this policy should be kept in the motion. the revisions added housing element, policy 5.4 remains in addition to the draft motion. the planning commission's role in reviewing this case before you is explicitly laid out in the subdivision code. the planning commission is to find the map with the planning code, to meet the criteria as prescribed in subdivision code section 1386, and finding on balance with the general plan. the first point, the proposal does not include any physical change to the existing building and note the allocation about the open space. as such, the staff finds the

proposal consistent with the planning code. on the second point, staff reaffirms that no evidence has been found to support the potential denial of the maps. staff reviewed the rent board records dating back to the 2000s and the voting records to the 1960s. no evidence is found that vacancies have been increased and the elderly or permanently disabled persons have been displaced and for the purpose of preparing the properties for conversion has taken place but there's been a rent increase in the past 18 months or any information from the project sponsor is false or misleading. the staff reaffirmed that the evictions in 2004 are a lock hollawful.and they cannot be cos a basis for the denial of the map. staff finds that there's no direct or indirect physical change to the environment in regards as part of this request and, therefore, the request is

not a project under ceqa, and guidelines 10516, and 10378. the department recommends approval, given that the proposed conversion supports the city goals to maintain existing housing stock and provide homeownership opportunities. and the proposal is found on balance and consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan. and is found compatible with the neighborhood. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions and i believe that the project sponsor is on the line. >> clerk: unfortunately, the information that the project sponsor provided us, rosemary mcginnis, is not in our attendee list, nor is the request for organized opposition from teresa slandrick. i do believe that steve coyer is part of that organized opposition, so we can take that call and provide him with three

minutes. but in order to be recognized as organized opposition you really need three people presenting. and then hopefully the project sponsor can call in to our public comment line and identify herself as the project sponsor and we will provide her with three minutes. so that's the best solution i can come up with at this time given that the information provided to us doesn't appear on our agenda list. mr. collier, are you there? >> yes, can you hear me? >> clerk: i can. are you part of the organized opposition? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: is she with you there? >> no, she's not in the room with me but i thought that she might be participating maybe by the -- through telephone. >> clerk: i explained to her that you guys need to get on a conference call in order to have your organized opposition

recognized together. but if you take three minutes it kind of taking up her time. so do you want to just take one minute? >> i'll just take one minute. i'd like to address the part of the staff report that says elderly and permanently disabled tenants displaced or discriminated against in these units, that they've been made that it was lawful so that this commission cannot use those evictions as a basis to deny the application. i think that is incorrect as a matter of law. first of all, the statement that the staff reports that they are (indiscernible), that is an incorrect statement. [bell ringing] and it did not say that the conversion to

condominiums would be permitted and specifically says that it does not apply to subsequent decisions around conversion to condominiums. >> jonas, i have a question for mr. collier, if it okay? >> clerk: why don't you go ahead and ask him now. >> okay, thanks. so mr. collier, i thank you for, you know, being here. i do have questions on areas that you have brought up, especially on the case about the two hearings go or three or four weeks ago. you referred to the 2007 court appeal in the superior court and one thing that strikes me in that statement -- and thank you -- attached the background on that.

is it correct, the way i read it is that the -- based on the tax roll and background that there was an intended -- or the intent that the court found the intent or the owners to create vacancies in the property. can you elaborate on that? because you were around that time during the hearing or during this case. >> yes, thank you, commissioner. i was the attorney that dealt with this matter from the trial court and the court of appeal. factual background is that there were four limited liability company owners who owned six of the units, or owned -- each owned one/sixth interest along

with a couple not in l.l.c., and they had the rights of occupancy applied to the six units. and the court in their statements made by the owners to the court and then the court adopted in its analysis, it said that the owners understood before the close of escrow they may have to invoke this to create vacancies in the unit. and the owners agreed to convert the property into condominiums at the earliest possible date. that's a direct quote from the opinion that i have provided. >> okay. another question is when it comes to the sub-divided lot, i just want -- i'm pretty sure that you're well versed on that the intent of the case is something that is something not in compliance with the condo

conversion law? >> right. the federal law that we were addressing is that appeal was a sub-divided land act, which is within our local condominium conversion law. and the local condo conversion law was not a subject at this appeal because there had been no condominium conversion application yet. the question is whether the intensive sell off of units violated our land act, which is a state law. and the part that the tenants did assert is the harm they would suffer is from the eviction and that would not be (indiscernible) to the sub-divided land lot. it did not deal with the issue whether this is an unlawful division. >> okay. and in terms of the seniors

werewereevicted? how many seniors evicted? >> a lot of disabled people, permanently disabled man, and there was also a number of other disabled tenants. by the time that the case went forward and they were displaced i believe that mr. favor had (indiscernible). >> okay. so one senior and two disabled tenants? >> yeah, i think that there were a total of about seven or eight tenants. and most of them were disabled. but mr. favor was what we call permanently disabled in the staff report as someone who was receiving supplemental security income based on a disability. >> okay. thank you.

