>> i might suggest, if other commissioners are supportive, to changing the terminology to either community organizations or neighborhood and community organizations just so that someone doesn't think oh, i'm not a neighborhood

on my time on the board of appeals, that worked very well with the unlimited documentation that the briefs would reference. i would be supportive of keeping the rebuttal time period. i think what happens is each side gets to state their case and then also to respond to things that they have heard, and i think that that is a good part of the process, even if the time is reduced. i do support keeping the d.r. at the end of the hearing. i am hearing, chair moore, in when you said that they were groups together, was that

experiment where that was, like, a hearing that was all discretionary review or all public comment? >> vice president moore: perhaps secretary ionin can comment on that. >> clerk: i don't remember that. the only thing i remember is flip-flopping d.r.s first and cases at the end. like, one week, we'd have cases first, and then the other week, we'd have d.r.s first, but i don't think that worked out. >> vice president moore: we did experiment with that because we ourselves found it often very stressful moving between very complicated d.r. reviews and

ceqas, for example, and then taking a number of d.r.s, two here, three tomorrow, but rolling multiple d.r.s into one week. >> clerk: i mean, if i may interject here, commissioner tanner, related to your concerns about discretionary reviews and the rebuttal time, we felt that oftentimes the commission asks for clarifying questions of either party and that really took the place of rebuttals for either side, and i would like to stress one important point that these modifications to the times for the discretionary reviews is only made possible of our most recent practice and having a

single person handle discretionary reviews. so because of mr. winslow's tremendous efforts on discretionary reviews and the overwhelming number of cases that come before you where you essentially take his advice and approve with staff's recommendations and modifications that we felt comfortable making these modifications because quite honestly, you've seen, because of his work, there are last-minute agreements where the discretionary reviews are being withdrawn where they come to a consensus where before they are even heard, and when they are before you, they are brought with a lot of thought and clarity and his decision with any recommendations that staff are making to appease both the d.r. requester and

provide a meaningful resolution for the sponsor. >> commissioner tanner: yeah, and thank you for that, secretary ionin. i only have one other comment before i turn it over to other commissioners, understanding that it's neighborhood and community based organizations helps me understand the registration process. i'll tell commissioners what i'm wrestling with in my kind of mind is on one hand if there are established -- in the 24-month registration period seems a little bit lengthy to me, and i would like to see that shortened. i don't know to what, whether it's a year or six months or if it should be shorter, a month or 30-days, but part of me thinks we have a really robust network of neighborhood and community-based organizations here, and if there is a project that needed organized opposition, whether it's a d.r., conditional, or other

projects, there could be a group that could carry water for other projects. they could say, hey, there's something happening on this other block but we're concerned, and we're hoping that they could partner with other groups who say yes, we have an interest, too, and lead an organized opposition at the planning commission. so that's what i would hope would happen practically speaking while recognizing that groups may form in a more spontaneous manner in response to something that's happening in real-time and how short should that registration period be? i kind of wonder if a year or six months is more appropriate given the length of time that it takes cases to get to us, knowing that the project was filed or initial application or something like that.

so i don't have a length of time specifically in mind, but i would be opening to hearing what other commissioners think on that. thank you very much. >> clerk: commissioner tanner, i think we heard that loud and clear, and after listening to comments made by the public as well as commissioners, we should probably just simply remove the time limitation and not have one at all and just register with the planning department as a neighborhood or community organization with the planning department without any kind of limitation. >> vice president moore: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i want to agree with many of the comments and observations that were put out by commissioner tanner and also the points that were raised by mr. ionin. i and i believe all of the commissioners read all of the documentation that comes to us

ahead of the hearings and that the opportunity for concerned parties to express their views is not limited to just public testimony but is also done through written documentation, which the commissioners read. i appreciate the brief limits. it will force people to be efficient in their arguments, and i appreciate the time limits. it's important that people, you know, express their points concisely and efficiently, and i believe that the time limits offer appropriate periods for people to accomplish that. i also -- my observation from being on the commission and looking at the map is that the d.r.s do seem to be predominantly dominated by

wealthy homeowners and neighbors being concerned about neighborhood houses and adjacent houses in the neighborhood, and it takes up a huge amount of time relative to the rest of the agenda where we're dealing with major projects, affordable housing projects, and state density bonus projects that are raising a very large number of concerns where there's a tremendous amount of public input, and it strikes me that it is fine to have d.r. at the end and have these very large project that's have an impact on the broader city be heard first, so i don't have any problem with having d.r. at the end. i also am extremely appreciative of the effort that mr. winslow puts in to resolving the d.r.s ahead of

time. i believe that procedural change that was adopted by the city that gives mr. winslow the opportunity to try to bring parties together and resolve their concerns is the most important part of this d.r. process. it is where there is an opportunity to explore in detail, hear each other out, come up with negotiated solutions, and it is that part of the process that i think is really critical. and i do think, as a consequence of that, i agree with mr. ionin that the time limitations of putting d.r. at the end and eliminating rebuttal is just fine. we as commissioners do ask a lot of questions, and i don't think we need rebuttal for d.r. we don't have rebuttal for any of the other kinds of permits. we take advantage of the opportunity to ask, you know, not just the project sponsors but many of the never-heard members questions, and i don't

think that rebuttal of d.r. is adding to the process, especially because it's my experience that people just reiterate or resummarize their arguments during rebuttal. the part that really resonated with me, and i think mr. ionin agrees, is the neighborhood opposition group, and i would be in favor of eliminating the time period. any time we pick is arbitrary, and i do think we should allow longer time for neighborhood group opposition and i think we should remain the barrier, so those are my thoughts. >> vice president moore: i appreciate everybody's comment, commissioners, as well as the public. i wish we had the ability to sit in a room, have a wall, and parade preferences for how we are all looking at all the issues that have been raised.

as i said earlier, public comment resonated with me on many, many levels. taking it from the top, i think the idea of expanding the definition and the process of our neighborhood groups is one of the most important ones, taking barriers away for how you register. i would like to say a change in word from solely neighborhood groups and expand it to either special project or special subject matter interest groups would be possible in order to allow an ad hoc group as was described by several commentators to allow a more spontaneous forming of groups with focus on a particular project. that would still require a written filling out of a form and statement of purpose, but

it would at least open it up to more equity. what it is now is 24 months of preregistration. again, we have very established very diverse neighborhood groups in the city. that is the beauty of planning in the city that have instead established the dialogue between the planning and the public and it is an example for not only the country but other cities abroad to look at the planning process and strength in planning. limited speaking time is of concern to me. i think we're trying to find a middle ground. i would think there should be equity whether you speak as a group or whether you speak as an individual. i would say that the speaking time does not contribute or

take away from the substance of what we're trying to do. i think it has to come particularly into focus during this time of remote hearings as the virtuality of what we're doing right now puts an emphasis on me need a little bit more time to hear each other. technology is not enhancing our dialogue. it actually created barriers to be fully heard and the time limit with the [inaudible] almost drowning our voices out halfway through shows us that giving sufficient time is particularly important. i appreciate the commissioners' observations on d.r. the only thing we need to remind ourselves is that the d.r. is carried on the broad shoulder of mr. winslow is not an idea to put broader -- i

