>> clerk: this is the remote hearing for the planning commission on november 19, 2020. 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 29 remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention and, most of all, your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turnoff your video camera. to enable public participation, sfgov is broadcasting and streaming this meeting live. public comment or opportunities

to speak via couple comment are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 146-195-1064. when we reach the item that you want to speak on that we are discussing, press star, three to enter the queue. each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating that you have 30 seconds left. be when your time is up, i will indicate that your time has allotted to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly

and clearly, and turn down your volume. i'd like to call roll now. [roll call] >> clerk: we do expect commissioner moore to join us shortly. she is experiencing some technical difficulties, so hopefully, she'll be able to resolve those soon. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case number 2020-002743d 2020-002743drp at 1555 oak street, proposed for continuance to december 3, 2020, item 2, 2019-015984 cua, at 590 second avenue, proposed for continuance to december 10,

2020. items three, 2019-021010 cua, the zoning administrator will need to comment on the pending continuance date. further, commissioners, under your consent calendar, item 7, case 2014.0243d rd-02, 3997 throu through -- 3927 to 3929 19

street, and item 14, 1145 mission street, and item 15, 628 shotwell street, have also been proposed for continuance. before we entertain a motion to continue, we should also take public comment on these items. >> this is for the item at 19 street. the address is 3927 to 3929 19 street. my name is vivian. we're the neighboring homeowners. we only recently moved into the neighborhood and have not had time to sufficiently review the

proposed development next door and get an independent review of what the project would mean for the preservation of our home and the culture of the neighborhood in particular. in order to provide or consent for the project, we need additional time to have a structural expert review the proposed construction plans and to validate that it does not pose any construction danger to our home. two, there's a tree on the property that contributes to the beauty of the neighborhood and should be eligible or significant for landmark tree designation. this species is noted as a rare species by the california native plant society. the proposed development would require removing the tree, but given the status, we believe there should be additional work done to see if this tree meets

the significance of the z designation of a landmark or significant tree. >> david wu with soma filipinas. i support the continuance for 1145 mission street until i have continued conversations between the community and the project sponsor, and i also just want to raise concerns of this project with the housing element. thank you.

>> my name is jeffrey quinto, and i live down the street -- >> clerk: hello, caller. we can hear you. >> hello? hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> did you say something? >> clerk: yes, we can. we're just speaking to the continuances. >> hello -- >> clerk: yes, sir, we can. >> yeah, i just have concerns about -- hello? i didn't hear that, i'm sorry. okay. >> clerk: i don't know who's speaking, but we hear you.

>> there's been so much luxury housing developed in the neighborhood lately, and that's been, i guess, that had a fire, but it seems like getting rid of that, you know, and just being, like, oh, sure, fine, we'll get into more condos doesn't seem like a great addition to the neighborhood when we should be having so many other thinks. that's all. thank you. >> director hillis: jonas, just so you know, you're sounding a little -- [inaudible] >> clerk: oh, delayed in -- like, my audio's coming in late or -- >> director hillis: you were speaking, and he was --

>> clerk: can people hear me? >> director hillis: yes, thank you. are others hearing that? i can hear you, but i think you're delayed because you were answering his question, it seemed, later. >> clerk: yeah, i guess so. >> director hillis: maybe you should turnoff your camera for

now. [inaudible] >> clerk: is this any better? >> director hillis: jonas, can you hear us? jonas, can you hear us? >> clerk: i can hear you, yes, i can hear you. okay. well -- >> director hillis: you're answering is delayed. you're answering several seconds after we ask the question. >> clerk: chan -- right, so let me do this. chan, if you could take over as host, and director hillis, if you could take over for the motio motions -- and rich, if you could take over for the motions

for staff? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is rich sucre, aplanning department staff. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as appropriate. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> okay. we have a second from commissioner diamond. all right, commissioners. okay. so we have a motion to continue the items as proposed from commissioner imperial and a second from commissioner diamond. going through the roll -- [roll call]

>> okay. that motion passes 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you on item 3-b? >> i will continue that item for 526 lombard street --

[inaudible] >> yeah, there's definitely a sync issue between the video and the audio. >> clerk: members of the public -- for members of the public -- okay. so i just got off the phone -- rich, i got it now. i think we're all delayed, to some extent, so if everyone could bear with me for one moment, what i think we're going to try to do is end this

event and then restart it, and hopefully, that will eliminate the lag. so why don't we all log out and then log back in. let's try using the original invitation so that we don't have to send out and create a brand-new one. i think that'll be difficult for members of the public, and so for members of the public, hopefully, you can stay on if you just called in as an attendee, and -- well, we're going to end the event and restart the event. so chan, if you can hear that, let's end the event and then restart it and have everybody log back in. so commissioners and staff can log back out, and then give us, >> clerk: -- without any kind of a broadcast delay, and for the record, we took up the matter of continuances, and all

those matters were continued as proposed unanimously, 7-0. i think what was remaining when we recessed was for the zoning administrator to opine his matter. so zoning administrator teague, if you could opine item 3-b 12? >> sure. i will opine and continue the matter at 717 california street. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, that brings us to your consent calendar.

all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5, at 2765 16 street and item 6, 1465 donner avenue. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on

the items on the consent calendar. >> i just wanted to make sure that item 7 was continued to december 10. >> clerk: that was the date of the continuance, and i appreciate. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> clerk: just one moment. caller, are you calling to comment on the items for consent? >> yes. i'm calling to see when item 7

was continued? >> clerk: it was continued to december 17. we're going to combine that item with the variance hearing on december 17. we're combining the two matters so they can be heard concurrently. >> okay. got it. thank you. >> clerk: all right. thank you. okay. so i don't believe any member of the public is actually speaking to any of the consent matters, so public comment is closed, and the two items on consent are now before you. commissioners? >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you're muted. >> vice president moore: i move to approve items five and six. >> commissioner fung: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve items

five and six on your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and looks like we're out of the woods, so under -- which will place us under commission matters, item 8. condition of adoption of draft minutes for november 5, 2020. we should take public comment. if any member of the public would like to public on the item, please press star, three to enter the queue. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. commissioners, the item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the minutes. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. item 9, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i was reading the paper this morning, and something struck me as a very, very bright idea. i'm not sure if it's possible, but somebody asked with schools closing again with the uptick of the coronavirus as to whether or not parks could not also be adapted as possible classrooms for students. i think it would be a great idea. i would like to hear from someone at planning -- not

tonight, but at some point in the future as to whether that would be a feasible idea. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. thank you, commissioners, for the warm welcome and to staff for the welcome to the commission. i was able to meet with leadership at the planning department this last week to get reacquainted, and i want to thank commissioner hillis and everyone for making themselves available. i also want to encourage folks to rethink my thanksgiving plans. i know just this morning, myself and my household decided to cancel the plans that we had for thanksgiving and just decided to do thanksgiving with our household. we need to do everything we can to listen to our public health officials. i want to encourage people to think about not only the safety of themselves but the safety of others before they decide to do

something for the holidays. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: just in the light of -- like, i know this is a struggle for all of us in terms of the public hearings, but whenever we have these kind of issues, i'm always worried about the public participation, and i wonder if we could do some sort of -- whether before the hearing and especially on the live, of how we're going to -- because it can be frustrating especially if we have these kinds of issues, and we may deentter so comments. so just for the next hearing, i would be open to some kind of faster session, live session,

but that's it. >> clerk: seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, we can move onto department matters. item 10, director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas, and thank you, commissioners, and we will follow up on the items that you brought up. number one, thank you for those that attended the call on monday. i think it was a productive conversation, and thank you for suggesting it, commissioner moore. it was well received by staff. i want to introduce you to [inaudible] accepting my offer to be the director of citywide planning. she has been acting in that role, she was acting director -- i mean deputy director for seven years. she's been with the department 15 years, started as an intern

and moved her way up to planner one, two, and three and now director, so i'm sure you recognize her work, and we look forward to continuing to work with her. one of the first things she's tackling and something she was tackling, even as deputy director, is expanding our services working with d.b.i., so we're working to expand our permit services, both in-person and to the extent that we can, to follow, and as you know, our revenues are going to continue to suffer both from the permits and fines, and we will continue to update you on that.

i just wanted to let you know that the mayor issued an executive directive this morning for -- related to implementation of stoppage related to the city working together for us to issue permits related to small business. so for us, the department of building inspection, the health department, fire department, and others to work together to come up with a plan to make sure we can implement the voter mandates in prop h, but you'll hear more about that in the informational session. so thank you, that concludes my report. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes, i have a question for director hi

hillis, and perhaps he's going to address this in regards to the informational discussion. but john king wrote a good article in the chronicle about winterizing resources that we're seeing with entertainment and restaurants, and i was curious where the economic recovery team is in helping to expedite and do whatever is necessary in order to allow for that winterization. >> director hillis: good question, and we will address that as part of the informational discussion, as well. >> commissioner diamond: great. thank you. >> clerk: sorry. i was muted. that will place us on item 11,

items passed at the land use, historic preservation commission, and the board of supervisors. >> good morning, commissioners. -- the project proposed a new whole foods grocery store with a restaurant and coffee shop to move into the vacant 5,000 area foot retail space. you heard and approved this commercial use authorization on september 5 of this year. the project sponsor submitted a consultant prepared loading demand analysis which confirmed the department's calculations of loading demand. the project sponsor and the appellant both submitted consultant prepared air quality

study. the appellant conducted his own study and environmental impacts. during the hearing, public comment in support of the project was focused on the benefits the grocery store would have in this location. public comment in support of the appeal were focused on the business practices of whole food market and in particular amazon. others sites the potential of traffic and air quality impacts. one of the things that came up was the department rescinded its class 32 exemption and issued a commonsense exemption. during the hearing, supervisor peskin opined that rescinding the class 32 should have invalidated the c.u.

in issuing a commonsense exemption, the department found that there was no possibility that a significant environmental impact could occur. several supervisors were unconvinced of this, citing the volume of trips to the site and the conflicting items in the air quality report. the department awaits the final motion to determine whether this actually results in implications to our ceqa review that are beyond this project, and that concludes my report for today. thank you. >> director hillis: okay, jonas, i just wanted to clarify because i did not want to [inaudible] of citywide planning. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. i think everybody understood what you meant. commissioners, the board of

appeals did meet, and there's actually a tardy report from the assistant zoning administrator. he wanted to convey that on november 4, 2020, the board of appeals met and heard an appeal of a rear yard variance for 1222 tungsten avenue. the variance is required because the project does not maintain 25 between the dwelling and an existing noncomplying structure at the rear of the lot. the planning commission heard an associated d.r. for this project on july 23 and voted to not take d.r. the board of appeals upheld the zoning administrator's approval of the variance but required an additional condition that no further decks be added to the new building. on november 18, 2020, the board heard a jurisdictional request

for 2622 greenwich street. this permit revised a previous permit that was heard as a d.r. on march 25, 2018. this permit legalized additional excavation that was performed by the permit holder without benefit of a permit. the excavation undermined the foundations of the adjacent properties and resulted in the issuances of notices of violation. the board found that the city did not cause the requester to miss the appeal period and denied the jurisdiction request. the department of building inspection did note that the enforcement case remains open, and they are working with the parties to achieve a resolution. the historic preservation commission met yesterday, and they did adopt a recommendation for approval for landmark designation of the japanese

ywca east bay women's building at 1834 sutter street for landma landmark designation, and they heard from staff regarding the citywide services survey and were excited that this is gaining momentum, and staff will be actually conducting surveys throughout the city. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to matters that are not on today's jaent by pressing star and

three and -- agenda by pressing star and three to enter the queue. okay, last call, members of the public to press star and three to submit general public comment on matters not on today's agenda. seeing none, commissioners, general public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar for item 12, case 2020-014033 oth, proposition h, save our small businesses initiative, an informational presentation. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> we are. >> clerk: okay. i will pass bridget the ball.

great, slides look good. >> okay. so good afternoon, commissioners. bridget will be going over the details of proposition h, but i wanted to provide you some background on how the proposition came to be and the thinking behind the changes it's make. so as soon as shelter in place order was issued back in march, and we fully identified the issues that were happening, almost immediately, we were approached by the mayor's office and oewd to come up with a list of amendments to the code or procedures that would help small businesses and maintain vitality of our neighborhood commercial districts. keep in mind at the time none of us knew what the future would bring and how the crisis would unfold. there's also a lot we still don't know. what was clear was that many small businesses were not going

to survive the shutdown. before the pandemic, they were already facing various challenges. often, these individuals are immigrants or individuals with not a lot of financial or technical resources. proposition h removes many but not all of those barriers. it relaxes controls or destination type businesses or what we refer to internally as amazon proof businesses. it gives flexibility to existing businesses to adapt to current market or to switch to temporary uses until the pandemic is over. it gives deference to impacts missions in mission and south of market in the challenges.