>> clerk: okay, no additional questions to mr. collier from commissioners. i believe that we have identified the number from the project sponsor which was not provided to us as requested. is this the project sponsor? >> yes, can you erro hear me? >> clerk: you gave us a different number so there was no way to identify you. >> sorry. >> clerk: when you give us a number we have to use that to identify you. you have three minutes. >> yes. my name is rosemary mcginnis and i'm a attorney. our law firm does not handle evictions of any kind, we don't represent tenants or landlords and we never have and have never been involved in any eviction. what i would like to do today is to provide some background on the expedited conversion

program, the conversion program under which the san francisco property has applied. which might shed some light on the work that the city does in order to adopt these regulations. so a few points. so essentially the conversion of property is a sub-division. you're sub-dividing land. and sub-dividing land is governed by california law. california state law. the sub-divided map act. and the sub-divided map act sets out specific regulations and criteria for local governments to adopt. so there's no central state body or agency that administers the sub-division law. it is up to each local government. and as a result, and -- so, for example, the sub-division map act specifically requires each

local government to adopt to regulation that takes into consideration the housing needs of the region. and balance those needs -- you know, to take into consideration who the constituents are and to balance those needs. and of all economic segments of the community. it's been well established that local governments have a broad police power in adopting conversion regulations. as long as they meet the state's criteria. and as a result of the state's mandate to adopt conversion regulations, san francisco has adopted the sub-division code. which is the san francisco municipal code. and the san francisco sub-division code states that it is adopted pursuant to the sub-division map act.

when the -- the provision -- the section 1386 was adopted in 1981. [bell ringing] is that my time? >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >> i see, okay. i'm sorry. so the expedited conversion program was adopted and the findings of the expedited conversion program, they have included many protections for tenants. and, for example, when the lottery comes back there would be no conversions for five to six unit buildings. so the conversion program, under which this building has applied, has included many restrictions -- [bell ringing] >> clerk: that -- >> with regards to tenant protections. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, we should take

public comment at this time. members of the public, in order to speak to this matter you need to get into the queue by pressing star, 3. and you will each have one minute. caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? okay, they hung up. next caller. >> caller: hi, this is mitchell, an attorney with the affordable housing allowance and formal opposition to this project. we've had a lot of obfiscation and discussion of red herring areas here. i have been involved in all of the sections and aaron peskin's 1396.2 which does not aspire to this situation. we waste a lot of time talking about. but 1386 of the sub-division code and i'll read you the

pertinent language. [bell ringing] finds evictions have occurred for the purpose of the pairing of the building for conversion, that the map shall be disapproved. that's what the california court of appeals found with this instance. that exact thing happened. the court uses almost exactly those words where people have been -- there's been evictions for the purpose of preparing the building for conversion. the type of eviction, whether it's ellis or something else -- [bell ringing] to look at the facts found by the court of appeal -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. >> caller: next time please do -- thank you. >> clerk: if the caller can mute their television or their computer. are you prepared to submit your

testimony? hello, caller? >> caller: hi. hi, is that for me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: okay. hi, i am -- my name is pauley marshall and i'm part of the organized opposition. i have been sitting on this webex call for a long time. i was a tenant commissioner on the san francisco rent board from 1984-2019. which is for 35 years. i have very specific memories of this building. first, every tenant in the building has been given an eviction notice for demolition and those notices were illegal. [bell ringing] and then we told them that they were illegal and then the ellis notices were given. and there was nothing that we could do about that. under section 1386 of the sub-division code where there's a history of evictions for

preparing the building for conversion, you must deny the sub-division. and i remember at the time asking whether we should set up a special mechanism for the rent board to refer these cases to the planning department. [bell ringing] to assure that condo conversions were not approved. at the time i was told that the planning -- >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: okay. >> clerk: caller are you prepared to submit your testimony? go ahead. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> caller: thank you. laurie plain here, with the senior disability action (indiscernible) this is a tradeoff of affordable units (indiscernible) and affordable

units for high-priced units (indiscernible) and for all of these condo conversions, nearly a change of form -- [bell ringing] (indiscernible) condo conversions are not moderate units. (indiscernible) and there's no (indiscernible) so condos will be sold for luxury homeownership. well over a million each. clearly a violation (indiscernible) thank you. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> caller: thank you. my name is chris larose and i live at 334 san francisco.