think we need to give room to not expect that mr. winslow will not the resolver of all d.r. issues now and forever, so i believe that our policy regarding d.r.s has to be solid and stand-alone, aside from us enjoying the benefit and skill of mr. winslow, and i think we need to be very clear about that because policy goes beyond individuals who are currently helping us to ease our own work on that subject matter. i was very interested hearing mr. patterson speak about rebuttal and due process as much as the rebuttal often seems representative, it does allow for certain small clothing arguments, which i believe we should consider and actually have our city attorney help us weigh-in on what it means relative to the due

process question. i'll just let that hangout there without trying to have an opinion on it, because i don't. >> clerk: commissioner moore, if that concludes your comments, there is a member of the public requesting to speak. should we do so now? >> vice president moore: please do so. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> give me one moment, please. i wasn't expecting this. hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. so i speak as an individual and not part of a group or a political group, and i also

think that that's left out in your neighborhood group definition. there could be political opinions involved in land use issues, and they should not be left out. but i think what's going on here is an attempt to limit the voice of the people, and i have a modest proposal. why don't you get rid of all public input therefore? because, you know, the message is being sent to the public by this whole discussion, and i think it's been clear to many of us who have come before you over many years, and not all with the same commissioners, that your object is to work for the real industry and to get

projects through, and so very often, the public doesn't feel listened to any way. so why -- why not go all the way here and eliminate the voice altogether, and that's really what i want to say. thank you very much, and i live in district 4. >> vice president moore: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i wanted to share that i thought miss hester made a good suggestion. given that the fact that chair koppel wasn't here today, now that we've had good discussion amongst ourselves, that we have look at what everyone had to say and also for the opportunity for commissioner koppel to weigh-in before we

vote on this, so i would make a motion to continue, so i don't know what the appropriate amount of time is that staff thinks it needs, but i do agree with miss hester's suggestion. >> clerk: very good. >> vice president moore: commissioner diamond, let me just say that i think that's an excellent idea. i do think that the president should be involved, potentially even listen to the public comment and discussion of today's hearings, and i think i would strongly support a continuance. >> clerk: very good. thank you, commissioner diamond. for staff purposes, i think we could make the suggested amendments related to organized opposition and community groups very quickly. i will say, though, that looking at your advance calendar for july 22 or july 29, i would not suggest continuing it to either of those dates, so, i mean, as

much as i would like to get this resolved sooner rather than later, i would recommend that we push this after your break in august. >> vice president moore: i would fully support that because the next two weeks will be brutal, and i think that we need all of our energy, let this sit for a while and give commissioner koppel the time to come back and listen to today's proceedings. let's just pick the date that you were suggesting in september. >> clerk: i was going to suggest august 26, the day you get back from break. >> commissioner imperial: i have one last question. i just would like to know in terms of the amendments, whether -- is this going to be a set in stone because there are different dates where their different versions -- where

there are different versions of the rules and regulations. does this have an expiration or is this something that the planning commission can look back into, like, you know course, time, tide changes, so that's something to -- if this rules and regulation always have that kind of discussion or if it's when we bring this up in the planning commission. >> yes, go ahead, jonas. >> clerk: i was going to say, the rules and regulations can be amended whenever the commission chooses to make any kind of amendment to it. as i mentioned, we started making these amendments after we needed to amendment it to include the racial and social equity component, and so we thought we'd make some housecleaning amendments. we didn't expect to raise so much objection to it, but essentially, the rules and

regulations have been amended multiple times. >> commissioner imperial: okay, yeah. >> clerk: so that is up to the discretion of this commission. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, so just want to have that in the mind with this commission and also with the public that, you know, i think this should be also a part of discussion whenever president koppel comes back in terms of whether we should, you know, review -- have some sort of assessment after a year or two year or something to locate it to. but time changes. we don't know how we, you know, how we still going to operate, whether there's going to be a hybrid in the future. just going to keep in mind in the future. >> clerk: yeah, no, good point, commissioner imperial. so i heard a motion from -- to

continue to august 26. is there a second? >> vice president moore: can i second something? >> clerk: yes. >> vice president moore: i second that. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, so thank you for all of your comments both from commissioners and members of the public. on that motion to continue this to august 26 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. commissioners, that will place us under department matters, item 7, director's announcements. >> thank you very much, commissioner ionin. this is annemarie here for rich hillis today, and there are a couple of things to share for

director updates. mayor london breed and several others launched shine s.f. this is to reignite civic pride and renew community places, connecting residents and civic groups to volunteer opportunities that meet the needs of the city. and as part of the campaign launch, our staff at s.f. planning worked with oewd and partners on something called the golden trees. trees in colorful planters will be disemployed in -- displayed in colorful containers in open spaces. it will culminate in a

participatory event during the holidays. and also yesterday, we published an assessment of the community's needs in the greater soma area. this is the work that grew out of the adoption of the central soma plan. we've worked with community agencies to understand their needs while engaging with c.b.o.s and community advisory committees to better understand the neighborhood. i would encourage both the commission and the public to check out this work, including a novel story map that explains the project. and that concludes the director's report for this week. >> clerk: thank you, annemarie. commissioners, that will place us on item 8 for review of past events at the board of supervisors.

i do not have a report for the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday, although i will note that the rules committee forwarded jason wright to the full board unanimously as a new commissioner for the historic preservation commission. mr. starr? >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. it's been a while, but the board is back in action, so i'm back before you. first on land use agenda was supervisor walton's ordinance for 2500 18 street affordable housing special use district. the ordinance would do two things. first, it would zwig nate two parcels at the intersection of [inaudible] around the same parcels that requires all new dwelling units to be affordable to households with an annual income between 30 and 80%

a.m.i. for at least 15 years. the one recommended modification was to remove the 30% floor on income eligibility, so instead of 30% a.m.i., it would be at or below 80% a.m.i. at the hearing, president walton requested that the commission's modifications be incorporated into the ordinance. the amendments were accepted, and the item was forwarded to the full board as a committee report. next up was the shared spaces program. this case was first heard on june 7, where both supervisors peskin and melgar added amendments to the legislation. for the most part, they were sufficient and doubled path of travel and signs to notify

people [inaudible] there was additional delay because [inaudible] of the budget process. there week, there's very little public comment and no new amendments added to the ordinance. the committee then voted to forward the item unanimously to the board as a committee reported. also making its second appearance at the land use committee was the mayor's small business recovery act. at the may 28 hearing, supervisor peskin added amendments that would substantially weaken the process of the 30-day requirement and removed all of the definitions of the land use consolidation requirement and the item was continued because these amendments were also substantive. this week, the amended version went through quickly, with very little public comment, and the item was sent to the full board with a positive recommendation.