as the voters have recognized, this is an important step in our recovery. it's also not the only effort. we have our very successful shared i say spaces program, which you'll hear a lot about, and of course the incredible effort that our department of public works has done to keep ourselves healthy and safe during this pandemic, and with that, i'll turn it over to bridget. >> good afternoon, commissioners. bridget hicks, planning department staff. i'm here today to share a informational presentation on how this ordinance will affect our work here at the planning department. the initiative ordinance calls on the city to coordinate and streamline permit processing amongst all permittingtion as. as you heard mentioned earlier, it has -- permitting agencies. as you heard mentioned earlier,

it has affected all of us. we're currently working with the department of building inspection, the mayor's office of economic and workforce development, the small business commission, department of public health, small business commission, and others to i implement these new regulations. previously, meal service was permitted in public parklets, but they may also continue to be used by members of the public who are not a patron of the business. and within the first three years, this initiative ordinance can only be liberalized. one that period has ended, any changes may be made. so one of the big changes is that the initiative ordinance removes neighborhood notification requirements, so principlely permitted uses in

neighborhood commercial districts, and for limited commercial uses, unlimited corner commercial uses. previously, many of these principlely permitted uses required a 30-day neighborhood notice. all -- principally permitted uses required a 30-day neighborhood notice. all of the commercial districts have been updated, except for the ones listed. otherwise, they've all been updated to relax controls. nonretail sales and service uses are now principally permitted on the second floor. general entertain being. movie theaters, community facilities, restaurants, limited restaurants, an monthly hospitals, and retail professional services, such as realers, accountants, and insurance agents are liberalized throughout the district.

here's an example of one of the slides. this is the nc-1 district, which is kind of our baseline neighborhood commercial district, and you can see almost all of the uses have been shifted, so if it's previously n.p., it's been permitted or conditionally permitted, and all of the tables are available in the ordinance itself, and we will be updating those tables in our code. it also allowed for limited coworking to existing, so it would happen in addition to existing restaurant and limited restaurant uses. bars and entertainment venues are now able to switch to another use and lose their original use as a bar venue. this gives them four years of

use. previously, if a bar or other use switched to another use, after three years, it would be considered abandoned, and they'd have to go through the permitting of being permitted as a bar and entertainment venue again, which is a lengthy process. this will provide a way for those business owners and space to provide that space with a use that is more covid friendly during this time and then go back to the original use. another change is that pop-up retail can be placed in vacant storefronts. some other changes, we used to have an interesting way of figuring out how a limited

commercial use and a limited corner commercial use, what types of uses were allowed. these are uses that are, you know, say a corner store that's always existed in a residential district, and so now, they're only subject to the restrictions of the n.c.-1 district, which is our neighborhood commercial district. another change is the outdoor activity area. this is what we most commonly see as a patio dining area. previously, most of these required a conditional use authorization in order to operate. we've seen many businesses take advantage of this outdoor dining through these shared spaces program, so in response to that, this provision will remove that conditional use

authorization requirement or outdoor activity areas located in neighborhood commercial zoning districts. [inaudible] >> previously, we just had to

make a majority of their sales come from food or nonalcoholic beverage sales -- so upon certification of the election, which we expect to happen in late december, we will begin to process these applications in accordance -- in accordance with the initiative ordinance. we expect a lot more permits to qualify for over the counter review. we expect to see less conditional authorization reviews to come before you for small businesses, and in

addition, we expect storefronts to change ntheir operations or uses in response to the covid-19 pandemic and use this as a way to make ends meet. we're currently working with city agencies to review the 30-day process and meet the mayor's directive. >> commissioners, i'm on special detail, according our shared spaces city program. we last came before you about a couple months ago to give you an update on the status and felt that it would be an

opportune moment. this is anything from service parking lots to, as bridget had mentioned, internal yards and rear courtyards. next slide, please, bridget. so a variety of uses that are allowed through share spaces, predominantly and most visibly, of course, outdoor dining. both commissioner moore and commissioner diamond brought up parklets, which i can bring up later in the presentation, as well. and potentially, as we move forward in the next few months with possible and legislative analysis for making the program permanent, it is possible that we are contemplating arts culture for institutional uses. this relates to the

commissioner's question earlier -- commissioner moore's question earlier about educational uses out of doors and potentially in the public right-of-way. next slide, please. so just a quick update on stats. we have seen over 2400 applications in the short time since july 1, since this emergency program has been in existence. a majority of these do involve outdoor dining. next slide, please. so there was some questions about winterization and how the city is supporting and helping our neighborhood merchants operate during the colder rainier winter months.

we're continuing to update our design guidance. this has been the most recent version of it here that, you know, lays out a.d.a. and other provisions for having a safe and accessible site, but more importantly, provisions for protecting against weather and making these facilities more comfortable and habitable during the winter months. not included in this presentation are some of the latest results that we've gotten from our shared spaces impact survey. this has been administered to all of those program applicants, over 2400, and of the respondents so far, march over 85% have indicated that if allowed, they would operate a shared space year-round, cold or fog or wind or no, so it's, you know, underscored the need for the city to continually

update its guidance to build these facilities in a manner that's compatible with city requirements and public safety. mayor breed, based on the successes that we've seen in the few short months of shared spaces operating and the positive feedback that we've gotten through our impact survey, announced that we will be making the shared spaces program permanent. so related to that earlier this month, the mayor also announced the shared spaces equity grants program. this is especially pertinent questions how -- around questions how the availability will perform and merchants purchasing fixtures and other items to make those spaces more habitable. sorry bridget, just a couple more bullets on the last slide.

we will be spending the next couple months, the mayor's office will be leading a process to launch a new version of the program 2021. so we hope to maintain a lot of the innovation and the streamlining that we have seen in the program so far. we cut a lot of red tape. this is very much, you know, sort of on brand, on theme with what the provisions of proposition h were promu promulgating. next slide -- next and final slide, please, bridget. as well as the larger projects that we've seen in chinatown,

bayview, the mission, excelsior, and so on. i think that's all for me. thank you, bridget. >> clerk: that concludes staff's presentation, and there are no immediate questions to staff. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to press star and three in order to get into the queue. i do have several callers on-line, and through the chair, you will each have two minutes for public comment. go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to

submit your public testimony? all right. we'll try you back later. >> yes, hi. this is kristin evans, and i serve as the president of the haight-ashbury merchants association. precovid, our neighborhood had a record number of vacancies, 20 of 150 storefronts, and at the current rate, we are seeing many more businesses shutter, consolidate locations, and move on-line, and we appear to be on track to double the number of vacancies on haight street once we reach the anniversary of shelter in place. i'm skeptical that h will do much to fill those spaces, as it's primarily carrots and does not do much to prioritize spaces that could be filled currently. we have another vacancy problem that h does not address at all, and that's absentee landlords.

a full third of the spaces are not even listed available for rent, including three next to our book store, a formerly shoe repair shop and a kids clothing store space included. both of those spaces have remain remained vacant for more than four years and are not available for rent. what is the commission doing to implement a vacancy tax, and what will staff do to define a neighborhood serving businesses and things that they will do to attract tourist oriented retail as well as small businesses? thank you. >> yes, hello. this is david penn, and i had a

question or a comment around how the 30-day expedited processing for now principally permitted used in n.c.d.s will occur when there is an entitlement required, for example, for use by that is now associated with a business that has become principally permitted under prop h? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is peter papadapoulos with mission economic agency, and i want to say with regards to prop h, we really appreciate the very constructive conversation we've had with regard to this measure with the authors of the bill, the planning department, and also

the supervisor's office. i do want to clarify that this measure applies broadly to the mission. it is excluded from one portion, which has to do with n.c. tables. i'm here today because i'm really asking for this commission's commitment to help roll out the measure in a way that will help ensure that we're assisting our small businesses and helping them take advantage of some of the portions of the measure, like speeding up permitting while at the same time we're strengthening our cultural corridors, like mission street, which we all know is very fragile right now. trition stre trition -- mission street, as you know, is on its way to joining calle 24 and its

cultural district. we want to make sure we're remaining diligent and continuing to work together. i think we all agree, for example, that mission street is not a good target to turn into a second valencia street. we've been working long and hard together, and i'd ask that we continue that work together and make sure that this rolls out in a healthy and equitable pay and paves the way for the new cultural district. so thank you for your support and your willingness to work together on these issues. >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is glen mousay. i'm an organizer in the mission, calling to share my thoughts about prop h. prop h was passed earlier this

month, has positive aspects about helping masmall business compete. this one-size-fits-all solution fails to properly take into account the uniqueness and diversity of the cultural universe here in san francisco. we need to take the parts of this measure that are best applied to neighborhoods like the mission, you know, just like what peter mentioned, city officials are committed to collaborate with the mission community [inaudible] and creation of the special use district that will help stabilize the community based businesses in our cultural corridor. let's continue to work with each other in creating ideas

that will help the economic ecosystems of our neighborhoods not only stabilize but thrive in the next coming years. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carlos bocanegra, and i am an attorney and a resident of the mission, and i'm calling to submit my comments on proposition h. immigran this one size fits all solution i believe undermines the efforts of vulnerable communities and fails to take into account the diversity of the cultural and economic

systems that exist here in san franciscome franciscome franciscoment -- san francisco. many businesses will not have the technical and business knowledge and resources to equitably participate and take advantage of this measure as other groups will. let us not live in ignorance, and let us admit that this measure which has many positive aspects to it will have unintentional, harmful, unequitable and ultimately racist impacts on vulnerable communities. in the spirit of the resolution that was signed at the commission a few months back, let us work with each other to helping the economic systems of our neighborhoods to not only stabilize them been allow them to thrive in the coming years. thank you very much. >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is luis avalos.

i am a current copresident of the young democrats. we decided to not endorse proposition h for the ballot this time around because we believe while the intention might seem to be helping businesses in terms of a pandemic era, there are a lot of unintended consequences, and some of these consequences in particular that we felt needed to be addressed is first and foremost, if the [inaudible] if these very counter productive, and we think that community members should be able to given put based on the needs of the neighborhood and as the residents, and another unintended consequence is while it might allow businesses to

profit, others might create loopholes, and business space will be able to use the legislation to enact certain policies that will take over spaces, so we believe this will be harmful for the economic climate of the mission, and if there is to be a legislation for this to be resolved, where is it and when it can be expected? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is araceli, and i am a member of the latinx young democrats. what does prop h mean for the community services businesses when they cannot be converted to more highly profitable businesses, for example, laundromats or community

stores? we are seeing laundromats close down across san francisco. we have all the data to support that these businesses primarily serve lower income communities in san francisco who do not have in-home washers or dryers. what tools do we have to incentivize this use? what is planning staff doing now to create the tools needed to implement the storefront vacancy tax seamlessly? thank you. >> hi. thanks for giving me a chance to speak, commissioners. my name is ben terrell.

i'm the secretary of the red stone tenants association, the secretary of the association of the tenants of the red stone building, which as been at 16 -- has been at 16 street near cap for over 100 years. i am representing my fellow tenants in opposition to prop h as it stands now because we're concerned about, whether internally or not, the language of it preferencing people who are in tech or who have more sophistication with -- with going through the technical and business aspects of the -- the -- the materials they would have to match, which myself and

my colleagues would not be expert at, either. so the point is that we're worried about long-term latinx businesses and mom-and-pop stores being especially vulnerable, and we do not see prop h as being helpful in that regard, so that's it. thank you. >> hi. my name is sharky laguana. i'm the president of the san francisco small business commission. it was an honor and a privilege to work on behalf of the prop h campaign. i have been listening to the public comments, and i wanted to acknowledge and express my shared concerns about the possible negative impacts,

however, i do want to say that i have heard from countless businesses that have not been able to navigate the thicket of regulations, and that most of our business loss has been in the food and beverage and leisure and travel industry, and it's resulted in over 130,000 jobs lost, which is predominantly -- which has predominantly affected vulnerable populations, and prop h is something that helps sustain and support our restaurants and other businesses and helps get new businesses up and going at a time when we've lost more businesses than ever before. so i think, on balance, that prop h is extraordinarily helpful. it's my understanding that there are carveouts for culturally sensitive districts, and i think it will ultimately be a positive and helpful force

for the city. but the commission as a whole -- i'm speaking here as -- i look forward to working with all of you, and happy to help you any way i can. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robert sutton, and i live in district five. i'm really happy to see prop h pass. at least in my neighborhood, i'm seeing a lot of businesses close. most recently, love and hate, a ve vegetarian sandwich store, closed after 21 years. i don't think there's a need of

expanded knowledge of the planning code. on balance, it reduces the need to understand the planning code by exempting businesses from having to hire a lawyer, having to hire some permit expediters. permit expediters cost tens of thousands of dollars, and to understand the conditional use authorization process, to understand the discretionary review -- [inaudible] >> -- that's all a tremendous financial burden on not just financial, but also a knowledge burden on anyone who needs to go through that. you know, i really look forward to seeing how the planning commission and board of supervisors responds to the concerns raised today, and i think there's definitely more work to be done, but prop h will be a step in the right direction. thank you.

>> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you'll need to press star, three to get into the queue, and we do have an additional caller. >> hi, good afternoon. my name is carol ruiz, and i am a cofounder and current coshare of [inaudible] i would like to raise some key questions in regard to prop h. so first and foremost, it's a [inaudible] to even get an appointment for a building permit at d.b.i., and what is the city doing to follow through on this promise, which was a huge selling point for prop h, even though it didn't have any teeth to it.

also, why are parklets being allowed as expansions of businesses rather than public open space? [inaudible] what will be the nexus for success? it creates havevacancies or [inaudible] ultimately, the city needs a complete community strategy for measuring the success of neighborhoods [inaudible] or these neighborhoods. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call. seeing none, commissioners, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. this is not an action item.

>> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i had a couple of questions for staff. the first is related to the process. traditionally, these type of applications and permits are handled sequentially. the attempt to do it concurrently has not worked. the over-the-counter, is that being proposed to be with people or is it still handled on an on-line basis, giv? given the situation with the pandemic, what is the department proposing to do for that? >> so for over-the-counter permits, we're currently doing it in the way that applicants make an appointment and they

drop off the permit, and then, it is reviewed by all available agencies there, so the applicant doesn't stay with the permit. it's not the usual process where the applicant can carry around the permit to all the different agencies. we do it internally, but it is a quick turnaround with the over-the-counter permits. we are also [inaudible] some permits via the electronic plan review. that has mostly been to prioritize the larger scale housing and affordable projects, but we expect most of these to happen through the over-the-counter permits. >> commissioner fung: when they turn in, is there also an avenue where they did get the approval right there and then, in certain instances? >> yeah, not currently, just because of covid precautions. what we've been doing is having

them drop off the permit, and then, we review it, but that process continues to be set up with internal review. >> commissioner fung: last comment is to the intent of the legislation, and i had raised this question but was not able to get a response. are you aware or was staff aware, was there any discussion to liberalize residential and ground-floor storefronts? >> so some of the liberalization has happened on the limited commercial uses and the limited corner commercial uses, which are located in the residential district, by i think aaron can best address the intent? >> yeah, sure. so this was intentionally supposed to be a very narrow focus on small businesses in our neighborhood commercial districts, and primarily, that was because it was going

towards the voters, so it had to have a clear message and a clear focus. we are still looking at ways to make it easier to prove housing in san francisco, but that would have to come through another ordinance process. so, you know, housing it pretty much permit -- housing is pretty much permitted everywhere in san francisco except p.d.r. districts, and there aren't many barriers to it other than cost and if you're going over density and seeking some special exemption. the one area where that's not necessarily true is allowing a.d.u.s to take over commercial spaces, and that area was talked about in formulating prop h, but it wasn't ultimately included in this proposition. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you, and thank you, satisfy,

for the presentation -- staff, for the presentation to the public. thank you, colleagues, for good questions. i want to kind of continue on commissioner fung's question on the process, and i believe someone else also asked, 30 days sounds great, sounds really fast, which is awesome, but is really difficult to implement. when do you think that will be operational, and what do you think are the remedies there? over-the-counter, someone brings it in, and they review it, which is great, but i'm curious how we're going to meet the demand of the 30 days and what the process is for that? >> sure. so as director hillis pointed out, a mayororal executive

director was just issued right before this hearing, requiring us to meet that 30 days. we have been already working with other agencies, mostly, the department of building inex-speak, but we're currently working with all the different agencies to see where are points where we can expedite this process. we're working on ways to separate out prop h permits that qualify for this to kind of expedite that process once they get submitted over the counter. yeah, i think there's different things of play. we've got department of public health referrals, we've got all of these different agencies, so we're going to take the next month to hopefully figure this out. it becomes effective at the end of the month, and then, the 30-day clock is the next month, so we've got a little bit of time to figure that out. but yeah, i don't know at this

time of any ideas, of any plans to have the applicants stick with that permit. [inaudible] just because of covid precautions. i think keeping that physical barrier between staff and the public has been the utmost priority. but we are looking at many, many different ways to try and speed up this process, and we're definitely open to suggestions. >> commissioner tanner: well, the only suggestion i have is to continue to explore the on-line permitting programs, and i know the department's doing that. i think that can be a time saver, although with any new system overall, there's the overhead with implementing that, so it's certainly not a silv silver bullet, by any means, but i know you'll figure it out, and it's good to see the departments working together

because it's an interdepartmental project to implement this. some people were talking about changes to the legislation, and i don't know who wants to address that, you know, how an initiative that's been passed by the voters such as this would be amended in the future, as it seems that that's a topic of interest to the public. >> mr. stark would probably be best to answer this. >> sure. so the -- normally, with initiatives, there has to be changed by a vote of the voters again, but in this, it had a clause that froze the controls, and after that three-year time, the board can come in and implement the provisions as they see fit.

so they could prohibit the retail office space provision that the commission has concerns over and exclude it from those areas. but until then, you can only liberalize the controls, you can't actually make them more restrictive. >> commissioner tanner: great. thank you for re-tating that. and thinking -- restating that. and thinking about the other plans, i know the plan is to get the 30-daewoo sey window s what would you want to track? what data can we obtain at the permit issuance time point, which is our greatest opportunity to obtain data, could we get from applicants in order to understand some of the impacts of this program? >> yeah. so i think -- >> so we are working with our data team right now to sort of identify those things that we

want to track. obviously, we want to see if liberalizing these controls, just has more of these businesses open, seeing what effect removing 311 has. does that create more of a demand that more people come in, or c.e.u.s, sort of what th impact that has so at the end of three years, we know what has worked and what hasn't. >> commissioner tanner: great. and i think my last question, covid and the way it's been guiding us to prevent spread in outdoor activities, when it comes to noise that are emanating from these areas, i assume that those same laws would be applied to those

areas. >> yeah, that is correct. the enforcement procedures are the same as they are now. any member of the public can file an anonymous complaint with either planning, department of building inspection, or a whole host of other agencies, and i think we're going to continue to rely on the interdepartmental connections we've established during the shared spaces program in different sorts of avenues. >> commissioner tanner: great. thank you very much. >> colleagues, if i may, i just want to address one of the questions that commissioner tanner brought up about collecting data at the permit point and that's one of our best chances to get information, particularly about the demographic, background, or the identity of the business proprietor. [please stand by]

-- how this is working in preparing to make adjustments. and as you alluded to, that discussion was happening as this was being developed and it's been ongoing, even when it was on the ballot, especially in the missions, along 24th street. and we will continue to do that. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. so to me this is really a lemon story with respect to one of the single aspect of covid that has resulted in something positive for the city and i'm excited to

see that we're exploring making it permanent and that the staff is working on how to deal with the winterizing questions that are all important in order to keep these spaces open during the wetter, colder months. but i did have a couple of implementation questions about that. the first is that although the map that showed the locations where people have applied to do, you know, to use the streets, it was flashed very quickly on the screen. it did look to me, even with that brief look, that there were not as many retail spaces taking advantage of it in the southeastern and the more southerly regions of the city. and so i'm wondering what the department is doing to get the word out that there is this process available and there is equity assistance available. rather than waiting for them to come to the department, i'm wondering what the department is

doing proactively to get the word out about this new program. >> yes, thank you, commissioner diamond, for that question. and something that we didn't talk today -- talk about today is the shared spaces equity strategy. so the equity strategy has been a key part of the program design and engineering as well as implementation. so it has a few different layers and a few different prongs, not the least of which is targeted resources. for example, city staff here and at the office of workforce development have been detailed to our equity neighborhoods. those are neighborhoods that we have, you know, historically are comprised of demographics that were more vulnerable, even before the covid pandemic. so we really do see this program as an opportunity to squarely and explicitly address the structural inequities that persist through the pandemic and are exacerbated by the pandemic.

so it looks like targeted assistance, deeper technical assistance and design, support, and as i have alluded to earlier, an actual grants program. so we are shortly -- next week -- the grants portal will be open for folks to apply for, you know, reimbursement to purchase the materials that we have referenced before. and it is true that when we look at the, you know, the spatial pattern of where the shared spaces are, they're denser in other places. and that's reflective of the inequities and the pre-existing and historic inequities where neighborhoods in the city were more deeply invested in, and places where it was from an economic point of view. or less connected to transit, etc. so we really are targeting those places with the support. >> it's great to hear that. it seems like an opportunity,

not just to get a level playing field but to actually actively moving the needle so we're using shared spaces. it's a methodology that we didn't previously have available to us. and to increase the retail activity in some of those neighborhoods that might historically not had as much. so the second question is that in some respect it's -s -- who e geographic lottery. some restaurants are on corners and quiet streets that make it easier to move out on to the sidewalk and the street. and others are on major boulevards. what efforts is the department engaging in to try to reach out to those restaurants that when they rented the spaces, they didn't think about parlets and e streetside dining and to see how we can work with them to make this opportunity work better when their gee ro geography maye

as amenable as streetside dining? >> absolutely, i think that you rightly point out that not all physical environments are going to be -- make this solution feasible, right. it is something that a merchant or a restaurateur could immediately access. they might have a very narrow sidewalk and be on a very steep street. and so it's perhaps a larger and bigger issue. shared spaces has a strategy. so that's why measures like proposition h o is so important because we need to respond with a range of sort of the opportunities and tools and loosening of the regulations and controls to try and to make the overall environment -- whether, you know, if not physical at least the operating and the regulatory environment, you know, more open. so, you know, i think that in

some places what's been successful, you know, where a full-time sidewalk or curbside dining facility hasn't been possible, we have seen certain neighborhoods opt to close the entire street. like, have a roadway closure and more of a farmers' market feel. those are more intermittent and not persistent, you know, 24/7 kind of environments. but there are different ways that the provisions of shared spaces have been adapted to at least give everyone some opportunity to operate out of doors, even if it's not every evening of the week. >> right, thank you very much, and it's helpful to see how they are working side-by-side with each other. and the last question is really just a short-term implementation question during covid. which is the need to ensure that it's not the tables that are six feet apart, but when people are actually seated at the tables they're remaining six feet apart. especially with heat lamp there is and dealing with dividers.

what department is responsible for, you know, are you relying on the customers to call in, i hope not, to monitor that if that's an issue? or which department is really looking seriously at that issue? >> yes, thank you, that's also another really great question. it actually is a very deep interdepartmental partnership that we have around ensuring compliance. not only with the public health directives, but, you know, other requirements a.d.a. accessibility, and the emergency access. so there are a few different arms to this -- not to get into too much detail -- but the community engagement response team or the cert was a special compliance and ambassador program that was spun up during the covid pandemic. so very much like the shared spaces program with a new function that the city created, and its explicit purpose was to

enforce around particular public health -- compliance with the public health, you know, distancing and face coverings, and so the cert is our frontline kind of educational and ambassador group that has the first touch with -- it might be a merchant operating a curbside dining facility or like a roadway closure. perhaps at night and they have gotten too rowdy or festive. the cert will be the first to sort of go out and to interact with the project sponsor and the operator and just make sure that we're pulling everything back into balance. from there, if issues do persist, we do have a path of escalation that either goes through the department of public works and in some cases it's a noise or a sound or entertainment revelry kind of issue, it goes through the entertainment commission's enforcement kind of escalation -- path of escalation. and so, yeah, there's a system

in place to kind of ensure that everyone is on their best behavior, and it is a big cooperative effort between many different jurisdictions to have compliance and enforcement. >> commissioner diamond: great. thank you very much. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. those are really great questions, commissioners. i still have questions for you. i hope that you don't mind. but i do have a question in terms of the shared spaces equity program. because we also want to make sure that, of course, that it's the vulnerable population, our vulnerable businesses that are benefitting the most as well. so do you have an idea of how much it is rent, and how much if you build out a parklet, how much does it cost? i have a different understanding, but maybe you can

let me know so that really, you know, the small businesses are going to want to take advantage of it. >> yes, thank you. so in total the portfolio at the moment is somewhere between $1.6 million and $2.1 million for the current fiscal year. this is funded by a variety of sources, not the least of which is the s.f. shines program, which is a program that existed before the covid pandemic. and shared spaces. but it has pivoted to support -- to obviously the small businesses in this crisis. so traditionally that program helps with things like facade improvements and, you know, interior layouts and work like that. another half a million dollars is coming from a variety of supervisors, ads, and from the office of economic and workforce development to fund a variety of things.

there are two main types of assistance that we're providing with that. about $2.1 million. one are materials and sort of capital grants. and the other is technical assistance. so folks could leverage this, for example, to buy movable tables and chairs or other furnishings, like enclosures for their curbside dining facilities. for technical assistance, we're offering, you know, some design and architectural services, procurement services and technical expertise to develop management operations and safety plans which are often required for these larger shared spaces like the roadway closures and our group operated in parking lots. the costs kind of per unit kind of range, but to give a ballpark, you know, a traditional pre-covid parklet for one parking spot, you know, averaged about $20,000.