and i am calling because i oppose this conversion. you know, jean watta, he was in one of the units and he was disabled. his mother was 90 years old and couldn't take him in. he ended up dying within two months of the eviction from there. as well as months later james favor, who was disabled [bell ringing], i don't need to say anymore but i feel that this is something that shouldn't happen. >> caller: hi, this is brian barnard, an owner of 424 francisco street. i wanted to note -- >> clerk: excuse, me sir, you're the owners of the project? that would make you a project sponsor and your time to speak was under the project presentation time. so i apologize.

maybe the commissioners might have questions for you later. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is larissa with united to save the mission. it is clear that the project sponsors bought this property intending to evict the tenants and convert it to condos for profit. and to approve this condo conversion would just send a message that as long as you have enough investors and can wait long enough, that you will be ultimately be rewarded. and it is also clear that we need a system and the planning department needs a system [bell ringing] so they will not be caught without new information when these condo conversion applications come forward. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon,

commissioners. kelly hill with united to save the mission. we have to save the years long peridation practice that treats people's lives in a non-human way. the frenzy created over the last few years by the real estate and eviction law industry, it's unprecedented. now we're seeing a lot of these elis properties hitting their five and 10-year mark. we can't rewarding this behavior. this project is literally the tip of the iceberg. in the 25-page response they ignore real life statistics and endorse the conversions -- [bell ringing] and when large demographics of people are forcibly removed from their communities. the policies 101.1, don't mention the loss of neighborhood character. there's a loss of affordable housing here. you, commissioners, you yourselves lost a member of the commission for the same toxic peridation and the loss of affordable housing. we have to stop these practices and rewards. you know, it's not just a slogan

on a protest march, but the eviction does equal death. thank you. >> caller: good after it noon, this is teresa flanric and i'm calling again to ask you to deny the condo conversion. this is as you know where 15 people lost their homes. also a new vacancy was created in unit 428 of the same month that the condo application was filed. so did that tenant really leave voluntarily? have you received a letter, a record, that the tenant declined their offer, their rights, to a lifetime lease? i just -- you know, i wanted to look again. [bell ringing] there's so much going on with this building and it's not a clean title. so is there evidence that this tenant left voluntarily during the same month that the application for the condo conversion was filed in august

2019. thank you. >> caller: i wasn't sure how to lower my hand but i am one of the owners who bought the building long after this is all -- >> caller: hello, this is anastasia konopolous, commissioners, please deny this condo conversion. this is a for-profit scheme, getting tenants out by any means possible evictions, and rent board shenanigans. it just does not jibe with what is happening here in san francisco. more and more people being displaced from their homes. please do the right thing [bell

ringing] >> clerk: okay, members of the public, if you want to submit your testimony on this matter, you need to press star, 3. commissioners, seeing no additional requests to speak, the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: a question for the city attorney, please. hi.

does this case meet the criteria under the city codes for conversion? >> commissioners, the city attorney's office. i have a couple of comments about what the city needs to do in this situation. first of all, in approximately 2016 to 2018, the city litigated an ellis act issue and the courts have clearly directed the city that the city may not rely on provisions in its codes that penalize property owners who may have availed themselves of the ellis act. so this case law that occurred in 2007 isn't particularly relevant to the ellis act issue that's before you. and the commission and the city should not disapprove this application when there are ellis act -- or because there are

ellis act evictions. secondly, i think that you're asking commissioner diamond under the subdivision code is the city required to disapprove this application? it does not appear that the city is required to disapprove this application. the sub-division code asks to look at whether there were evictions. if there were evictions, then the applicant is required to wait another 18 months before reapplying. in the case of elderly and disabled tenants, the sub-division code directs that the city look back three years. and it sounds like these evictions took place in -- maybe in and around 2004 to 2007. or maybe before 2007. finally, there's another provision, this 1396.2 provision