at the full board this week, supervisor walton's 2500 18 street affordable housing special use district passed its first read, and next, the board took up the shared spaces ordinance. rather than a quick up or down vote, the board engaged in quite a bit of debate on this ordinance, mainly focusing on two amendments that supervisor safai introduced at the beginning of the hearing. the first amendment was to put back the planning department as lead agency for shared spaces program, and the second set of amendments had to do with the public access. these amendments on the public access [inaudible] while activated for commercial space and allow parklets to be closed from midnight to 7:00 a.m. the debate on these two amendments went on for sometime. supervisors chan, peskin, preston, spoke against the amendments. supervisor ronen stated that she wanted the opportunity to vote on the amendments separately as she wanted to

maintain public access but was not convinced that d.c.w. was the right department to oversee the program. arguments over the role that d.c.w. has in regulating rights of ways and allowing access to land and parklets. arguments for the amendments was that the program originated with planning, planning taking a more holistic approach to engaging the program. supervisors in favor of the program focused on the impacts that allowing 24 access would allow. overall, the debate was extremely positive with all supervisors expressing support for the program and the hard work that staff had put into the ordinance at that point. when the two amendments came up to vote, supervisor haney

mandelman, mar, ronen, and stefani voted to keep the program, while supervisors chan, preston, peskin, and walton voted against that. both amendments passed, and the ordinance ultimately passed its first reading on a unanimous vote. lastly, stefani presented some legislation that [inaudible] is this amendment is consistent with the recommendation this commission made on january 23, 2020, when you considered a previous ordinance amending the s.u.d. your recommendation was revise the ordinance to hear more collective fees for district 2 or the new vicinity. given that the new ordinance puts in place a recommendation

that you made, staff will now be bringing another ordinance before you unless i hear anything different today. that concludes my remarks, and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. seeing no -- oh, i take it back. >> vice president moore: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i don't have a question. i just wanted to thank mr. starr for his very thorough report and putting time and energy into it and into bringing it to us, so thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. if there are no questions, 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, and 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 address the commission on items that are not on today's agenda. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. this is georgia schiutish. i sent you an e-mail about an home that has been unoccupied since 2014, when it sold for $1.2 to $1.5 million. the first one shows the front and rear photos of the home as it still exists, and these photos were taken from the submitted plans. second slide shows a rendering of the front and rear from the same plans of the proposal, and that was -- the entitlement was for sale for $8.9 million, now

reduced after nine months to 2.9 million. it's very puzzling and distressing because i think that this just shows speculation. the third slide shows, and i'm behind because i've seen the first slide now. the first slide shows the demo calcs and these are for section 217-b-2-b make no sense. certainly looking at the proposed project at 63 carmel and the larger versions sent to the commission staff on 10 july, commonsense is this is a demolition, not an alteration as intended by section 317. beyond the bottom line that the calcs have never been adjusted and they were put in in 2009, this project, this house has been unoccupied since 2014,

like so many other approved projects. so that's it. take care. talk to you later. bye. >> this is sue hester. i have three requests of the commission. please ask your staff three different things. one is to instruction preapplication meetings to public session. these zoom for preapplication meetings are not working. preapplication meetings are being abused by developers, and they're hard to have input and get plans in advance for the public that is affected. second things, please ask for a report at the next planning commission meeting, when you're

going to have live meetings at city hall again. i think we're all burned out from having these remote meetings. i think remote meetings take too long because they build in a lot of confusion and checking. before, we used to be able to lineup and show you things. now, we have to rearrange our lives to present to the commissions, so when are you going to restore meetings at city hall? the board of appeals are meeting at city hall starting in september, possibly august. and when will we be able to go to the planning offices, not take a tour, like the commission has said, but like regular people doing business at the planning department offices, picking up plans, using a copying machine, seeing

staff reports, and making copies of the staff reports and also meeting with planners. some of them occasionally come into this -- the meeting? so three things. preapp meetings, abolish them and by zoom. second things, public hearings of the planning commission, again, room 400, and the other thing is when will we be able to come to the planning department's offices. thank you very much. >> linda chapman. well, my thanks to the secretary for the comments on public comment and also, i finally concluded that i should have been trying to communicate through the secretary instead of the planners assigned to the project, where i've had no success at all, so i would second essentially the comments that sue hester just made about access to records, access to

planners, so forth. today, finally, i was able to find out what is the date that was scheduled for 1529 pine after the continuance was requested. all this time, i have not been able to figure that out. still, i've not been able to get the records, and it's obvious i should have just asked the secretary. i haven't been able to get the records of who wrote what. i heard seven people complaining bitterly about the impact on their apartments, which obviously already had the planning code requirements for public exposure waived and now are going to be affected by these changes at 1525 pine. you know, i heard them bitterly complaining. i have no way to get in touch with them without an address unless i go and ring numerous

doorbells. it is tragic to go to a community meeting and not find their way there. if i would not have been there, the only thing they would have heard from architects who run the operation is they have no rights whatsoever. they were informed that the developer brought the land, they have the right to build whatever they want. they were informed in a very nice way. the person listened to them. he allowed a vote. eight people and the project sponsor was there, and when he couldn't get a vote to actually support the project after two meetings with these objections, he put it off to the board, but he also said well, they needed a lot more money than the usual $1,000 per unit that had been paid because of the public opposition, and 40,000 was mentioned. do you think i might want to get in touch with those

peoples? do you think i might want to see if there is another letter? did they pay the $40,000, like the $100,000 that was paid for 1567 california? this is public participation, public support for these projects that come before you, and we cannot even get copies of the records or contact information? so that concludes my remarks for today. >> clerk: okay. last call for general public comment? seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, we can move onto your regular calendar for items 9-a and b tosh 2018-003614-oth and

2021-004740-pca for an informational presentation on the office of cannabis and then a code amendment to exempt grandfathered medical cannabis dispensaries. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> i am, jonas. >> clerk: okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen, planning staff. after this presentation, i'll be making a presentation which is a code amendment to exempt grandfathered medical cannabis retail. so far, the department has received 133 referrals for various businesses from the city's office of cannabis. on page two of your staff report, the text version noted 125. the correct number is actually 133. 61 of those locations have been fully approved.

11 are currently under review. 52 are still pending an application to the planning department, and nine have been withdrawn. of the 61 approved locations, 47 were for cannabis retailers, including the first cannabis storefront in many neighborhoods, such as north beach, cow hollow, upper haight, and san francisco state. these contribute to the geographic balance of the use in the city, reducing the needs for consumers to travel to locations such as the mission or soma in order to purchase cannabis products and reducing the need for delivery services. much work remains to achieve balanced distribution in the city. thus far, the city has approved one in districts 7 and 11 and zero in district 4.

generally, the planning department's review is limited to the location and physical characteristics of the businesses. in addition to our review, the department of public health reviewed owner mitigation plans for all businesses as well as advanced odor and smoke mitigation plans for plans which include smoking or usage rooms, and most on storefront uses require consultation with the department of the environment to reduce water and power usage. the industry is very heavily regulated. most importantly, the city's office of cannabis implements the equity of requirements for cannabis businesses. this still represents the only codified requirement for land use bidding, highlighting just how many san francisco residents were negatively

impacted by the war on drugs and how much opportunity we have through this program. as the office of cannabis shifted to processing, the [inaudible] as opposed to a majority of retail licenses that we've seen so far. this will reduce the amount of cases that the department reviews, and i'll new turn it over to director rodriguez for the office of cannabis presentation. >> thank you so much, michael christiansen. certainly, we appreciate your continued collaboration in this process. we wanted to thank all of you for your time and your review of the applications that come before you. we understand that it does take

a lot, and it certainly takes a village. so first, i'd like to introduce myself again. marissa rodriguez, director of the office of cannabis. next slide, please. we thought it would be helpful to briefly run through the following areas. we're going to give you a quick overview of the o.o.c. just as a refresher so we know where -- certainly where we've been, where we are now, and where we're going. a review of our equity program. if there are any questions, certainly happy to answer those. run through our permit process so folks understand where they are when they finally meet you in the process and perhaps how long they've been endeavoring in the process by the time they reach you. our permitting snapshot, for instance, what michael

christiansen just referred to, additional sectors, and things like that. consumption lounges, i know there's questions on that. we'll touch on that, and then certainly final thoughts. [please stand by]