and they were quite expensive for private investments in the public realm. because our funding is relatively limited, i mean, we are trying to have to emphasize with the materials and the grants or the grants and reimbursements are movable fixtures, materials acquired in this season but continue to be at the merchants' disposal for many future operating seasons. it gets a lot more complicated when you are trying to build -- engineer a very expensive parklet that has to weather many different seasons. so the grants are capped at about $5k per merchant. when we think about, you know, trying to spread it out as much as possible. >> commissioner imperial: it doesn't sound that much in terms

of the grant, especially it sounds like still out of the pocket that will come from the main businesses. which is, you know, about $12,000 or $15,000. so, again, i mean, of course, here in planning we're only our jurisdiction (indiscernible) but for us to have things incentivized and to have equitable and we want to make sure that, you know, the cultural districts are actually taking advantage of the equity programs. and also i'm aware that especially, you know, whether in the local district or for the heritage district, actually many of the -- those communities, especially our committee, we are struggling when they don't have the capacity or the technical knowledge even setting up the business. so that is something, you know,

that i just want to make that as a comment. and hopefully to take that into consideration how this equity program is really accessible. and my other comment as well is as the shared spaces, it will be permanent by next year, and how it will coincide with prop 8? can you give me an idea on the kind of discussions that you're going to have in terms of legislative development on this? >> yeah. there's not too much detail at the moment. but the mayor's office will be leading stakeholder engagement as i had mentioned earlier. definitely with this commission and our department, the city planning department, as well as outreach with the industry groups and, you know, our coalition of merchants' associations and the like. so that will be -- you know, i think that it will transpire

through the first quarter of the calendar year, it's safe to say. and we might even start earlier with that. you know, there are the new, you know, huge experiment with how we leverage our public realm for the economic development and social and psychological well-being has pushed the envelope and allowed us to demonstrate at real scale a lot of the ideas that we had but never been able to realize with this magnitude. so there's a lot of conversation to be had, certainly, to make sure that as we codify this that it really reflects our values and is looking the way that we need it to work >> commissioner imperial: i have another question, a question about the prop h. i know that the planning -- the planning department is committing in working with the cultural district to prioritize this, however, i'm aware -- i

have read the prop h legislation and it doesn't specifically prioritize the cultural district. so in terms of our commitment in the planning department and in the planning commission, the cultural district, especially in the technical assistance, you know, that's something that i think that we should commit to. and i just want to put that in the record for us in the planning department that is something that we should prioritize. another thing is the -- there was one caller that talked about the vacant spaces pre-covid-19. and then at the same time how do we track the different uses or the disirnt kind different kindf businesses in regards to prop h. doe we have some sort of a metrics system or are we

thinking about looking into the corridors and how do we balance the different kinds of businesses and, you know, something -- i don't know if you guys are thinking about it, but we should think in balancing the different uses of the businesses in a corridor. i don't know if miss hicks would answer -- >> yeah, sure. so to kind of get back to this, all of these ideas then will be over-the-counter. so we'll have an expedited review, regardless who the applicant is. i think that we're going to look into as many ways as we can to track. because we're curious to see, this is quite a substantial change for planning to now do these over-the-counter without the neighborhood notice. so we're going to find a way to track this internally to kind of see what we see happening most often.

and if there are certain neighborhood districts that have limitations on the amount of uses, and still with the conditional use, that would still apply. so i think there's kind of -- like, there's an additional layer of what the neighborhood has already put in place. we would have to move forward and work with them. >> commissioner imperial: okay. in terms of the vacant commercial spaces that -- i remember that there's something that we had talked about with in particular there's a lot of vacant commercial spaces in there. how -- i mean -- and now there's going to be more vacant commercial spaces. what's the success rate in term it's -- because there was a vacancy pact that was passed back then. do you have any idea -- >> so the spaces tax has not

taken effect because covid kind of hit into it. so the board of supervisors paused that tax because they felt that it would be another burden to people at this stage. because the small businesses are struggling and the landlords are also struggling. so the board of supervisors have paused that and it has not resumed. but a big portion of prop h is allowing these businesses to do something temporarily. so we're filling in with the spaces and fill in with the pop-up gallery for a month or two months and they can make supplemental income, and if they can't find a long-term tenant they can fill the space on the short term. and ways to supplement the space and do more. and so, yeah, that's what we're hoping to see is this kind of just decreases the barriers to adding that flexibility to the businesses, yeah. >> well, thank you, miss hicks.

again, my comments, you know, we're anticipating vacancy and this prop h is, you know, especially for the cultural district, you know, how to impprove or, you know, how to improve and to also provide more technical assistance for the cultural district, but at the same time, you know, the prop h is a streamlining mechanisms for small businesses while cultural districts are still struggling and we don't have enough, you know, small businesses in cultural districts. and it's that leveraging, you know, that these are these things that are going to happen but we want to make sure that the cultural districts are still protected. so, you know, i want to make that comment that cultural districts in terms of prioritizing them and how to prioritize and uplift them.

thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: great questions both from the public and from our commissioners. and following up with miss hicks right away on what commissioner imperial just asked you, do you have any kind of way of tracking that we will not be getting just the same kind of applications. i.e., are there maximum thresholds that can be taken, including seeing the same people apply for the same thing in multiple forums. and the checks and balances the type of use as well as the user? >> yeah, so i think that a lot of that has shifted. it's neighborhood specific. so in neighborhoods that felt like they could handle, you know, many different types of uses.

they are sometimes having a change to a conditional use or wasn't changed at all. so we needed that balance. but, yeah, i think that the idea is that there's flexibility to have those options, and one of the controllers in place so we won't change the way that it will be, with small businesses taking advantage of this program. >> vice-president moore: thank you for saying that. as you were making these changes or adjustments, was the small business commission at all consulted? i did not hear anyone mention? >> sure, yes, they have been consulted and i am actually doing a similar presentation to them next monday. but our idea is that we'll work with all of the different city agencies so that each agency is empowered to share the new resources and flexibility under prop h and that it's not just

planning that holds the knowledge. i think that is kind of the intention in prop h in that getting all of the different agencies to work together. so i think that the idea is that an applicant knew they had to go to public health to open up a restaurant, they would have a greater understanding of their increased flexibility during this time. >> vice-president moore: let me throw you another question while i have you. but when you talk about outdoor activity areas, primarily focused on shared space, public right-of-way activity, you did not comment on anybody who would want to expand their outdoor activity area into the rear yard, which the planning commission has also dealt with because there's interference in residential neighborhoods in areas that residents are nearby. this is only addressing the shared space component, is that correct? >> so the outdoor activity areas becoming permi permitted of as f

right now is any retail use. planning and implementation of the shared spaces has most often been seen as an outdoor activity area because that's -- it's essentially our existing version of having a use outside. so we have authorized a substantial amount of restaurants to operate in their backyards or front yards, you know, specific catch, and those are on a private lot it would be a planning -- jurisdiction, and i think that the idea of prop h is that right now a lot of the businesses won't have to do a temporary shared spaces permit, or that the shared spaces are permanent, but now they'll go in for an outdoor activity area. and i do understand that we often see a lot of outdoor

activity in front of the commission and questions and neighborhood comments. so that's why, you know, the legislation started with all of those controls about the timing and the noise and things like that, but we'll continue to keep our options, you know, all of the existing options open for enforcement. to work with the neighbors still being out to have a block notice to see when the permits are coming through. i think that we're definitely, you know, we understand that this is very different for a lot of neighbors than what we normally have seen as a process. >> vice-president moore: i hope that the public health component is an issue in that discussion, because aside from noise, which at this time more people are at home and having to be at home, people are also using their own open space and not necessarily having it right next to gatherings of a larger number of

people. it's kind of like contradicting what the public health component is in your own garden. so i hope that you will consider that when you are moving forward. another question from me, do you include a (indiscernible) hesitant to put on ground floors, as well as for financial institutions and the offices that are not necessarily contributing towards the neighborhood corridors and you are now saying they could occur on the ground floor. that is not necessarily a benefit to what we want in our regional corridors but i wanted you to comment if there's another idea that you have. >> sure. i think that the legislation tried to focus on allowing more non-profit uses and small-scale businesses, like real estate agent, which -- yeah, in

traditional -- a traditional planning approach has not been seen as a very active use there. but outright offices and non-retail professional services will also be on the second floor. and a lot of these changes are specific for each neighborhood commercial district and not across the board. but, yes, they have gotten more permissive than they previously were. >> vice-president moore: we want to have (indiscernible) at the edge of chinatown. i would like to ask the staff, erin, who has been around longer than you are, not older but longer in the department -- i want to be clear here -- the neighborhood commercial district and the legislation which regulates that were established to protect the community-serving businesses. we are always seeing that this

could potentially interfere or overturn or challenge that particular type of legislative protection what do you see on how to balance that with prop h? >> well, with prop h we were very sort of conscious of that -- like, the neighbor commercial districts needing to serve, in the immediate neighborhood or more regional or city wide serving. but -- so just to go back to the office question -- the offices -- just beyond offices -- are not allowed in commercial districts and they were not allowed before and not allowed now. this is where the code gets very fine grained and somewhat confusing, are professional services. someone that provides a service to the community. so, like, a real estate agent or a stockbroker or a lawyer,

something like that. so you can see the differentiation is pretty minute at this point. those are allowed in neighbor commercial districts. but if they're not open to the public, so they don't allow people to walk in and they have to be on the second floor. so they're not occupying the ground floor spaces and that. but what we really have tried to do in the ordinance is to get those uses that are sort of destination uses. those use uses that bring peoplt like restaurants and limited restaurants and entertainment uses, things that bring foot traffic to neighborhoods. so we have really looked at the uses not competing sort of with online stores right now, that can help to keep our neighborhood commercial district vibrant. that was the main thrust of what was put in the ordinance or the initiative ordinance when passed. so there was a conscious effort to do that. >> vice-president moore: that addresses my question partially.

again, you are still trying to avoid oversaturation, particularly in those corridors where there's a specific provision about what constitutes saturation. >> right. so, like, north beach's restaurant controls were not touched at all because they had such a complicated but also a nuanced way of regulating restaurants and the restaurants and bars. and also a lot of the concern over overconcentration with barl haven't been touched through this ordinance. so those sort of alcohol concerns aren't -- individual neighborhoods aren't overridden by proposition h either. >> vice-president moore: did you see the finding with the checks and balances with tracking numbers as you're trying to see

it implemented, (indiscernible) -- >> well, i don't think that it's going to thrust forward the floofloodgates much of anything. in the next three years when this is in effect and can't be changed, i think that as a city we'll be struggling with our economy. we'll be struggling to make sure that small businesses stay open. and if someone wants to open up a small business in san francisco, this makes it a lot easier for them to do that. so in other times when the economy is going great and we're concerned about a lot of displacement, i would have agreed with you that, you know, something like this was more of a concern. but, i mean, we don't know what's going to happen in the next three years. but based on what we're seeing in the news right now and how covid is spiking and we can't go

home for thanksgiving and the -- sorry -- not the virus -- we won't be able to get, you know, any shots -- vaccinations delivered until may, and i think that it's going to be hard to see this opening up any floodgates whatsoever while it's in place for the next three years. >> vice-president moore: i think that you can prop up, but i think that you're keeping a close eye on how it develops and we'll have to see. in the meantime we have to try something. >> yeah, what this conversation is doing is really bringing home the point that we need to understand what this does and who this benefits in the next three years. and we are working with our information staff. we had a meeting yesterday. we are coordinating with the department of building inspection. we had a meeting earlier this week with them. to try to make sure that it's implemented properly and that we can track the things that we need to track and to be able to

say, well, it happened at the end of three years. >> vice-president moore: thank you so much for your answering all of those questions. i appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> president koppel: thank you, mr. starr and thank you miss hicks and all of the staff. and honorable mayor breed has done a lot to ensure, not only the survival of these businesses, but the reassurances that our residents will have somewhat still a quality of life to deal with throughout this pandemic. >> vice-president moore: thank you for saying that president koppel. >> clerk: that concludes, commissioners, questioning for this matter. we can move on to items 13 a and b. for cases 2018-14057g.p.r., and 0f.a. for the mission bay south redevelopment plan amendments. and general plan conformity findings. and office development authorization. staff, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> i am. >> clerk: okay, matt, let me

make you the presenter so that you can share your screen. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm matt snyder, department staff. two actions with the 1450 owen street and they are findings in association with the amendments to the mission bay south redevelopment plan to enable the project and then an authorization to allow us for 4,999-square-feet allocated from the small office cap. 1450 owen street is located within the mission bay south redevelopment project area. more specifically it is located on its western side just east of the i-280 freeway and west of mission bay campus of ucsf. the project itself is a life