that has three conditions that need to be met when the court looks at evictions. and one of them is that they occurred after 2005. and it doesn't sound like staff has found any evidence that any evictions occurred -- excuse me -- eviction notices were sent after 2005. so we don't think that the sub-division code requires the commission to disapprove the project. i also want to remind the commission that disapproval based on evictions is not permitted under very clear case law. and the decisions involving the city. however, the commission still does have its discretion to consider whether this condo conversion is consistent with the general plan. and there may be policies in the general plan that the commission wants to consider. so you're not prohibited from

disapproving this application. i would just recommend that the commission not base it on the ellis act evictions. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: i have another question to the city attorney in terms of the -- i understand in the issue of ellis act eviction. however, in the -- also in this

sub-divided lands act i believe that there's a question as well about the intent to the case. and is that something that, you know, you know, in terms of the intent of using the evictions to be prepared for condo -- or for the condo conversion, what would be your opinion on that with intent? >> so the -- there are two legal frameworks that apply to condo conversion. the sub-divided lands act is generally administered by the state. and the city maps act is what the city has authority over in approving condo conversion maps. the sub-division code, the city sub-division code, applies to sub-division map act to the

city's condo conversion and other sub-division processes. so when looking at this question of eviction, sub-division code examines sort of a period of time that the city can look back and a period of time that the city could -- if the city disapproves the condo conversion that there's a period of time, 18 months and an applicant can reapply. so the 2007 court of appeal decision was looking at the evictions of tenants to form a tenancy in common, which at that point was generally a first step towards condominium conversion. >> commissioner imperial:

>> clerk:is anyone interested in crafting a motion? commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i don't think that anybody disagrees that the history at this particular property is quite contorted. and a lot of things happened that probably couldn't happen now, given the changes in the law and in the policies that would apply to the sub-division in the condo map.

part of the issue for me then is what is fair to the current owners who weren't even involved in this particular process? yes, the names of the previous developers who created this mess are well known in the city for the things they did. the -- but my thought is that in terms of what is fair to the -- the current property owners, i would be prepared to move to approve the condo map application. >> second. >> president koppel: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you. yeah, so i want to just acknowledge that this case has definitely been really convoluted and i want to thank the city staff and the city

attorney who spent a lot of time doing the research. you know, it would be lovely if every brief had a visual, very comprehensive and helpful, as the commission can really make its decision based on the information that we have. so, i mean, the history of this building is really troublesome, but what i see very clearly is the project before us evaluates the condominium sub-division and to ask whether this meets the city's policy mandates and particularly to use their discretion about whether the project is consistent with the general plan. so given the information that we do have about this project i am currently not finding this application to convert the condominiums to be consistent with several housing objectives. i think that the first is that if we're still looking to maintain a balance in the affordable housing stock, by looking at moderate homeownership opportunities, they are typically priced 10% to

20% cheaper than condominiums. so it's like a stepping stones for many first-time home buyers who can't afford a single family house or a condominium in which to maintain the units as g.i.c.s but to help to maintain a moderate affordable ownership opportunity. i also think that in the particular location of this project, in the north beach commercial district, is especially important to have a balance. this is a really highly desirable livable neighborhood, really well served by restaurants. and given its proximity to kind the core of the city, i think that there's a higher housing demand. which means a greater need to actually protect and to maintain that balance of affordable homeownership opportunities. so i don't really see us converting to condos as meeting that policy objective. and i think that, secondly, we have a policy mandate to preserve rental units,

especially rent-controlled units. my understanding is that the conversion of p.i.c.s to condominiumings would remove the rent controlled units from the housing stock. and for all of those reasons i can't support this application. >> clerk: there's a motion seconded to approve this condominium conversion subconversion. on that, commissioner chan. [roll call] okay, commissioners that is a split decision that fails 3-3. is there an alternate motion?

>> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: move to continue this for a period of two months. pending the potential appointment of the seventh commissioner. >> second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion that is seconded to continue this matter for a period of two months which would put us on december 3rd. on that motion [roll call] that motion fails, commissioners, by a split vote of 3-3. is there an alternate motion? i do see city attorney stacy --

are you wanting to chime in here? >> excuse me, jonas, president koppel. i'll let the commission to consider. i was going to just ask a question of the commissioners who are not voting in favor of the condo conversion. but i'll wait until you're done with your vote. >> clerk: well, city attorney stacy, correct me if i'm wrong, but if there is no alternate motion that gets four votes, the request for condo conversion de facto is disapproved given that a request for continuance has already failed. and so if that's the case, i think that it would be better off if we did continue for a period of a week or two to allow staff to draft a motion of