. >> hearing from the community, having space for them through the cannabis process, that's an important one, collaborating with our city partners, limiting use access and exposure, and oversight committee. that's now been in existence -- this'll be the second cycle that we're just starting this year. we also are instrumental as an office in writing the racial equity plan for the city administrator's office. we brought and are proud to bring the city administrator through the office of equity.

next slide. and i believe my colleague will take this slide. >> good afternoon. [inaudible] of the office of cannabis. i'll provide more detail as the presentation continues. the second category, people who commit [inaudible] according to their development for a period of time, which we call equity incubators. the third are businesses that were essentially in operation previously before legalization, but there was not a pathway for them to move forward. this includes businesses that were shutdown because of threat of federal enforcement and preexisting nonforming -- nonconforming operators. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them late

and then, the category of both general applicants and applicants who commit to making additional community commitment. next slide. so san francisco defines our equity program essentially to provide opportunities for people who have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs, to create additional opportunities and also attempts to reduce institutional barriers to running a successful cannabis business. this slide lists some of the opportunities that we provide to equity applicants, including reduced application fees, opportunities for commercial space, technical assistance both from existing businesses that we facilitate but also some directed p.a. from existing city contracts and also advocacy. note this slide also lists some of the equity programs that are currently in existence in the state of california and there are also new equity programs that are currently being

brought on-line. next slide. so here, we see the number of equity applicants that we've been able to verify so far, which is at 392. income, we continue to develop a number of resources to support them. there are some additional criteria, including criminal justice involvement for cannabis related crime, arrested or convicted or just be a ward of the state for that offense. there's also a criterion that is kind of unique to san francisco in thinking about housing insecurity since 19995 is also a convey that individual -- way that individuals can be verified.

so if people have questions about the specific criteria, happy to go into additional detail. there are also a number of requirements for applicants including the right of applicants to participate in the business depending on percentage of business ownership. there are also contributions that businesses must make to support the city's equity goals. they're on our site if the commission is interested and are required to authorize them every 120 days. we provide authorization. businesses are required to submit them every 120 days. temporary permits which were also in that fourth category. we coordinated with our city partners to do inspections, and those were the business that michael christiansen mentioned would move through the process. so as you can see on the previous slide, we really

consider our equity program as including both equity applicants, people who have been negatively impacted by the war on drugs and equity incubators, businesses that commit to support their development. right now, we have about 11 viable applications currently in our system, and five are taking active steps to move forward, so it is a relatively small group. they're required to provide rent free commercial space or technical assistance equivalent to the financial amount of that space or really making a significant contribution to the development of our equity applicant. they must also assure that at least 30% of their business hours are provided by local residents, and 50% of their employees must be equity eligible. they are also required to provide a community investment plan, demonstrating engagement with residents.

so traditional business incubation programs, in some cases, there's municipal support, public institutional support, and here, really, the goal is to provide these businesses with much needed assistance, right? so the san francisco incubation program works to facilitate connections between these businesses that need capital and also incubators that are looking to gain entry into the cannabis market, and they're required to provide the support for at least three years. next slide. so here, we have tier four applicants. these are businesses that, for the most part, were in existence during legalization. you should have some familiarity with our legacy dispensaries. these are, if you're looking at

a product in a store, for example, there are a number of activities required to get that product there. these are our cultivators, manufacturers, delivery operators. we also have one testing laboratory in san francisco. as a reminder, these are not new businesses. most businesses have been around for a while, but they're already in the community, but they require permanent permits from the office of cannabis. next slide. and with that, i will transition to my colleague, david schwartz. >> thank you, eugene. jeremy schwartz, deputy director office of cannabis. i'll be speaking more to the mechanics of the permit process? here, we see there is a cap for ownership retail for storefront retail permits? an individual may not have a

beneficial or ownership interest in more than four retail storefront locations, however, medical cannabis dispensaries and ownership interests related to that are exempted from this retail cap. next slide, please. as far as the permit processing flow in the controller's report, it's been cited that the permit process can take anywhere from 18 to 24 months, depending on variables. could be less, it could be more, but that's a helpful time frame. importantly, as folks get to the planning commissioners for the land use entitlement process, they have been navigating the process for quite sometime and incurring associated costs such as carrying the costs for their space. the office of cannabis conducts

an ownership review. a significant corporate governance review, especially for equity applications to guard against predatory actions review. and lastly, a conviction history review. once they have filled up that top bucket, o.o.c. 1, they go to plan two. after that, folks typically pull a planning permit to request the use and request additional actions that michael christiansen and my colleagues referenced before such as good neighbor plans, security plans, and a final inspection. once an applicant secures their local permit, they must also

secure their corresponding state license in order to start operating, the state of california having a dual licensing framework. next slide, please. certainly, there are requirements that transcend all applicant tiers. we saw there are six tiers currently, however, every applicant must conduct community outreach. the prongs you see here, it is also hyperlinked to our regulations on our website for those that are intereste in addition to having and developing a good neighbor policy, so whether you're tier one, existing industry in tier four, anything else, you will be required to pursue both of these prongs, both community outreach and a good neighbor policy. next slide, please. the office of cannabis website

has a retail storefront retail district map with filters so folks can see where applications are in their stage of processing, whether it is a submitted application, when that's processing, when that is building out their space, and when that's approved. in addition, there are overlays for sensitive uses, such as a school, k-12, in addition to the existing medical cannabis dispensaries. next slide, please. in addition, there are figures here that our colleagues and partners have reference to. these are fluid and change over time. certainly, over 390 equity applicants. the city and county of san

francisco is vertically integrated. to director rodriguez' point, not only the supply chain that you see, but suppliers, manufacturers, nonstorefront delivery operators, and there's even a facility in the city conducting cannabis testing. there are 18 permanent permit approvals, and i believe a 19 is on its way, if not already, and we see hear a buildout -- here a buildout of 27 applicants that are coming down the pipe for permit issuance. certainly an exciting developments. next slide, please, and we'll pass it back to director rodriguez. thank you. >> thank you, jeremy. absolutely. in fact, today, i signed our 19 permit. very exciting -- equity permit. i know a question that comes up