science facility. it will be 109-feet tall and seven stories. and the uses include 139,000-square-feet of laboratory use. under 50,000-square-feet of office that include a 2,600-square-feet ground retail space with a ground plaza. and ground floor uses include bike parking and lockers and showers. and along with others such as loading, second story would cll include a laboratory use. parking would not be included as part of this construction but would be available in a parking garage immediate south across from a-street. the project site as i had mentioned is within the mission bay south re-development project area. as such, the office of community investment and infrastructure, the successor agency to the san

francisco redevelopment agency and its commission, largely holds jurisdiction over land use and entitlement for this area. there are amendments regarding the redevelopment plan that are required to enable this project. the redevelopment plan amendments, including increasing the cap across the entire project area, but would be only available to this particular site by 170,000 square feet. i did send you yesterday, there was a typo but i want to read it into the record. the existing cap is 5 million square feet and 93,500. and we had it differently in our material. the other amendment required for redevelopment plan is to enable the project is increase the f.a.r. in the commercial industrial zone. and other amendments that are required are within the design for development, again, the design for development document

essentially acts as the planning code for the redevelopment project area. this was approved by the commission on community investment and infrastructure this last tuesday. this is not before you but just to give you context of what amendments are being considered for this project. the design for the development amendments include increasing the height at the subject site from 39 feet, which is the same site as the adjacent freeway to 109 feet. and exclusive of mechanical. including increasing the allowed bulk through several controls, including the increasing the percentage size of the square footage and increasing the floor place above the base height of 90 feet. so this only applies to the stop story of a proposed project. and there's other minor adjustments made, including the street level requirement which currently requires a certain street build to, and owen street there's an easement that cannot

be built upon that allows the entry plaza, but at the same time that requirement needs to be met at the back (indiscernible). and as i had just mentioned the community commission -- the commission on community investment and infrastructure this last tuesday approved and took several actions that approved the development. included approvals of the redevelopment plan amendments, also changes to the ownership -- excuse me -- the ownership participation agreement, which sort of acts as a d.a., requires the project sponsors to participate in creating the infrastructure for mission bay. and then amendments to the application. so, again, before you are simply making general plan findings for the mission bay south redevelopment plan amendments that are required before the board of supervisors, to take action. and approval of the office development authorization. and when we looked to formulate our recommendation to you, staff

looks to plan code section 321b and those findings for the authorization and, of course, the general plan in general for the redevelopment plan amendments. we are recommending approval of this project for the reasons that we have stated in our staff report, and in the draft motions. and in general we believe that this is an appropriate location for the office and laboratory use and it's located in a cluster of similar uses and buildings of the same size. this is across the street from mission bay campus. as a project within mission bay south, the developer -- excuse me -- it's developed in a context that is in anticipated r growth, and it levers new infrastructure in association with that new growth. and of course, mission bay is rich with amenities, both for transportation, all kinds of transportation opportunities for its workers and visitors. and a robust -- robust network of open space and public realm.

ultimately planned 41 acres for the project. the project sponsor will pay fees for transportation sustainability, job linkage housing and for child care and the laboratory use. and the current laboratory rates are lower but they're paying the full office rate. and they'll also be contributing more to the district for the ongoing maintenance of the operation and maintenance of the open space beyond what is currently required. other project sponsors also have reached out to the san francisco unified school district contributing to a new school that is planned near site and this is above and beyond what they pay in school fees. the staff supports the amendments to increase the allowed square footage with the d.a.r. and without this mission bay south would be left with what we believe is an empty lot and a prime location for this laboratory and office use. this concludes my presentation

and i'm happy to answer any questions. the project sponsor is here on behalf of the project sponsor and is available to make a presentation. >> thank you. >> clerk: do you have slides to share for the project sponsor? >> i do, yes. >> clerk: okay, so why don't we let him get those up and when he does i'll let you know and you will have five minutes to make your presentation. i'm going to start resharing again. >> clerk: it's up, matt, just a little small. if you could expand it. there you go. all right, public sponsor, you have five minutes.

>> thank you, secretary. commissioners, director, staff, mi'm the executive vice presidet with alexandria real estate equities. i have been before you many times before, but never in this weird way where you can't see my face. so hopefully you can remember what i look like. i have been working on this mission bay project for quite some time. we at alexandria have been building laboratory buildings here and hoping to create a life science community that is vibrant and active. and we are at a can say 100% of fully leased and have been for a number of years. so this is a very timely project for us to bring to you to be able to provide additional laboratory use for the life science industry. and this particularly relevant,

given the condition that we're all living through with this virus, because it is exactly these companies that will help us to get past this. so what i wanted to show here is that we have a pretty diverse project team and it includes small businesses in san francisco. and it's compliant with the redevelopment plan as set forth. next. so the site is part of blocks 41 to 43 at mission bay and it's one shown here in the blue and it does get the benefit of existing parking structures that were built as part of that larger land area that you can see here along the freeway. that is why we're not needing any additional parking. next. and the site as was pointed out is on owen street but is set back very significantly from

owen street because of a no build easement that is there, so we're taking advantage of that for a nice entry and open space but also that will have retail use fronting it, so we'll be able to do the kinds of outdoor facilities that you were just discussing. next. and so in terms of the design of the building and, unfortunately, we couldn't have the architect present [broken audio] and the design architect, she -- they worked very hard to create a building that had some liveliness to it that presents itself on the future park space as a very vibrant and interesting structure and not just as a block thing. so the shifting of volumes that you can see happening here have

created shadow patterns and create more interest than would otherwise be there. next. this is a view coming down nelson rising way, and the u.c.f. campus coming down and actually on the right of where this gentleman is walking is the future school, which is on block 14. that has been mentioned. and what this also indicates in this image is some of the uniqueness of the building, which is that we're incorporating at some key corners, as you can see here, two and three-story volumes. those will actually be able to have landscape within the building to, again, to create a more interesting shape of patterns. next. and this is just a final view of that entry courtyard that sets the building back. but allows the possibility of having chairs and outdoor space

for a retail, hop hopefully a ée will be able to be there and this image shows the two or three-story volumes that i have described earlier. that concludes my presentation in the interest of being brief. and i'm free to answer questions. >> clerk: great, thank you. there are no immediate questions from the commission to the sponsor, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit for public testimony by pressing star, 3, to enter the queue. through the chair, each member of the public will be provided with two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm allison heath speaking on behalf of the boosters in support of owen street project. alexandria did an extraordinary job of outreach to our neighborhood. height has been an early concern for us and we were concerned about the building's potential

shadowing of the park. the project sponsor responded with a proposal for reduced height. thanks to -- i will acknowledge the result was an airy design that addressed our concerns while simultaneously meeting the program attic objectives. they're so willing to consider our interests and rarer still to work with the development that is not in our immediate neighborhood. in june we asked the project team to present their plans to the full boosters membership, where it was well received. we put the matter to a vote and as a result, the boosters can offer our formal and enthusiastic endorsement. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is timothy wright and i'm a field representative at carpenter's local 22, and also a native san

francisco. we're happy to support this important life science project. the project will continue to grow the life science industry in san francisco. and the life science industry is at the forefront of the life-saving research work to address the illnesses, affecting humanity, such as the pandemic that we're experiencing now. because of this, the timing is critical that this project get passed. we also have a long history working with alexandria. the project means many jobs for our members and the industry provides high-quality permanent jobs in addition to construction jobs and in addition to the jobs, this project is a clear benefit to the surrounding mission bay community. the project includes contributions to the mission bay parks and other feature mission bay school. we look forward to your support for jobs and the community benefits to the mission bay neighborhood. this is a great project. we need the jobs. please, support this project. thank you.

>> good afternoon, this is the regional director for government afires for biocom, the state-wide association with the life sciences. san francisco as you know and especially in mission bay, is home to a robust life science community. boston, cambridge and the bay area are the nation's life science sectors. even during the pandemic the industry wants to locate and grow in san francisco. top talent wants to be here. our essential employees continue their around-the-clock work to address the pandemic. lab work cannot be done remotely. we don't anticipate an exodus of life science companies as we have seen in other sectors. the industry continues to prove its economic resilience and to help the city to maintain a diverse tax base. alexandria real estate equities is important in preserving and developing the life science industry in san francisco. and our industry is running out of space to build new facilities. as evidenced by this being the final commercial developable

parcel in mission bay south. as such, biocomsupports the efforts to expand on this parcel as a need to increase the industry capacity. alexandria continues to see the demand for more life science space and this project reflects several years of thoughtful development with the community input and amenities to serve the surrounding area. along with the extensive develop pent fees, alexandra has a contribution to child care and park maintenance. they're also providing a school endowment to have a pathways program to have hands on land experience and internships and tours of local companies. and it's viable to the long term stability and the industry growth and this project will create good jobs for san franciscans during a turbulent time. thank you. >> good afternoon, chair, and

members of the san francisco planning commission. my name is dante johnson and i'm a resident of san francisco and a 14-year member -- excuse me -- of carpenters local 22. i'm here in support of the 1450 owen street project. not only will it grow the life science industry in san francisco, but it also is a clear benefit to the mission bay neighborhood because it will project and create permanent jobs and living wages. as a carpenter, i look forward to the opportunity to work in the community where i live, so close to home, so i can spend more time with my family. as a resident of san francisco, i encourage you to move quickly with this project, as quick as possible. thank you for your time.

>> good afternoon, president koppel and fellow commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak today. my name is zaur and i'm a local resident. and i'm privileged as a member much carpenters' local 22. and i'm speaking in favor of 1450 owen development. this life science project will provide me with an opportunity for the change that i will need to advance my career to become a gentleman carpenter. it will help me to continue my career as a carpenter, and working towards retirement, will provide me with the necessary benefits and the income to provide for myself and my family. i am in full support of the 1450 owen development.

and i hope that the commission will support the development as well. thank you for your time. >> clerk: members of the public, last call for public comment. and here's one. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mike chen and i'm a resident of san francisco and i hope that you speedily approve this. thank you so much. >> caller: hello, good afternoon. i am felipe nuno, a member of local 22 since 16 years ago. and i am in full support of the project at 1450 owens, the life science project. it's really important because we could be leading the way in future technologies and life

sciences, especially with everything that's going on right now with the covid-19. we could use these facilities like this to figure out some ways to prevent future disasters like the one that we're experiencing now. and it would also be great for other businesses to work in a business like this and to keep their careers going. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it. >> clerk: okay, one more time. the last call, this is your opportunity to give public testimony by pressing star, 3. commissioners, i see no members of the public wishing to speak, so the public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: i wanted to express my full support for both the mission bay amenitimenamendment as well fors

street. both of them are great moves forward, particularly the owens street building is a creative way of dealing with a very difficult parcel. and, again, i'm in full support of both. >> president koppel:commissioner khan? >> commissioner chan: and on a commission that a project sponsor has focused on community outreach and incorporated feed back from the community on the final design. and i appreciate that the project sponsor is thinking about building out a whole neighborhood and a community and making those intentions clear through the maintenance of the mission bay park for the perpetuity of the project. and voluntary paying a higher child care fee and committing to a future school. there's a lot to like about this project, with the flexibility with the amount of office space. and i am in full support of this

project. >> president koppel: commissioner? >> i am trying to think of a creative way to deal with an awkward site and i think that the use is correct. they're supportive of the project, and i did have a couple of follow-up questions. one is for the project sponsor. and it is a desire to know more about the status of the negotiations with the school district and in the absence of a signed deal with them, this isn't more subjected to more appropriate for the discussions than where we are in our conversation right now and the entitlements that we have been asked to grant the project. so if i could get the project sponsor to fill me in on that subject, that would be great. >> well, thank you, commissioner diamond. our discussions with the unified school district are very

positive. we essentially have met with them several times over the course of almost a year now. where we have focused our support of their project around what we can best bring which is a support on the life science effort that they're trying to bring in their pathway program, to incorporate into the school. so what they've asked to us do is to work collaboratively with them to define what that program would be. to provide a financial contribution towards an endowment to support that pathway program. and going to become essentially a clearing house for them to create an opportunity for students to have potentially internships and learning experiences in the life science industry. that discussion has been well underway as you know that

there's a requirement for those school boards to take action. so the staff hasn't wanted to get ahead of the school board. and they have been working with us and we will have an m.o.u., some letter of understanding shortly, but then the staff will take to the school district before we get to the board of supervisors. will. >> commissioner imperial: thank you very much. and a question for staff on the ceqa analysis on the project. if i understood the traffic section of the addendum correctly, there's less and less area than had been anticipated in the underlying e.i.r., and the additional footage from this building will not take it to a level of significance. but i'm curious how the staff thinks about the changes that might exist now or in the future

as a result of the different driving patterns due to covid and how people use space and public transportation. is that simply too speculative to be ceqa? -- you know, what are your thoughts about that? >> i'll answer this question. >> good afternoon, planning staff. you bring up some excellent questions and i don't know that any of us -- will know the answers. we are finding the department and other transportation agencies in the city and the region are engaged in a lot of long-range thinking, even pre-covid. we happened to be engaged in a once-in-a generation planning exercise through connect s.f.

and other regional planning to look at the city's long-term future. covid hit, you know, in the midst of this, and we don't know what the long term trends are and we keep our eyes on what is happening around the world. for instance, the rebound of transit ridership, even amid the pandemic in europe and asia and places like that. and looking at ways to cope and there's a confidence that once there's a vaccine and covid is behind us that transit ridership and sense will rebound strongly. you know, even before covid, the region and the city were looking at how to ramp up our transportation infrastructure to meet the demand that was sort of burgeoning at the seams. clearly, you know, traffic during the pandemic is reaching almost pre-pandemic levels as people drive more. and so everyone is following what is happening, and at this

point the long-term projections that i had mentioned in the premises and the extensions for the long term aren't changing at the moment, but, certainly, the world is changing quickly and all of our long-range planning is keeping an eye on it, if that answers your question. >> thank you. it's helpful to have thoughts around how we are moving forward with that uncertainty that is in front of us. but as i have said, it doesn't change my view on this project. i think that it's a really creative situation to this awkwardly shaped parcel and i'm supportive. >> president koppel: commissioner? >> move to adopt the finding of consistency and the small office cap allocation. >> second. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioners. >> clerk: on that motion then to adopt findings and approve the

office allocation [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, it places us on item 16. as items 14 and 15 have both been continued. for case 2015-015950cua at 955 post street. conditional use authorization. is staff prepared to make a presentation?