disapproval? >> jonas, you read my mind. the commission could take a motion of intent to disapprove, but it may be a split vote once again. so what i was going to ask is that because of this 3-3 vote, that deems disapproved, i ask the commissioners imperial and commissioner moore to indicate their basis for not voting to approve the project so that when staff communicates the basis for the failed motion, that we would have some indication and if they agreed with the general plan policies that commissioner chan clearly laid out, then i think that the statements by the

commissioners could provide a basis in case there's an appeal to the board of supervisors. so that we have some explanation of the vote that occurred here. and it's a simple "i agree with commissioner chan," that's fine too. i was just looking for some clarity on this decision. >> clerk: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, go ahead. >> vice-president moore: the commissioners that commissioner chan so eloquently su summarized have applied to me as well. we have given this a lot of thought and it's heartbreaking that we still have a lot of things that only allow us to refer to the general plan and what that particular mandate clearly asked me to consider. so i would be echoing commissioner chan's summaries as presented. thank you. >> president koppel:

commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yes, i am also echoing the commissioner chan's -- the fact that this will be taken out of the rent-controlled housing stock. p.i.c. are still subject to rent control. and also by the fact that it will be -- that it will have 10% to 20% value, it does not mean that it would be an affordable homeownership. we already know that homeownership is hard, and some values are already (indiscernible) so in that case, it applies in our housing element, that it has reached our housing element goals. >> thank you, commissioners. >> clerk: indeed. so i will ask if there's an

alternate motion to deny or to disapprove? seeing no alternate motion, commissioners, and given that the motion to approve as well as the motion to continue failed, this project is de facto disapproved. hearing no other requests to speak from commissioners, we can move on to your discretionary review calendar. item 12 has been continued. placing us on item 13, commissioners. case 2019-000265drp. for 757 3rd avenue. this is a discretionary review. i believe that commissioner diamond you have to request a rescual. you're on mute, commissioner diamond.

>> commissioner diamond: commissioners, i am a property within 500 feet of this address and i request permission to recuse myself from the decision. >> president koppel: i entertain a motion. commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: move to approve rescual of commissioner diamond from this. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to recuse [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that passes unanimously 6-0. and i will only remind commissioner diamond that there's a new requirement to submit written documentation for the reason of the recusal. i believe that it's within 10 or 5 day15 days of this hearing. staff, are you prepared to make

your presentation? >> i am, thank you, jonas. good afternoon president koppel and vice-president moore, david winslow, staff architect. the request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018, the 1219.795 to a two-story horizontal rear addition to an existing two-story over basement. with the requestor on behalf of the neighborhood association and a resident of 751 3rd avenue, to the north of the proposed project. this concerns the proposed project is out of scale and character with the neighborhood and expands and limits the access to the mid-block open space and impacts light to adjacent properties. furthermore, the proposed

project would set a precedent that would be deleterious to the neighborhood character. there's been no letters in support for opposition of this d.r. request. the planning department's review consisted of the residential design advisory team and that confirmed that the support for this project as it does conform to both the code and the residential design guidelines. the proposed two-story addition extends 12 feet to align with the d.r. requester's first floor deck and a deck to roughly the same extent. the combined setbacks between the adjacent neighbors is approximately seven feet which provides separation to maintain light and access to the mid-block open space. therefore, the staff did not see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking d.r. and approving. this concludes my report. i'm available to answer questions.

thank you. >> clerk: very good. we should hear from the d.r. requestor, mr. castro. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. you have five minutes. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners and thank you for your time. i am scott castro and a resident of block 1546 and i present on behalf of the neighborhood association which is comprised of homeowners on this block. there's exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. in fact, commonplace points with this would not restore the neighborhood character. can we turn to the next slide. block 1646 is a unique block, notable for defining features. private easement that is shown in this slide that is abutting the properties on third and fourth avenues, including the applicant's. next slide, please.