frequently is consumption permitting and consumption lounges. the department takes this seriously, and there are a number of ventilation requirements that go into our consumption lounges. i think about consumption as an equity issue, especially since there's a bit of a challenge at play. you cannot -- you technically cannot smoke legally in public if you live in a property that the landlord decides that you cannot smoke in, you can't smoke there, and you certainly can't smoke in your car. you'll get a d.u.i., so where do you smoke? certainly, having the department of public health oversee these consumption lounges, move forward, there are a number of requirements that go into it, negative pressure environment, separate hvac, exhaust of 100% of the air through pollution odor

control units, this all mitigating the issue of pollution and the issue surrounding that, we do find anecdotally that consumption lounges, especially overseen by the department of public health, we don't find as much pollution in the surrounding area, certainly wafting up to the neighbors' units. when there isn't a place to smoke, we certainly find that. there are seven legacy lounges that are continuing to operate. they were grandfathered in. these are facilities that don't meet the requirements that i just laid out but are still allowed to operate. next slide, please. so i want to bring it all together and certainly thank you for your time but want to say your participation in this process has led to the most recent outcome here is an article the chronicle just

recently wrote how san francisco has essentially become the napa valley of cannabis and some interesting characteristics that were pulled out, we found that people relied heavily on cannabis to get through the pandemic. certainly, sales were up. they were one of the only industries to open their doors where others were shuttering and in this case providing much needed jobs to the community through oewd program, job placement program, so very happy to see that happening during the pandemic. we will continue to see more businesses open their doors as i think about 25, maybe 28 are working on permitting to get their doors open, as well, allowing more opportunities for more jobs and for the community and certainly for the equity community.

wanted to put that out there, to thank you for your role in all of this, and certainly open for questions at this point. >> thank you, director rodriguez. before we conclude our presentation, i do need to state the amendment that's on your agenda today. medical cannabis dispensaries have been operating in the city since 2018.

under adult use, the department would then provide neighborhood notice for the request to permanently convert to cannabis retail. we are now far past this envisioned period, but the requirement for neighborhood notice still stands in the code. to eliminate the cost of noticing, which can run into the thousands of dollars, this proposed amendment removes the requirement for neighborhood notice of the permits. notably, the change of use proposed in these permits would cause no change to how any of these businesses have operated for over three years. department staff is not aware of any on going issues of any cannabis dispensaries in the city, and staff recommends the approval of the amended legislation as proposed. we are happy to answer any

questions. >> clerk: thank you, michael. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address these issues by pressing star and three. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is now closed, and these items are now before you, commissioners. >> vice president moore: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i'm really happy to have you hear, director rodriguez, and your staff, as well, so thank you for your very thorough presentation. a couple of questions i want to ask, maybe high level, and if you feel like they're out of your boundaries of your expertise, that's totally fine. something that i've been concerned about since i've been on the commission, while it's great that we're becoming the napa valley of cannabis, i have concerns about saturation in

our city and what that does both to the industry -- if there's too many retailers, do they fight for the same share of the market and then everyone suffers because there's too much overall. do you have concerns about saturation and, you know, for me, it seems like an area where the board needs to take action to create some cap or further geographic limitations. i wonder your thoughts, if that's a danger that we have in the city. >> thank you so much, commissioner tanner. i appreciate the question, and certainly, we are closer to it. i think you did address two areas that get to the point of this issue of sustainability. i do think we need to explore standing green zones. we had areas that historically

allowed for this type of use, and people are naturally going to be drawn to these areas because of how much push back they get from the process. it is not easy to get through, and i know there are at least a couple of supervisors that were interested in stopping the applications that are in the pipeline. i do think expanding green zones and making it a little bit more balanced across the city, despite the challenges we may face, certainly, with public comment, maybe even push back, i think what we're finding as time goes on is that

people are surprised and support the businesses in their communities. they activate community. there's sort of a police presence or security presence on streets that have sometimes have had challenges. there are a number of added benefits i think a lot of community members didn't realize, and certainly, they're not as in your face as i think people thought or maybe the dispensaries of days ago that may have appeared are not the dispensaries of today. they take on the characteristics of the community they serve, but i would like actually to open this up if any members of my team want to chime in, but yeah, you know there was the

same thoughts along the same lines that we also have. we do have a number of liquor stores, a number of corner stores. not that i would like to see that be the case. cannabis is different, and it's going to take time to see how much of a demand there is for cannabis in the city. what i will say is that during the pandemic we learned that that demand is probably stronger than what we think or thought. it was deemed essential during the pandemic. i think if you looked at the lines that were wrapping around some of our existing retail shops at a time when people were also kind of contemplating at the shutdown stage, do i go to the grocery store and stand in line for bread and milk or do i go and get my medicine? i think it's a little early to determine what the demand is, but i do think it's something we should be mindful of.

we do want our businesses to be successful, and make sure that we're setting our equity community up for success. it's looking that way, and we really are excited about that, but i do think we should be mindful. >>. >> commissioner tanner: i think i can speak for many commissioners who have often talked about these challenges that we're struggled with, how many -- that we've struggled with, how many and why and where. for a while, all i was seeing was cannabis dispensaries. i wonder if mr. holeman or another staff member can talk about the process for equity applicants? i think we can hear skepticism

if this is really an equity applicant, so when it's part of four businesses, what does that mean? does that mean they have a similar stake in each storefront? is it a chain, so if you could help shed some light on an equity applicant and how they're able to be part of more than one dispensary. >> sure. thank you for the question, commissioner tanner, and just to follow up on director rodriguez' point, i think another thing that is also important to remember is that the existing cannabis businesses are not necessarily only competing against other existing businesses; that there is still a significant unregulated market, right? and so pushing consumers to --

to your question, in order to be verified, documents must be submitted to be reviewed. we ask questions to make sure that they're meeting the existing criteria, so we were really fortunate to set up a system with our partners in digital services, where documentation has to be verified. you can't say hey, i attest to being an equity applicant. there are requirements on-line, so you can go on-line and see all the requirements discussed, and then see our materials reviewed by our department. we ask questions, get clarification. there's an adaptation of that process before we move forward, so that's really step one of the permitting process for equity applicants is verification through documents.

the second part of your question around thinking about how people are really showing up in these businesses and what is their kind of participation, one of the things that we decided to do in the office was first create and really spend a lot of time committing to the review of those ownership documents to make sure that business owners were really participating in there. there's some language in article 16 which actually requires them to formally have a stake in the business. any time there's a request to change those requirements, they would have to apply to the office. it would not be a situation

which, on day one, you're a 100% owner, and then on day five, you're miraculously a 2% owner. there is a process for registering those changes, and the office really set up the process to review who that means in terms of ownership. and director rodriguez, i don't know if you want to say anything about ownership in the future? >> sure. really quickly, because i know there's a time constraint, but looking at ways that we can continue to preserve equity in these businesses. businesses will turn over naturally over time, and things will change, but what can we do to make sure that these equity businesses will continue to preserve that spirit, and we're working with the mayor's office to do just that. i don't think this as a one time fix, it's something that

is more holistic. there are a number of ways that we can do that in the future and we'll start to look at that as we start to pivot in that direction. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you very much. those are my questions, commissioners. >> vice president moore: i'd like to narrow down commissioner tanner's question and thank director rodriguez, mr. schwartz, and mr. hillman for your presentation. that is something that we've been looking forward to for a long time. any way, i'd like to ask about the issue of concentration and overconcentration. the one thing as we are looking at small business spaces potentially becoming vacant after covid, i would like us to