>> yes, jonas, hello. >> clerk: hello, mr. perry. you need to present? >> i do not have any slides but i have a sponsor slide after i am done my presentation. good afternoon president koppel and commissions, andrew perry, staff board. and this is a conditional use authorization at 955 post street on the southside of post street between larkin and hyde streets. and the north of market residential s.u.d. and the proposed project would demolish the two-story commercial building and construct a new eight-story over basement 80-foot tall building with 69 dwelling units and 1500 square feet of ground floor commercial space. the projects would include 80 class one bicycle parking spaces

within the building and spaces along the sidewalk frontage. and eight proposed off-street parking spaces. and it requires authorization pursuant to section 253, for the construction of a building greater than 40 feet in height on the lot with more than 50 feet of frontage. and as well as pursuant to section 271 to allow the project to exceed the maximum bulk dimension of 125 feet within the district. the project is subject to section 415 inclusionary housing projects and because of the location in the north of market, we are required to provide 25% of the units with on-site affordable units for 17 of the projects 69 total proposed units. as a rental project, it's 55 55% m.a.i. and to date there's a letter of support from san francisco

housing coalition and a petition of support for the project submitted by the s.f. housing action coalition signed by 30 individuals. staff has also received three comments in opposition to the project in addition to general inquiries. concerns about the project focused on the loss of the parking. as one person who currently parks their car in the existing structure. and as well as the concern about the project's lack of post-parking for new residents. additional concerns about the impacts from noise and construction and project scale. and then a comment was received yesterday evening from the property manager of the building at 860 gary street to the rear of the project site. and the email stated concerns about loss of revenue and moving costs to residents of their building, impacts to their building from construction noise and dust and demolition activities. and the safety and the security issues during that time period when the building is demolished and the concerns about impacts from construction on the

building plumbing system. and the department finds that the proposed project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan, and it was necessary, and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project provides in-fill housing to the housing stock, including a percentage of affordable housing and having approximately 65% of the units containing two or more bedrooms. the area surrounding the site is well served by transit and providing a small amount of parking and while it requires a bulk exception, it's well articulates and it incorporates a variety of materials to lessen the impacts of the project massing while creating a more engaging pedestrian realm. and a green space for retail and commercial business. as from its original submittal, it's now an l-shaped design to proceed without any barriers and to create a setback area that can integrate the buildings with

the rest of the block open space with the future development scenarios. for these reasons the department recommends approval with conditions. that concludes that presentation but i'm available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. perry. project sponnor, are yo sponsoru prepared to make a presentation? >> i am. >> clerk: it looks like your slides are up. so you have five minutes. >> perfect, thank you. i'm going to go quickly here. on the call with me is the project sponsor, and the brothers in the khan development and the construction company. and on the call is the project counsel. and also the principal in charge of the project, and good afternoon, commissioners. i am steven iaola and i'm the

project architect. next slide, please. so i'm not going to hit every bullet that i have on every page but i'll try to do what i can in the five minutes available. so one thing to note is that we're using a five bay rhythm on this project for a five unit design module. that references the existing five bay module of the existing building. these are intended to be middle-class modest starter unit apartments. as mentioned there's 69 of them. and all of the units in the building are one, and two and three bedrooms. so we have a total of 123 total bedrooms in the project. and that equates to essentially an all two-bedroom project for the building. we have 25% on-site exclusionary and this is a lead gold project and it is proposed to be an all electric building in advance of the new requirements that are coming next year. we do have a retail space at the

ground floor to accommodate one or two tenants. and we have been in conversations with local neighborhood favorite bob donuts. we had 80 staff bicycle parking spaces in class 1 bike parking. 1.b.16 spaces per dwelling unit. and only nine auto spaces with one car share and that is about 1.3 parking ratio. next slide, please. the project is in the historic district. the hrer that was performed years back said that it would not cause any impacts to the district's integrity but the design of a new building could impact the district integrity if not done correctly. the existing building was built in 1919 and it has 100% lot coverage with what is a

two-story wall at the property line. you can see that in pink on the righthand side. next slide, please. just to show what the previous incompatibility was, you can see the image on the left, the project had multiple variances and 100% lot coverage. and several years later in the design of the project, on the righthand side with our l-shaped footprint, we are a compatible project with a preservation staff and the team. no variance has been needed for this project. next slide, please. so one of the major features of the project is that we're anticipating that there would be redevelopment of the two adjacent rear parcels. you can see that in the dashed green lines. those are low intensity and one and two-story commercial buildings. and we expect them to be redeveloped. and so the l-shaped footprint of

our building integrates with the l-shaped rear yard, composed of two items. a full 25% required rear yard. plus a voluntary outer court. and i also note that our neighbor at 806 geary right now, that existing wall is 12.5 feet away from the lower portion of their building. and now our new rear of building will be about 47 feet away. next slide, please. and this is a closer view of our site plan and we do have a 15-foot front setback at level six, and that is to align with the predominant street wall space. i talked already about the outer court. the outer court reduces our buildable area across all floors of the building by a little over 10,000 square feet. and the outer court also balances out what we're asking for from the bulk limit exception.

the dashed red line on the drawing, you can see on the righthand side where the upper floors at the building at levels six, seven and eight go beyond that red line. that's the exception that we're asking for. that allows us to maintain those rear units as two bedroom reunts anunitsand everything up that ls balancing out the square footage. additionally just quickly on the site plan, we are using white walls to break up the property line wall volume and the apparent mass. and we also have a center court in the building that -- although it's not required for light and vent laitionz for thventilatione are using that to illowm nate the light in the buildings. the apartments are to be modest finishes and fixtures. because of the highly efficient

layoffs and the 20-foot design module for the units we think that they will be considered starter units which we believe that will appeal to a broad community of diverse units. and couples and roommates, students and even single professionals with a home office. and we do -- >> clerk: your time is out. i ran into someone last week and i gave someone extra time and everyone asked for extra time after that, so to be fair i have to take care of you right there. we may have questions for you when we get to the commissioners. but just want to be fair to everyone. >> understood, president koppel. i think that we said everything that is important to say and if there's questions we have conditional use sheets and we are ready to answer questions. >> president koppel: very good. that concludes the presentation. >> clerk: members of the public,

this is your opportunity to share your testimony by pressing star and then 3. we have one caller and then he disappeared and it looks like he's back. through the chair, you have two minutes. >> caller: hello? can you hear me okay? >> clerk: we can hear you just fine. >> caller: that in and of itself is a bit a miracle. okay, first of all, i do -- to mr. perry for reading the content of the letter they sent. i am speaking on behalf of the manager of 860 geary and she raised a number of concerns that we have discussed in the past. the demolition is going to cause considerable hardship to many of the the occupants of the 860 address, those facing the back wall which is about 12.5 feet away. her dwelling, unit 100, is at ground level within 10, 15 feet of the property. she feels that it's only reasonable to assume that she'd

be complicated for any moving costs because she could not live there during the work. that's completely impossible. and, of course, associated rent during the course. she's made an investment with the garden and the landscaping and it's only reasonable to assume in the process of demolishing the property that any damage -- that would be done she would be reimbursed for. there's going to be an income loss from noise as the property as well as ground level properties are used for production work, video and film production, during covid times as everything is virtualized for our production company. again, we are looking at compensation with that and any and all legal fees associated with it. now the big issue, probably the largest issue -- is the subject of -- is the property is still functioning there's an abundance of toxic material and other toxic materials as part of the old building. her living quarters are in close

proximity to the building being taken down. additionally it's clear that the attendants of the building are not sensitive to safety issues. there's a hose draining with an unknown liquid that is coming out and we don't know what the liquid is. we are concerned about security as the building is demolished and after it's gone we need assurances that security measures -- [bell ringing] and we're concerned about the jackhammering -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> i thought that we had three minutes, did we not? >> clerk: i announced early on that you have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dan doitch and i'm an s.f. resident living in district 8. and i am just calling in support of this project. thinking about what is currently there versus the possibility of

building over 60 units of housing, but a significant number of those being affordable inclusionary units and it really feels like a no-brainer and once you add in the fact that it's just 15 minutes away from the civic center bart and muni metro and that there's very little parking and most of the parking that is there is bike parking, this is definitely a sustainable environmentally friendly project that we should be encouraging. and i am very excited to see this project as well. it looks really nice. and i think that it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. and it will add further density to one of the most transit rich parts of san francisco. so no complaints from me and i hope that this building is approved and built. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah ogilvy and i

live in san francisco and i used to live very close to the area. and i'm in full support of the project. what i really like are the environmental features. i think that it's awesome that it will satisfy the requirements of san francisco green building code. and it complies with the better roof initiative with a solar intellation on the roof space. i also was excited to hear about bob donuts possibly owning the bottom space. that's a wonderful opportunity for a local business to find fresh blood. and it's such a dense area. and i don't think that it would be too far of a swing from where it's currently located on polk and it would be exciting to see that grow. and also i wanted to point out that the hospital is extremely close to this location. and it would be wonderful if the staff that are currently and probably making very long commutes, traveling by car and

other ways to get to their job, it would be great if a few people could live really close to work. i think would be wonderful. and i think that the varying degrees of affordability are really wonderful for a location where i know that it is extremely diverse. and definitely needs more housing opportunities. perhaps to have a chance to grow. perhaps a chance to downsize. as it were, it's an overall great project. please approve. >> hi, i am a neighbor and i'm excited to see this project. i walk my dog past it several times a day and so i'm very excited to see some new developments from here. and i am really excited to have more neighbors. so please approve the project.

thank you. >> caller: hello, hi, i'm adam bookbinder and a planning commissioner for the city of campbell and i'm only speaking here for myself. i am speaking in support of the project. as everyone knows there's a terrible housing crisis going on. so to deny a project you would have to have a tremendously good reason. it would have to be a terrible idea. this is not only not a bad idea, this seems like a great project. it achieves density and affordability and it works for both -- it's a good location for this kind of housing. i fully support this project and i think that we should have more like this. thank you. have a nice day and i yield my time. >> good afternoon, this is nico with the housing coalition and i

will keep it brief for many of the reasons that folks have just said that we are absolutely in support of this project and we support moving it forward. >> caller: i am mike chen and i'm in district 2. speaking in support of the project as little something that is really good and having more housing. and what we think what covid has shown us is that crowding is not so great so having more units and more places for people to go and better ventilation systems. because our housing stock is becoming older and older and, you know, we need -- you know, we need newer units and stuff that is better for our health. so i urge you to support this project. thank you.