and this is connected to provide a small town neighborhood where people socialize and children play on a daily basis. as you can see there's a lot of trees on the alley and most of the homes have consistent setbacks. can we have the next slide, please. and as you can see in this image, as noted in the staff report, the mid-block open space is confined by consistent alignment buildings with rear setbacks along the alley. the mid-block open space has many mature trees and plantings, as you can see. next slide, please. the planning staff and the applicant downplayed the importance of the alley as describing it as an automobile access easement but the grant deeds expressly state that the easement is for both vehicles and persons on foot and to be kept clear and open at all times. our residents, therefore, have

an experience with the mid-block and green space that is unique and preserving this neighborhood character is most important to all of us. the applicants propose that it threatens the neighborhood, by having an expansion of the block and it would open up the door for encroachments throughout the block. this would be at odds with the planning section code 134 that requires that the year regard requirements are to ensure the established landscape and open space. and also this expansion would be uncharacteristically contrary to the residential design guidelines. nearly all homes on either side of the block have similar rear yard setbacks and no other home on the entire block has a second floor extension that encroaches into the rear yard setback to this extent. the only home that extends towards the alley in similar fashion is on 3rd avenue but the rear yard extension is on the ground level and far smaller in

width than what the applicant proposes. it has a less obtrusive impact on the open space and overall character of the block. can we move to the next slide, please. this image shows some of the daily use of the block by children who are frequently out there playing. next slide, please. this image i wanted to show because the applicant argues that an existing sunroom that is an illegal use warrants the build out as proposed because the applicant argues that the impacts would be less than what currently are there. i would say that it is the planning department's and the planning commission's duty to bring illegal and this into conformance so it could not be used as a basis to justify this proposed buildout. the next slide, please.

okay, that is the end of the slides. thank you very much. our neighborhood association fears a very negative precedent that the project is established for the block. all other homes on 3rd and 4th avenues would be allowed to expand in a similar fashion and resulting in degredation of a unique neighborhood character. we respectfully request that the planning commission exercise its discretionary authority. the applicant has a very viable alternative to the proposed project, with the renovation of the existing ground floor, something that the applicant has already contemplated as response to our d.r. request. the applicant has argued that this flownd floor is not ideal for the project and many other mom owners on the block have done similar renovations. in short, while we understand the basic rights to improve property, it has rules and guidance and this is not an appropriate project for this neighborhood. thank you for your time.

>> clerk: thank you. that concludes the d.r. requestor's presentation. mr. paris, are you prepared to submit your -- >> yes, i am. >> clerk: you have five minutes. >> slide one, please. hi, this is danforth, the architect for the project. and the owner of the year who lived here for 54 years and raised her family. her son, robert, and his wife and their six children intended to move to the home. the proposal is to update this older home to provide an additional 258-square-feet of open space, an open kitchen and living area. with the efforts to consider all reasonable design alternatives and a number of revisions. and it's influenced by the design guidelines, the neighborhood, and the planning department staff, and the residential staff team. slide two, please. the proposal originally was larger than this design. originally it extended further

into the rear yard and included a second floor addition, for additional bed rooms for the family. after the meeting and with the planning staff and the design team, further reductions were provided to the design. the complete removal of the second floor addition and the limit of a 12-foot maximum extension in the rear of the house and a new six-foot setback at the property line, with the area to 258-square-feet that you see here. slide three, please. with this new six-foot setback at the property line, as you can tell the addition would have less than the existing additions. the applicants have indicated that the basement storage level would be used for the new space. the new sleeping areas are in the basement level. we (indiscernible) additionally the space did not have the open living and kitchen area which is a desire of the main level. slide four, please. proposed extension would be greater than 34 feet from the

rear property line, leaving greater than the required 25% rear yard. the proposed height would be similar to the existing sunroom. and building a step down towards the rear yard. the existing sunroom is only 32 feet from the rear property line and is located directly on the south property line. slide one, please. and with regards to the issue of intrusion into the interior open space, our perspective is that there's not a consistent pattern of development at the mid-block space. the mid-block open space is inconsistent with varying building heights. and it is influenced by the driveway running through the mid-block open space. there's two homes with rear yard additions to the north and located on the easements directly opposite the property, and some owners even park their cars on it. and this design provides a rear yard setback greater than required by the planning code and, again, the actual area is only 258-square-feet.

slide three, please. and with the issue of light and air to the adjoining property, the existing sunroom would be removed and resulting in a six-foot setback. and the situation on the north property line is different. while it was reduced in the rear and the second floor was removed, we still needed to understand the effect of this on the light and air. image five, please. we did analysis to clarify the potential impacts. and there's still a six-foot (indiscernible) and while it would be difficult to avoid casting any shadow entirely in the winter month, the proposed addition did not cast shadow on adjacent decks on mid-day in summer and only minimally in spring and fall which is a reasonable impact with the six-foot setback. image four please. this photo completed four days ago show the neighbor's rear wall are already in shadow at mid-day.