see to avoid the starbucks if he -- phenomenon, where literally, within a block or two, you have four starbucks locations. have you requirements where cannabis locations can be to avoid that? >> yes. there is a 600-foot buffer build in, so businesses cannot be within that orbit essentially around them. >> vice president moore: but 600 feet is not very long, particularly since cannabis retail is destination retail. that's why i believe it can be a little bit further apart to avoid the starbucks phenomenon. particularly, i'd like to build the second part of my question around are you considering or

advising people on reasonable sizes? we have establishments that range from 800 square feet to sometimes 3,000 square feet, and those are occupants occupying a small niche boutique space or a larger store which was previously occupied by, for example, a cleaner, which was 3,600 square feet. and it is kind of difficult to see these large shops have a lot of street frontage don't create the activation that you normally see in the corridor. cannabis does not create a lot of activation, and i find the presence of a uniformed security guard checking

identification on the outside a serious disruption for walking in the neighborhood corridor. that is my own personal observation, but i wonder if you're encouraging people to be sizing their operations more on the small size? >> thank you for the question. we have a very robust community engagement process, and there was one that came to us that was quite large, and community pushed back on that, and i think that was part of the process. we don't currently advise on the size of the store footprint, you know, the storefront. don't think that would be appropriate for our office. however, there is a very robust community engagement process, and what we've found is that

these businesses really find the proper niche for them and also express what the response of the community would have been. you would hopefully be surprised, as i have been, that a lot of the retail storefronts of today feel more like a neiman marcus or an apple store or something very niche to that community, and not an eyesore or something that is not pleasing aesthetically speaking to the community. so you would be the first person that i've heard say that

the presence of the security is not something pleasing. they've appreciated their presence during the pandemic, but i respect everyone's view on that. it is something that is a requirement case, and something that michael christiansen did mention, that the industry is highly, highly regulated. moving forward, i don't know if members of the team want to chime in and respond. >> vice president moore: unfortunately, i will not give you my area code. the ones i have seen and walk i don't think quite meet what you're describing, and i would like to ask mr. christiansen to

show us what can be done to help establish minimum guidelines or help to better animate some of these oversized places where you don't see mostly anything and focus on something in the background of the room. do you, by any chance, have a use it or lose it clause? we have several applications, and again, i'm referring to the neighborhood where i live in, where an application was given or approved 1.5 years ago or more, and that facility is still empty. it becomes rather jarring because it is a significantly large space in a conspicuous location and it won community support. however, this project has not materialized, and as it is not materializing, it becomes a negative impact because people

will remember that this guy promised something and has not delivered. >> i appreciate that. thank you. one of the things we noted was it is challenging for our businesses to navigate the city process. when it comes to us, it's already been about a year in the making and then it's navigating other city processes before they can get to the end and get their city permits. there have been challenges with getting architects, contractors, materials. a lot of delays in these things, and this is a dual license insurer, so they're not only doing it locally but for the state. so there are a number of other delays, but there's money constraints, so there's organic delays for the applicant themselves. maybe they're at a point where they've run out of money or

investors or they've run into a point where they can't get response from the city for a number of reasons. we're always working to lean in and assist, especially during test times, where many of our city employees have been routed to assist in covid, and those responses and delays have extended far, far, far beyond what i think most people were certainly hoping for. but we continue to try to provide as much support as possible, and most recently with state grants that we're hoping with the community to get through the process more smoothly and expeditiously. >> vice president moore: thank you for the response to kind of temper my experience here. i have one more question here, and the question is for mr. hillman. commissioner tanner asked about

background and who are really the equity applicants. we had several applications, i think two, where aside from the equity applicant, there is also -- there was also identification of the los angeles-based operator who was actually going into some business relationship with the local applicant, and that was kind of a little bit difficult to understand for us. could you comment on that? >> yeah. i think one of the things that we've seen, especially kind of considering the cost of operating a retail business in san francisco, is that often, equity applicants are looking for additional investment. there's currently not a restriction on where that capital comes from, and i think that a lot of applicants have been kind of serious about trying to figure out how to expand their networks. some are fortunate, based on existing relationships, to

access capital that's local to san francisco, but in other instances, right, in figuring out how to deploy that capital, they've been looking at other outside operators, so i think that the example that you're describing is a situation whereas people are looking at additional financial assistance, whether it's through equity incubators or other opportunities for capital, one opportunity that we've seen is for people to look at investors or financiers outside the city of san francisco. >> vice president moore: thank you for that. mr. christiansen, i see your name. >> yes. if i could build on a couple of things. in terms of post entitlement, the department has recognized that the process of entities

for permitting is relatively slow. this is a chief focus for uz because we recognize that many of these applicants, they are equity applicants, and this is the first time that they're applying for a permit, and the permitting process does challenge the most experienced of us. it has been a thing that we've seen other departments like d.b.i. step in and make a real effort, and we do appreciate that. and with respect to ownership, you know, we have also heard from the same applicants, many start the procedure with a certain percentage of ownership, and as they navigate the process, unfortunately, their ownership can sometimes decay away as they do need to

facilitate equity ownership, so to be mindful of that is something that we've been focusing on. >> vice president moore: thank you for that. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you so much. i've been talking by myself here. so i would like to thank, first of all, the office of cannabis for coming here. thank you for explaining to many things that has been an issue for the planning commission in terms of decisions, whether in approving the entitlement or not. again, explaining the process for us in terms of the verification for me, is a matter of enlightenment in terms of how the cannabis industry works. however, i would have a question in terms of the

ownership because you mentioned or someone mentioned -- i believe it was mr. hillsman -- in terms of the approval of the changes of ownership. at what point does the office of cannabis does not approve an ownership? >> sure. thank you, commissioner. so one of the things that we do, as my colleague, jeremy, mentioned, in part one of the application process, is review all of the documents associated with corporate governance, right? so for example, anything associated with entity formation. before this presentation, i was actually reviewing an equity agreement. so we review all of those documents to see how they mesh with the regulations in article 16. so all of that information is this close to us. if we find that they don't meet the standard that is established in article 16, it would not be referred to the

planning commission for land use entitlement, right? so during that process, we're reviewing documents, we're asking questions of the applicant. they're providing responses, they're describing how they conform to the existing regulations, and we're reviewing those documents to make sure that they're in compliance. so that's part one of the process. if there was a situation where applicants needed to provide additional detail, as michael christiansen mentioned, they could provide that information to us, or additional information, but it would need to be reviewed by our office before it was really ready to receive a permit. and then, if there were any changes made post permit issuance, they would also require approval by the office of cannabis and require a permit. >> commissioner imperial: there is -- also in the presentation

it mentioned that there is an oversight committee. what does the oversight committee does? >> sure. so the oversight committee is made up of a number of industry stakeholders and individuals from various city departments, and their role is to advise the city on various cannabis related issues. >> commissioner imperial: thank you for all of the important answers. i think this is important for the public to know and us with the verification process, and just like with commissioner moore and tanner, that is an issue for the planning commission in terms of the saturation, especially in the eastern neighborhood where they've also historically been in the eastern neighborhood area. and now, as miss rodriguez is trying to imply, in terms of furthering the green zones, i'm