>> clerk: okay, members of the public. last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: is it at all possible that i would like the architect to have a couple more minutes to take us through the typical plans with this project distinguishes itself by creating a large building and creating an interior layout of common corridors and that creates a strong massing that distinguishes itself in quality from many other projects of like size, and it would be far more innovative and creative. if the architect wouldn't mind to continue to give us a few

minutes to take us through the typical floor plans, i would greatly appreciate it. >> certainly, vice president moore. can everybody hear me? i'm assuming so. so the typical unit is a two-bedroom unit. that is the module that the rest of the units are based on for that 20-foot unit rip. and we have one accessible bathroom in these units and one bathroom that doesn't meet the a.d.a. requirements. and we're using a galley kitchen and you can see from this floor kitchen that the -- there are no corridors. everything is meant to bea -- all circulation is to flow around the furniture and we're not showing the furniture in this plan, but showing at least where the beds, the major closet elements would be, and where the kitchen elements would be. out toward the front is our little box that you can see left

of the bay window, is the magic pack heating and cooling ventilation unit that will air condition the space. i think that actuallly appendix, page 28 -- and then we can see the unit floor plans. you might have gone past it. there we go. there it is. so you can see on the left is a typical one-bedroom unit. and, you know, very tightly compacted and that one does break the 20-foot module. but the one-bedroom alternate unit, this is a level six unit, the second from the left. again, you know, highly

efficient layout. the furtherest from the left is the two-bedroom that we just looked at and on the far righthand side is the three-bedroom unit. where we are using that back corner of the building on the rear yard to get two spaces of dwelling unit exposure. and we are using a nested bedroom strategy. so, andrew, if you go to i think page -- the best floor plan to look at are on page -- let's see -- page 10. yeah. let's go to page 10 first. toward the front. one more, please. there we go. so on the left is the basement level plan. and we do have two dwelling units down at that level. the upper gray is the parking area. and then down that sort of light

gray block on the righthand side of the blue is the bike parking. and then everything around those units is a rear yard. and when we get up a level, the red that we see at the top of the page on the righthand image is the retail space. we have residential entry to the lefthand side and the garage entry to the righthand side. and bullet is where you see the units at the back of the building. and at the back l corner of the building is a three bedroom. and then a middle two-bedroom with a nested bedroom. and the far righthand is also a two bedroom. but that one because of the light walls that we have designed in have windows on the interior bedrooms. so if you go up one more level -- one more page, sorry. next page. >> vice-president moore: could we see this space for a moment? just explain how the courtyard and with the units and then (indiscernible) we see double loaded corridors without a courtyard which has a

(indiscernible) with this particular project makes it really much more personalized. >> absolutely. right in the middle of this plan on the left lefthand side is the light green area, that is the floor of the courtyard. and that rises up and it's fully glazed around that element so that the corner it get some light from the rooftop level all the way down. and the elsay thor bank is to the left of that. (please stand by)

[indiscernible] >> i had couple of questions for the architect and the staff relating to the -- i'm wondering if i can speak with the architect and if you can put the patriots of the -- pictures of

the rendering up that shows the building in the staff package. i don't know what number that is. when you look at the front rendering, it looks like it's more of brick facade and not a stucco facade. we look at that rendering, it looks like flat. i'm assuming that's the way the rendering is. i like the architect to firm that finish on the front goes around the building. that correct? >> that is correct. we have the same units on the front of the building that wrap all exterior walls in the building. th >> commissioner diamond: second question relates to the coloring

on the front, it's more of a tote color and on the back it's yellow. i'm wondering if it's a rendering issue and that's a design detail you'll work on with staff as plans get more refined? >> yes. if you wanted to go to page 23 in the appendix, that will show the truest color that we can -- up there on the upper left, represents our swatch what we anticipate the brick color to be. it will have a tote tannish color. the yellow color was because we had a very late afternoon sun light that was brightly illuminating all the surrounding

buildings. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. third and final question if you go back to the back rendering again, it will be helpful if you could explain what the thought process having two vertical bays of dark blue. they stand out in the sea of beige. i'm wondering why you chose such a const tra -- contrasting color and what you trying to accomplish here? we had explored several different design relation to the front facade.

we thought that confining the blue to the ground floor base only and then making all of the projecting bay elements is the right move for the front of the building. the back of the building, the blue shown there was the remnants of that approach that was around the rear of the building. we do have continuous bricks at the top that connects the bay. the blue that's there was remnant of the front facade. when i look at this in the

cityscape, i hear what you're saying it might be jarring. we want to have something there that actually had a little bit of distinction. if detail is too much distinction, we're happy to work with staff on that. >> commissioner diamond: i found the front of the building extreming pleasing. when i looked at the back, i was struck by the navy blue stripes, vertical stripes. i feel like that's the detail i will leave to you and staff to work out.

>> this is a great project. i have couple of questions. one is about the bike parking. i noticed the bike parking is there at the basement level. 123 bedrooms and i think it's about 80 bike parking spaces, is there any opportunity to increase the amount of bike parking on class one by parking available to the residents of the building? >> we do have a second bike area

right adjacent to the residential entry. that's that grayish area to the lower left of the red area. we could always expand that more into the retail space to get additional bike parking spaces. the other area that are available to ground floor to the purple bicycle parking will be our trash area. we're planning on doing on site laundry unit and design the projects where we could end up with a washer and drier unit in each of the units themselves. i think there's opportunity to get some more bike parking there. the more retail space, the less attractive that might be.

>> that's something to consider. >> commissioner tanner: the other question i have, if you can define what starter rent looks like. what are the anticipate rents for the one bedroom to two bedroom. can you help us get color what a starter unit looks like and what the cost associated are. >> i would ask pierre to come

off mute to answer commissioner tanner's questions please. >> this is pierre. thank you again for having us here. the units that we're having here, we're trik trying to maket efficient as possible. we trying to get close to market as possible. we don't want to overbill them. we can probably go towards the bottom end of the market rates. whether or not -- the actual rental rates that we're going to be charging is little bit hard for us to tell now because it's few years until we actually build the building and with covid all the things happening

now, it's hard to say what the rents will be. we are trying to make them as efficient as possible so we don't have to charge the high luxury rates you see in san francisco. >> commissioner tanner: i hope you're able to achieve that. market rates are often not affordable even for middle income families, that can satisfy the needs of the building. we want to support. it does seem like a great project you're providing. hopefully we can also provide housing for those folks who don't qualify but important part of aer city. last question is current use of the building is a garage. we did hear from public comment

about remediation for the site, potential contamination. are there any concerns you have about excavation for the garage? do you feel like you'll be able to take care of contaminates through that process. >> i will be glad to address some of these. we have looked into some of the things. one of the things a stuck out to me with regards to there was a comment about a hose and that hose actually was taking some roof drainage that was unfortunately, an old building and the water was leaking inside. there was a roof drain bag installed inside just to prevent

water from doing more damage to interior. it was just runoff rain water. no contamination what so ever. we have been aware of the concerns of the neighbors and we are prepared to perform the necessary mitigation and remediation in a form that is acceptable by the city within regulation. we will do our best to have amicable relationship with all of those around us before we start while we're working and through the project to completion. i think as project progresses, we'll reach out to those who do have these concerns.

we haven't had too much discussion about the project demolition as of late. we've been more excited about getting our project to this point. as we progress, i think we will very happy to work with the city, building officials and any one and everyone who has any interest in making sure that this project moves forward in a safe and timely manner. >> thank you. >> vice president moore: i'm prepared to make -- while the conditions about blue or kind of blue, i believe the introduction of a small stripe of color at

that corner identify the strong massing of that building which is the strength. if you only have are the seams on the rear of the building, those will look like a massing that is not distinguished. whatever color there is, i am in support of retaining a color on that bay. i'm making a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> commissioner imperial: i'm in support of this project and second it. i want to make a comment to project sponsor. you mentioned there's percent for low income. it ranges from 50 to 8 80-person

a.m.i. i would like to recommend to make the low income a.m.i. to be 50% or 60% a.m.i. it's higher than other counties. i want to have that. >> president koppel: if there's nothing further. o[roll call vote]

to motion passes unanimously 7-0. that will place us on final item on today's general. number 17a and b for case numbers 4300, 17th street, conditional use authorization while other administration consider request for variance. we did receive a request for organized opposition. we granted that request. the project sponsor will have six minutes to make their presentation followed by organized opposition with six minutes and three speakers and we'll go to public comment for two minutes each. staff be prepared to make your presentation.

>> thank you very much. good afternoon president koppel, members of the commission and building administrator. request for conditional use authorization and for variances to the planning code for project at 4300 17th street. built in 1953 and expanded in 1960. the structure occupies eastern half. the residential entrances to the building are located on 17 street and one car garage on located on ord street.

there's an existing storage area that is no internal connection. surrounding neighborhoods consist of slopes both of individual lots. the neighborhood has been developed over many decades and mixture of architectural adjacent to the west. there's a three story two unit condominium structure and to the north, which is sloping three-story single family home.

project seeks variance to the planning code, sections 121, lot size for both of the new lot, section 134 and section 135 open space for the lower unit within the new development. the existing 4000 square foot like located on the ragedder of the original lot. a 500 square foot roof deck is proposed to be added to the existing two family dwelling. new building will reach a height of 40 feet. grounsecond floor would provide2

gross square foot two bedroom unit and upper two floors approximately 2000 square feet with private open space. total of two accessory dwelling units are proposed. 607 square foot to be added to the existing two family dwelling and 475 square foot to be included in the new two family dwelling proposed. under this program, adu will be rent controlled. however the new construction project will not be eligible for a.d.u. under this section.

the project sponsor has stated intent to designate both of the projects proposed dwelling units, housing units under section 415 and the city and county of san francisco and affordable housing program. to date the department received 55 letters in support of the project. 43 letters in opposition to the project have been received. the support for the project centered on the addition of housing units and the addition of affordable unit and out opposition is centered on the compliance with the planning code.

the proposal is not consistent with the guidelines. by eliminating the subject project yard, it will negative impact to neighboring property. the department recommends that proposal of the site be redesigned that maintains adjacent property access to light and air by providing adequate set back and yards. the first sponsor consider department comments and brought before a hearing.

the department found that the project is not consistent with with the objective and policy of the general plan and does not mean that all applicable requirements of the planning code including the residential guidelines. the department priority is to maximize the development of housing and applicable sustaining quality of life. the department does not support the intensity of noncompliance, the proposal seeks to achieve the higher density at the site. the department finds project is not to be necessary desirable with surrounding neighborhoods and to be detrimental to persons within the vicinity. this concludes staff's recommendation.

>> president koppel: thank you mr. horn. is the project sponsor prepare to make their presentation? >> i will be sharing. i will let you know when your slides are up. can you hear me? >> yes. >> you will have six minutes. >> thank you president koppel, members of the commission. thank you for the opportunity to present my project today. thank you to senior planner jeff horn for his assistance over the last 18 months.

my project will add one affordable housing unit on the vacant land center of this picture. the new building will contain the second permanent affordable housing unit that will subsidize to affordable unit. several affordable housing nonprofits that i spoke to said there's no viable model for building affordable housing 86% of san francisco's neighborhood. before starting this project, i sought to understand how guarantees has been applied in the past. these decisions felt about

ironclad as it gets. reliance on these decisions by start of of this project. before the planning commission today, however, is the fact that my home is located in the special used district. what happens if the subject property is cut off from big lot space as this slide shows my property is. in each of the five times the situation presented itself to the zoning administrator for the

last 20 years in exception to 134 was granted. there isn't another half vacant corcorner lot adjacent public right-of-way. i acknowledge that asking the city to eliminate the rear yard is a big ask. the small point that i am making, underlying principle of section 134 is applicable here. the corner lot that i'm proposing is 100% consistent with this neighborhood. i understand that a project like this will attract opposition. i don't begrudge anyone for opposing this project on the merit.

from day one, this was a mixed affordable housing project. lastly, i'm not building two level luxury penthouse for myself. the fact of the the meter -- matter is, -- the only way for a lower modest income person to live in this neighborhood is affordable housing which we have

zero. while i understand that you received 43 letters in opposition, i received 55 in support. 93 thousands people who weren't celebritied for affordable housing will be in favor of a project today. this is a city of innovation. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. if that concludes project sponsor presentation there are no immediate questions from the commission, we should go to organized opposition for six

minutes. >> i am president of corporate height neighbors. we have been around for 17 years. presented to the planning commission on numerous occasions, our group represents an area of about 1000 households. our involvement with this project starts in the summer of 2019 three members of our committee went to the three application meetings. feedback from all three, it was not well received, everyone was

opposed. that was that. the people who attended that meeting brought nothing to the developer. looking forward, there has been no community discussion, no input and the reason is, like always, we're waiting for the planning department approval. we don't move on anything until the planning department approves it. we particularly let down our guard because in the april plan check that was published, there were eight significant concerns and follow-up requests. the next thing we knew, we hav e received this proposed commission meeting and then we had to scramble to address it. it's important to clarify that in some of the documents, there's a reference to a meeting with our organization

october 26th. that didn't happen. going on to the next slide, we just want to say that we completely -- we are in complete support of the planning commission. we issued two documents. the first is november 10th exhibit f the second is novembef report was published. we totally support their issues and concerns because they are issues and concerns. numerous planning code violations, not compatible and desirable for the neighborhood, no environmental review, dramatic reduction in open space, light and air flow, lack

of set backs, complete destruction of side yards, two proposed a.d.u.s. we believe, like the planning commission can be incorporate into the existing structure. just looking at this image, i think it's important to understand all the structures in the neighborhood. when you look at the image on the right, the yellow building on the left will be covered in darkness. the existing build oning on the right will go dark. the next slide shows what happens to the building on the north side. this is a very recent photograph. the proposed building will come up to our higher than the yellow

building on the right. we did a photo shop to show you what that looks like afterwards. this is like living next to the berlin wall and i once saw the wall in action and i would say the berlin wall is higher. you it's important to focus on the doughnut and not the hole. the doughnut is 82% of the square footage market rate. the hole are the two a.d.u.s 18% of the square footage. the original submission by the developer is priority for residents and secondly for affordable housing. to say the least, we oppose this project from beginning to end

and the process and don't understand why we're here even though the planning department submitted a very negative report. i will turn it over to paul allen who is the secretary and will finish up the presentation. [indiscernible] [background noises]