the proposed addition does not book the views of the green space or the interior. and the existing landscape and the neighbor's fence will continue to screen the views of the addition. the window configurations have left (indiscernible) and after design limitations, we believe that the design before you is sensitive to the immediate neighborhood context. slide six, please. the rea owner has aged in placed she has an opportunity to bring a large family back to the house where he grew up so they can help her. and he can raise his family in the house where he grew up and give family continuity. [bell ringing] and for use moving forward and providing this continuity. and we believe that the addition of only 258-square-feet is appropriate and consistent with

planning guidelines. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you. commissioners, we should open up for public comment. the members of the public, this is your opportunity to raise your hand by pressing star, 3, to get into the queue. you have one minute. hello, caller if. >> caller: my name is andrewed byman, i am one house to the north of the proposed project and i have lived there with my wife for 25 years and raised three children at this location. the main reason that we purchased our house -- >> i'm sorry, jonas, he's the d.r. requestor. >> caller: i'm sorry -- >> clerk: we're taking public comment right now and you will have a 2-minute rebuttal. go ahead, caller.

>> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> caller: hi, my name is ryan wong and i am a neighbor. i live in a home that abuts the alleyway. and i have lived here for around 40 years. and i ask that you reject the project as proposed. there are decades old precedents that the alleyway is not considered a part of a buildable lot of which the proposed project [bell ringing] hopes to expand that. i myself 20 years ago expanded within the footprint of my building on the ground level where i have added a bedroom for use of my family. so i don't see why they cannot

fall within those guidelines that everyone else in the neighborhood has been forced -- enforced by the building -- by the planning department to fall within those guidelines. [bell ringing] i feel that this project should not go forward. thank you. >> clerk: okay, members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit public comment. one more caller. you have one minute. caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? >> caller: hello? >> clerk: yes, prepared to submit your testimony? >> caller: thank you. >> clerk: your time is running, sir? >> caller: i'm sorry? >> clerk: your time is running. >> caller: yes, i am morley pitt and i live directly across from

757 3rd avenue. i have lived here with my family, my parents first and myself for 50 years. i have raised three children here. this is a very unique area, with an alley that provides a wonderful opportunity for kids to play. i played there. my three kids played there and now there's a third generation of kids. my concern is that this will cut off [bell ringing] and will be a dangerous precedent for the future. i would hope that the commission would not allow this to occur and that this won't happen in the future. thank you. >> caller: hi, my name is john hoe and i live at 724 4th avenue and i am raising kids right now and i bought this house eight years ago and the key characteristic was the unique space that the alley provides.

i myself was able to expand my living space by building out my ground floor. and add approximately a thousand square feet and three bedrooms without any detriment -- with staying within the envelope of the house. and without any detriment to my neighbors or to the unique character of this space. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, d.r. requestor, now you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> caller: this is scott castro again. just a few points to amplify here. our d.r. request was signed by 19 homeowners along the alley, a number of them were unable to make it and i think that a lot of people dropped off due to the length of the hearing. i wanted to emphasize the number of people who oppose this

buildout in the alley due to the neighborhood character. also i wanted to point out that the applicant has indicated that she will come in with another application to build out the ground floor level. and i query why that was not included as part of this application. as far as i can tell, it looks like an attempt to expand the building footprint as much as possible and to increase the home size as much as possible without consideration to the neighbors. in fact, the applicant indicates that she met once with the neighbors, she only met with the adjacent neighbors to the north and never any outreach to the other neighbors at any point in time during this process. in fact, we had to reach out prior to submitting our d.r. request to meet with the applicant architects and we gained no traction through that process. finally, i do want to emphasize that this type of alley and easement is very unusual characteristic of the neighborhood in the city. it makes it feel like a small town. everyone that lives there

appreciates that feel and values it and it adds to the property values and it adds to the value of this community. we are all much closer than we would be otherwise because of this. allowing the properties to encroach upon it in an impact of the visual tree shed and the alley as a roadway is inappropriate. >> clerk: that concludes your rebuttal? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. mr. paris, two-minute rebuttal. >> i want like to express that we did have a preapplication meeting that was only attended by the adjacent neighbors. and the project was sent out for section 311 notification and we continuously heard from the north neighbors, with the d.r. request. and so up until i think about two days before the d.r. was

applied for, we hadn't heard from anyone else other than mr. castro. and to the actual addition, we're not proposing to build into the -- into the driveway easement. we're still well within the 25% rear yard. there are other structures buile easement and a basement buildout in the future could be done with an over-the-counter permit because we wouldn't be expanding the envelope. the desire was to keep it simple and to only address the additional area that would require section 31 1 and this process. so we feel that it's an appropriate response. it's taking up a little less space than the existing deck there and it does step down towards the alley. i believe that the views are not hit by the neighbor's fences and landscaping.