assuming, also wondering if you're implying in also in the west side, and i can see in terms of opposition. and again, the 600 feet buffer, just like what commissioner moore may have said, it's already happening in the eastern side, is some sort of a starbucks phenomenon. as we are trying to think of a balanced city where we really -- where we really tried to help the equity applicants themselves, and then, there are, of course -- there's this stigmatization of cannabis itself. but i think the issue for me that becomes as a commissioner in the issue of land use and the issue of real estate as we can say, that are we depriving ourselves in terms of other

services that may be available as we have heard that there needs to be more laundromats or child care centers? so i think that's something for the office of cannabis to be thinking about and us to be thinking about as we're looking at land uses in the neighborhood that has been historically, i would say, marginalized, in terms of services. but i do see the benefits, as well, of the cannabis industry as it provides employment and activization. it's always going to be challenging, but yes, i appreciate your presentation and coming here. thank you. >> vice president moore: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: there was an interesting article in the chron this morning, a-8,

where it says schumer plans to decriminalize pot at national level. if it were to pass, how would that change your view at the office of cannabis and how the process works, or the applicants that we're seeing? >> jeremy, do you want to take that one? >> sure. thank you for the question, commissioner diamond. certainly, there would be many ramifications, but tieing into how social equity applicants solicit investment, a major barrier for the community is access to financial institutions, traditional banking, banking brain trust, and without that, folks do need to solicit capital elsewhere, so that would be a major boon not just to cannabis probably but social equity probably to

have access to banking. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you. i don't know if this is the appropriate time, but if the -- i believe that mr. [inaudible] also put on the table the adoption or proposed adoption of the legislation, and i am prepared to move to approve it at this point. >> vice president moore: is that a motion? >> commissioner diamond: yes. >> vice president moore: i second that motion. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there's no further deliberation, there's been a motion that's been seconded to approve the planning code amendment. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-0.

and will place us -- >> commissioner fung: aye. sorry. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for case number 2017-011878-pha-04 for block 7 of the potrero power station. this is also an informational presentation. >> okay. want to make sure you can hear me. >> clerk: yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. monica jack giacomucci, planning department staff. before i turn it over, i'll make some comments on the

potrero station block 7 site. on january 30, 2020, the planning commission certified the project e.i.r., adopted findings under the california environmental quality act, and recommended approval of general plan amendments, planning code map amendments, and the project development agreement, including the potrero power state design for development. on april 21, 2020, the board of supervisors approved the project master plan and development agreement. finally, on october 22, 2020, this commission approved a revised phase application for phase one development as well as an office allocation and a major modification of off street loading requirements for an adaptive reuse project at block 15, otherwise known as station a. design applications for blocks

7, 8, 11 and 12 are currently under review by department staff. today's presentation will solely concern block 7-a, with fronts on power street, louisiana street, and potrero park. block 7-a is located within the potrero power station mixed use district, potrero power station special use districted, and height and bulk district. the proposed block 7-a development will include a 27-story approximately 237-foot-tall mixed use building containing 325 belg units, approximately 9,950 square foot of ground floor

retail spaces. department staff supports minor modifications which represent less than 10% deviance, and these minor modifications will be approved administratively by the planning director following today's presentation. to date, the planning department has engaged in outreach, including numerous in-person meetings. the department has not received

any public comment in support of or in opposition to the proposed block 7-a development, however, one member of the public required about the publication date and staff content of the proposal that you received. it will result in 325 net new dwelling units, robust opportunities for neighborhood serving retail and overall, the department finds that the project complies with the special use district and requests that this commission review and provide comment on the proposed block 7-a. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor team will follow with a presentation, as well, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, are

you with us? >> i'm here. [inaudible] can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you now. >> fantastic. monica, do you mind putting the presentation up on the screen? >> sure. just a moment. jonas, i think you need to make me a presenter -- okay. thank you.

>> [inaudible] and some technical challenges that i would like to account for, and if we may be granted two or three minutes of extra time, we would greatly appreciate it on our end. would the commission be okay with that? >> vice president moore: i would suggest that we grant the time. we have an international presentation coming from london, and there is always delay and potentially a small break. how much would you ask for? like, two or three minutes? >>, like, three minutes -- just three additional minutes. >> vice president moore: yeah. if you could keep it as close to that, it would be appreciated. commission secretary, is that okay? >> clerk: how much time did you want to give? >> vice president moore: an

additional three minutes due to the overseas connections that may be delayed. >> clerk: so a total time of -- >> vice president moore: 13. >> clerk: very good. >> thank you so much. thank you, monica. good afternoon, commissioners. i am [inaudible] with the power station project. next slide. [inaudible] next slide. at that hearing [inaudible] thoughtful slide and [inaudible] for this building's allocation. next slide [inaudible] installed over 4,000 linear feet of structural steel on [inaudible] next slide.

[inaudible] celebrated at the end of may. next slide. today, we're pleased to show you how we approached another milestone of power station next slide. this past year has brought about many changes, but what hasn't changes is housing in san francisco, especially affordable housing. next slide. at power station, we're committed to housing [inaudible] we not only doubled down on the amount of housing, we took the challenge to bring 100% affordable housing to the community [inaudible] we also took the opportunity to lift the neighborhood together [inaudible] and pier 70, our neighbors to the north. next slide. so instead of just one building on block 7, we created two for

building a permanent corner on our site [inaudible] to develop this 100% affordable building [inaudible] as well as being committed to arriving at a solution, and so we did. as monica mentioned, the building before you is at block 7-a for an informational presentation due to its site [inaudible] including this one, which stands at 240 foot tall

plus the permitted height exemption. recognizing that this would stand permanently in the [inaudible] creating a height cluster that was pushed away from the water [inaudible] next slide. while the building does not stand on its own, block 7-a is adjacent to the paseo and power station park [inaudible]. you can see that [inaudible] is block 7 and 11 [inaudible].

it should be noted that this design is made in collaboration with the planning department and [inaudible] slated for next fall. next slide. [inaudible] next slide. this is -- and then yes, and this is power station park looking east. and with this context setting, i'll now hand it over to [inaudible] to talk more about 7-a. next slide. >> thank you very much, tina, and good afternoon, commissioners. i'm [inaudible], and it's a real pleasure to be talking to you and presenting the power station, so i'll begin.

next slide, please. as just was mentioned, we've got two residential plots, each on above of the power station project [inaudible]. and once again, power station has master control, and what [inaudible] making something that is beneficial to the -- to the community at close level and also to the city at large. and the first [inaudible] next slide, please. so the first one was to have a portable [inaudible] carved into it and creating a scale

[inaudible] and while doing that, creating [inaudible] and this really began to sort of, in a way, began to give the building a much more substantive form within the context. next, please. and taking that further, we began to chisel away [inaudible] you can see that the building begins to look a lot slenderer and elegant form, really, from a distance, or from close up [inaudible] to have many more corners [inaudible] and to the path, as well, so the scale is also active close up and from afar.