[indiscernible] >> i can barely hear that presentation at this point. [indiscernible] >> you did have a strong echo in your background.

something wasn't muted. commissioners, we should now go to public comment. this is your opportunity to submit your testimony and get into queue by star 3. you'll have two minutes. take the first caller now. >> thank you for the opportunity to express strong opposition to the plan and developer and what the developer is proposed in his backyard. my husband and greg and i have live here for 20 years. the plans will have severe and

impact on us. we request that the commission reject the proposal that's before you. not only because of the impact on us because it's inconsistent with the residential design guidelines and the corona heights large resident special use district. if this project is constructed, we will lose all light and air on the side of our house. the developer would have entire floor above our house. we would lose very large amount of natural light in our backyard. our neighbors downstairs will lose light. the owners of 90 ord will lose light and back of their house. in addition the developer would have seven windows currently planned on our property line. we will be looking their neighbors and neighbors will look into their windows and we will be looking into developer

tenant's home also. we chose to live in the neighborhood not because of investment opportunity because we were part of the community. i think the developer forgets he lives four blocks of rain blow flag when he talks about diversity.

>> they let down their guard. our neighborhood neighborhoods n guarded by the people who happen to already live there. neighborhoods without affordable housing are less vibrant and less inclusive. i don't think that's the kind of san francisco that any of us want to live in. please support this project. it's a great model that can be replicated across the city and it will be good for people who need it the most.

>> hi. i'm the executive director of mission housing development corporation. we build 100% low income housing. i'm calling today in my personal capacity. from our industry's perspective, having people that are willing to go affordable, it's a god send. i'm in favor of of this project. the purpose of a variance is for you the planning commission to be able to give that variance when someone goes above and beyond, which is what is happening. i'm sorry that some people still care about their view and the light more than low income humans having a home.

if you feel like you can't give a variance for this amount of above and beyond, i hope as a commission, you take a look at why that is as well. thank you very much. >> i'm resident of san francisco in district 6. i'm calling in support of this project. two friends of mine got engaged, congratulations to them. they decided to buy a house in this very neighborhood. if you haven't been paying attention to the housing market there. modest home first time home buyers is $2 million for a small

home. that's the kind of neighborhood we're talking about. i want you to really think about the equity consequences of denying a project that brings two affordable homes to the neighborhood at zero cost to the city. i told them about this project because i'm excited about it. like totally normal people, they said okay, sounds nice. normal people do not oppose this project. normal people simply do not care. they know housin housing is goo. only people that want you to say no are the ones that want to build a wall and keep who live in those affordable b.m.r. units out. i have to point out it's appalling.

berlin wall separated families that murdered and disappeared low income people. i urge the planning commission to approve this project which brings two desperately needed units to the neighborhood. thank you. >> hi commissioners. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i own a home in corona heights where i live with my wife and two kids. we're located on 17th street just up the block from 4300, 17th street. as a black man in san francisco, i'm aware of how black people has been pushed out of certain areas of the city. one significant driver is

resistance adding new housing and affordable housing specifically. as such, i'm strongly in favor of this project. which has four units, including two below market rate units. our neighborhood, corona heights ought to be welcoming people of all income levels. i'm asking the commission to please approve this project. thank you. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission. my name is sarah hoffman. live a few blocks from the project site. i strongly support this project. it creates much needed housing including affordable housing in my neighborhood.

people who lived here for decades property taxes to criticize change. as an immigrant to this country, i find it offensive when project departments suggest that they have vested interest this anythings never changing. the reality is san francisco is changing. it's losing its diversity and it's losing its young because it's not affordable to live here. i'm tired of friends moving away because it's more affordable to leave the city. it project adds four new units and it should be approved. only five minute walk from the muni station. conditional use authorization only required for this project because it's in the corona heights large resident special use district. this district was primarily

created to restrict the creation of mega mansions that is the aggressive expansion of single family homes. however in its own word, the district also aims to encourage new housing. this project should be approved. >> hello. i'm speaking here for myself. this project is the increase in density which neighborhoods prefer.

i love to see projects like this in my own city. it will replace unusable space with needed homes. half of which will be below market rate. >> hi. my name is andy. i live on douglas just around the corner from the project. we lived here 17 years.

i always wondered why there was unused vacant lot? it would build affordable housing in my neighborhood where we currently have none. what's the opposition to that? i was thinking to myself, what have these guys done to build affordable housing in the city. so critical for any affordable housing units. they speak of the berlin wall. they are the ones perpetuating the wall. our city, my neighbor and police officers understand the neighborhood that care about the

neighborhood like their own. not simply a job -- all these folks screaming at this guy trying to build affordable housing, they are looking out more themselves their fear of living next to poor people. our city needs the support and small steps forward. bravo to the planning commission for coming up ways to do it. tear down that wall.

>> clerk: caller are are you prepared to submit your public testimony? okay, we'll take the next caller. >> hi. good evening commissioner. i'm a renter. i strongly support this project. i think for a project like this, i generally support more housing, i believe that's part of the reason san francisco has expensive rent. we have severely built less

housing. if you look at this project, this is one of the best projects i've seen. looking at from the street, it's going to be beautiful. it's going to be in context with the rest of the neighborhood. it's in a neighborhood that corona heights over 70% white. the median household income is around $200,000 and you're less than a 10 minute walk away from muni market. if there'-- muni metro.for thind environmental benefit, it's no brainer. it's a fantastic project. furthermore, given how good this project is, i worry if it isn't built, the stay lawmakers who see there's housing crises in california will look at things like this, common sense housing that gets denied and they will put their foot down and force by

right the city to build more housing in places like this. if we were just housing here, it will be abdication of our duty to make san francisco a better place. the state will notice. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm resident of district 2. people said before, this is a really creative use of a rear lot that is fronting a street. it's a shame that, i think, our plans are we want to build more housing in the neighborhood. some of these policies that we created, are affordable homes.

we need to reexamine how this is made. the fact that when recently elected forming planning commission president stated, she is wanting to look at neighborhoods like corona heights and think about how to add density. this is a great way to do that. i really urge you to think about this project and start thinking about what it can mean for the future of san francisco and how san franciscans can become more diverse, how san francisco can add more housing to its most single family neighborhoods and think of this as a possible blueprint for the future. thank you very much.

>> my name is lauren. i'm a neighbor at the corona heights neighborhood. i walk by 4300, 17th street house. i'm calling in support of this project. i think it's an excellent way to bring more individuals into our community and support all different economic possibilities for this neighborhood. i think of this project sponsor has been incredibly thoughtful. has followed through with different guidelines and i completely support this project to move forward. thank you. >> i'm against this project as it is presented. i was there at the pre-planning

meeting over a year ago. the plan just did not have the impact or feedback from the neighbors. this is really impacting the immediate neighbors beyond anybody's expectations. imagine you guys probably in san francisco, you have no idea what's going to happen. you can't count on any of the setback rules any more for the building next to you. the developer really trying to upset neighbors as much as he

could throughout the process. there needs to be some mediation here in working with the neighborhood or getting a project manager. it's going to be a long project. let's work together on it. there's been very little working together on this from early on. >> hi, what we haven't had the time to review the project through the project review committee and have official

endorsement. this is certainly the type of new housing in san francisco that we need to house every san francisco. this is not the high-rise demonize. this is a utilizing land to provide homes for people who desperately need them. let's not forget the context of this project is the most housing shortage bay area ever seen. this is small project that can't solve all ills but making the best possible attempt. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is sarah oglevy. i live in 9.

san franciscan has right to speak about housing and their neighborhood. my concern with this planning commission staff's findings and draft motion, number 11, the project does not consistent will not purposes of the code. as designed the project would not contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood and would not constitute a beneficial development. my concern with that language, it's very troubling, the neighborhood character as of now is 84% white. that's overwhelming. the median household income is very high. what exactly are you saying when you want to preserve and stabilized neighborhood character when you have somebody who is actually trying to break the mold and open up the neighborhood to more diverse

neighborhood character. i was present at the commission's meeting when we all agreed to racial and social equity resolution. i was there and i gave comment. my concern is that, i didn't see any language relating to the racial and social equity statement in the motion in any of the paperwork except for the project developer. i did see that he wrote the word equitable and he spoke of these things. please consider that, you have a resolution. you need to view things through the racial equity lens. please support this project. this is an opportunity to actually live those valleys right here and now. thank you.

>> i'm calling in to strongly support 1400 17th. our neighborhood needs improved diversity and inclusion and especially affordable unit. i don't want to live down the street from an ugly overgrown lot. i want people to beky as i am to call this home. it is a transit project and sets up new neighbors well to take advantage of mass transit. this project will further our city's goal of addressing the housing crises, mitigating climate change and for the planning commission very racial and social equity resolution. i hope you will approve it. thank you.

>> hello. i live adjacent to 4300 17th street. i'm calling to oppose this planning. i was there during the pre-application process. not once was anything involving race was brought up. the income of people also that was possibly applied to be living in these two units. i don't really see how anything relating to the two units will solve the problem that's been ongoing within the city for a long time and how that would change truthfully anything. i grew up in affordable housing and i understand the process that's involved. i understand just because you get affordable housing, does not mean you will stay within

affordable housing. i watched my mother struggle work three jobs and still coming up afforcouldn't afford affordae housing. it plan is starting to come in effect. i find it interesting lot of people are also wanting to approve this planning situation here but it's easier for them to do that when it's not them next door or having homes being built next to them. i call to oppose this planning process. >> my name is jared. i live about a block away from the proposed project. i have not been aware of the twist and turns of the project until i received a notice from the city two weeks ago.

i think the corona heights special use district wall was enacted three years ago. the law reflects the community's current collective view how we want to grow. perhaps there's a way that the builder can adjust their plans to fit those guidelines or seek to adjust those guidelines through the standard legislative process. thank you. >> hi, i live next door to the project when we we met with the developer, when he first moved to this neighborhood, there was no mention of any below market rate units, no equity. i believe that the developer is acting in not in good faith. i believe that he went to the planning department with his project for the four-story, 12,000 square foot building. got refused, now he's coming

back with these equity issues and trying to get his building built like that. the number of below market rates units have gone from zero to now two. will they be forever below market rate? no one can say that. this is for profit development for the developer. i don't want to construed i any other form. he is making money off this project off the back of his neighbors. thank you for your time. >> hello, i'm a neighbor. i want the planning commissioners to understand that 85% of the proposed project is

market rate new construction. as the proceeding speaker stated the sponsor most recently markets project mainly about affordable housing. but the project is also about and has a higher percentage of its occupancy about market rate housing and about a luxury unit for the developer. this is not about exclusion of any particular type of individuals from our neighborhood. this is about maintaining our neighborhood character. it is not appropriate for people who don't live in the neighborhood to discuss this and it's also -- it is a bit of a sham to state that this is all about included people that have been disadvantaged to our

neighborhood. this is about profit and a unit for the developer. there's nothing that requires this to remain affordable housing and there's no definition of what's an affordable housing. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time. my name is eric murphy. i'm just a normal person. i happen to be the owner of 4304 17th street. that's that yellow house right next door. quite people described the impact this will have on us. i want to reiterate. this project substantially exceeds lot size restrictions. it eliminates all rear yard

pace. it reduces open space. it was found to be unacceptable by the residential design advisory team. i command the owner for his desire to promote social equity. i want to be clear about the context with this. the anchored dwelling of this project is that two story penthouse. 2100 square feet. it's two stories with a private balcony. let's juxtapose to the square feet for one of the affordable housing units. regardless of who lives there, the sponsor personally told me he was planning to live there. maybe that changed. regardless of that, this one

penthouse dominates the square footage. it eliminates backdoor space and i have to say the most important point here, if he was truly focused on social equity and affordable housing, why has he not he attempted to respond to prior advisement and revise the project to apply to code. compliance and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive. i would love to have more affordable housing in our neighborhood. i believe that any attempts to do that should at least try to adhere to zoning and the planning code. i urge you to disapprove this project. >> good evening supervisors. i live in district 5. corona