so we do feel that it's an appropriate response. thank you. >> clerk: great, thank you. commissioners, we do have one late request to comment. caller, you have one minute. >> caller: hi, i was trying to speak before and you said that i had to delay my time. i guess that i'm clear. when do i get my time back? you said that i'd get two minutes later. i'm unclear. sorry? >> clerk: is this mr. castro? >> caller: no, this is mr. bindman and i was trying to speak and you said that i would have an opportunity to come back and speak so i'm unclear -- >> clerk: you are with the d.r. -- are you not the d.r. requestor? >> caller: i sent in a note on behalf of neighbors. i am one of the neighbors who lives there. do i get to speak at some point? >> your name is on the d.r., you

are the d.r. requestor. >> clerk: sir, yeah, if you're part of the filing -- a party on the application, you are the d.r. requestor and your opportunity to speak was during the d.r. requestor presentation time and your opportunity to rebut was during that same period of time. commissioners, that concludes public comment and the matter is now before you. >> let me start off by saying that i'll support the staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: mr. winslow, you could briefly clarify that this is a code compliant project? one of the commentators made a

comment on the rules that apply to that particular part of the neighborhood. i am unfamiliar with them, and, if so, could you please quote what they are. >> well, so this is zoning district, the basic rear yard at the time of this application was received was still 25% as you may know that the code has subsequently changed to require 30% required rear yard. and in cases where this one has an alley, it runs down the middle of the rear property line of these buildings. the rear yard is still measured from the rear property line, regardless of the occurrence of an alley within that -- an alley or an easement within that rear yard. so it is code compliant and within 25% of the required rear yard. >> vice-president moore: okay. thank you.

that answers my question. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, i regret to inform you that there's a late request to speak. go ahead, caller, you have one minute. i hope that this is not the d.r. requestor again. >> caller: you hope what? >> clerk: not the d.r. requestor? >> caller: my name is -- my name is dr. smith bind and i also live on the alley. i wanted to make the point that the reason that i moved to the alley 26 years ago was because of the character of the alley and because there were children playing out on the alley every time that i came to look at the house. and the community that's created by sort of understanding that is a place to occupy -- [bell ringing] and not cars to go through reflects the reason that

we have such a strong community there. i think building on a second floor out into the alley basically sets a precedent that i think that will be very detrimental to the character of the alley. >> clerk: great, thank you. commissioners, there are no additional requests to speak from the public. >> i have an additional question. >> president koppel: go ahead, commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: mr. winslow, one of the speakers alluded to the fact that the applicant has potentially future alteration plans pending. would you comment on that, does that affect at all what we're doing here? >> well, i am not aware of any

permilpermit any applications. that might be something in mind for the future. but, however, yes, the plans that include building within the existing envelope would be subject to an over-the-counter permit and not expanding the building envelope could be granted in, you know, over-the-counter, or without the neighborhood notification. it's when you expand the building envelope that the neighborhood notification is required. >> vice-president moore: so any alterations that are internal to the ground floor are not really -- are not a concern to us today? nothing that we approve would impose someone to do internal alterations that can be approved over-the-counter? >> no. >> vice-president moore: okay, thank you, you answered my question. i support the staff's recommendation to not take d.r. and to approve the project.

>> clerk: is that a motion, commissioner moore? >> vice-president moore: yes, a motion. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that is seconded to not take the d.r. as opposed. [roll call] so moved, passes unanimously, 5-0 and it concludes your agenda today. >> vice-president moore: thank you. >> thanks, jonas. >> clerk: thank you. have a good evening, everyone. >> thank you, jonas.

>> good morning, the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday october 1 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. supervisor gordon mar, i'm the chair of this committee, and i'm joined by vice-chair, supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor matt haney. thank you to the clerk, john carroll, and i'd like to thank sfgov-tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any an announcements? >> clerk: in order to protect the public, board members and the city employees during the covid-19 health emergency, the legislative chamber and the committee room are closed. this is taken pursuant to all local, state and federal orders and declarations and directives. the committee members are attending through video conference and will participate to the same extent as if physically present. public comment is available for each item on the agenda. sa