next, please. [inaudible] close up, you get this benefit, but from a distance [inaudible] the building is designed in the round, so the building has all innovations designed to really [inaudible] but every single movement around the building is considered [inaudible]. next slide. so when you're standing on the ground, here we are on the path, looking at the building, you can see how that's now been given a form. that talks about scale, it talks about people, and it talks about homes and [inaudible] next slide. so i'll walk you through the facade very carefully. so just south of that, and you'll see -- next slide,

please -- how there's a real chance to relate yourself to the park and to really connect the landscaping up the building and the landscaping, as well, of the parking building, and [inaudible] not one long block, but a block that identifies itself in some really interesting ways. next slide, please, and the ground plane, public realm. tina spoke about the child care facility but also wonderful shop fronts, all opening out with public seating to really give some impact to the public that engages the building with the path of the community and really connecting them [inaudible] next slide, please. and when you get closer, you can see [inaudible] you can see how the path, you can see the retail, the child care all really open up and really

[inaudible] in the public realm, so the public realm actually plays such a big part in [inaudible] next slide, please. this is the west facade, and you can see that we're going to deal with the same issues. next slide, please. looking very carefully, and you can see that the corners have all been sort of eroded away so that as you look around the building, you get glimpses of what's happening beyond. [inaudible] creating transparency. next slide, please. on the -- next one -- talking about the addition of the scale, the affordable housing,

talking about public connections. public connections are very, very akin to [inaudible] and always making environmentally sure that the space between the buildings [inaudible]. and a building of this scale at this level i think really [inaudible]. and looking close up and you can see what i mean there, you can see how the building has been formed, and in the background, you can see the [inaudible] building just holding the corner on the zone.

in many ways, quite relevant to this context. next slide, please. and finally, the [inaudible] facade and how that will serve the community. next one, please. very important component of development within the context of this [inaudible] next slide, please. [inaudible] that responds very carefully to the constraint and to the building that has been

approved [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. and i'm happily available for questions, as well. thank you. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> i hope i did that in time. >> clerk: if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then three to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, public comment is closed, and this item is before you, although it's just an informational presentation, so no action is required here. >> vice president moore: commissioner fung, do i see your name?

>> commissioner fung: yes. monica, can you remind us of the sustainability features of the design standards for this project? >> sure. thanks for the question, commissioner fung. there are quite a few sustainability standards build into the development, and i wonder if potentially the project sponsor might want to speak to those a little bit more because some of the minor modifications that are being requested for this, which again, are approvable by the planning director are related to achieving those sustainability goals, so tina, if you're still on the line, maybe you'd want to speak to that? >> yeah, absolutely. thank you, commissioner fung, for the question. so we are -- have really focused on sustainability at our site. i think we're the first project to commit to an all-electric project, which means that we

are eliminating gas work together on a site, so that's a first. this building will comply with all of the [inaudible]. we will achieve at least three goals: certification on our project, but what better reason is that we will be providing [inaudible] panels our site. i think we are carefully designing the building to minimize the amount of energy that's required just based on [inaudible] requirements and our architect's add to that. but generally speaking, those are kind of the overarching sustainability issues. i think that is kind of part and parcel to our overall transportation plan and a chance to look at the transportation management plan to take advantage of how strongly situated we are from a

transportation standpoint. you know, we're within walking distance of caltrain, we have have transit lines two blocks away from the site and a mini bus line, so i think all of those will contribute to a sustainability site. i can go on and on. there's a lot of infrastructure that's happening on our site, but those are some of the highlights that demonstrate how dedicated we are to community sustainability. >> commissioner fung: okay. i think a couple of the commissioners have described, in the last couple of weeks, open space for units. they might find it interesting to look at the foster partner project in greece, fairly recent one, that is a green

high-rise, and the units all have substantial amount of private open space through balconies that is quite well integrated into the shaping of the overall tower. >> thanks, commissioner fung. we will certainly look at that, and i expect that we could [inaudible] from that project, per se, but we will be maximizing the amount of open space available for each resident in each building. we do have a fair amount of open common space, as well, but that was to maximum efficiency to the greatest extent possible. >> commissioner fung: okay. [please stand by]

>> i just want to again, complements the project and thank the team for their very skillful work, very thoughtful

work and very well designed project and look forward to visiting it soon. thank you. >> okay. thank you. that includes commission comments. we can move on to items 11a and b for case numbers 2020-001610cua at 3832 18th street and you will need to adopt shadow findings as well. staff, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> i am. >> okay. >> good morning, vice president moore. commissioners, and staff. and for finding the program

project and findings of section 295 and the project site was 3832 18th street. the subject property is located on the southeast side of the castro within supervisor district 8. neighborhoods with a variety of buildings ranging in heights from one to five stories. developing a two-story family home looking at the rear of the property and the adjacent property to the west contains a two-family dwelling. one lot further to the west contains the mission terrace housing site, a five-story 107-unit apartment. across the site on the south side of 18th street, there are residentially zoned, developed homes ranging from three to

four stories in height. and there's mission high school and mission delores park with one block farther to the east. the muni j stop platform and runs along the western edge. [♪♪] >> sorry. hold on. let me mute that. okay. sorry. i'm the culprit. >> thank you. the project site is located on the north side of 18th street between delores and sanchez streets with a residential mixed use low density zoning district the project site is relatively flat with an area of 3,328' along 18th street and an average depth of approximately

one hundred forty-one' ten". two-bedroom one story over garage constructed home. in order for the product to proceed, the project was granted to allow the demolition of existing two-bedroom existing single family residents and to allow new construction of a building. additionally, the project sponsor speaks to proceed under the state density and planning code section 206.6. that includes affordable housing entitled to additional density that might frequent the construction of the project. the zoning district regulates

or 250 square feet of the lot may be achieved. density based on this specific site. five additional group housing units for a total of 19 and the project proposes the full 19 available to them. under the state law, the product is requesting waivers from height to provide two additional stories to a total height of synced feet from rear yard requirements reducing the required rear yard exposure from the nine units that looked on to what would be a nonconfined rear yard. the project includes demolition of the existing single family homes and new construction of a

six-story 60' tall 11,141 square foot with residential building. a 390 square foot communal space. nineteen class one bicycle parking spaces and two class two bicycle parking spaces. the project includes 890 square feet of common open space via a ground floor rear courtyard and two separate private roof decks on the sixth floor including 149 square foot and a 165 square foot deck. the project is proposing the group housing has ownership units and three of the group housing units subject to inclusionary affordable housing program. taller than the adjacent properties, the project would provide substantial setbacks of the upper floor in front and

17'1". the building provides four light rails. two on each side of the building. all the light wells have a depth of 3' from the property line and range in length from 17' to 36'. the property proposed height of 60' makes the project subject to planning code 295 and the analysis was required for the project. the shadow report prepared by provision design will be submitted on march 29th, 2021, analyzing with the potential shadow impacts of the project. approximately 12,327 square foot equal to approximately .001% of the total annual available sunlight.

bringing the at some timed total to 3.998. without the project exists at 3.997. the maximum shadow coverage occurring in june of each year. the portions of the northwest corner of the park maintenance and utility area. june 15th, 2021, the full rec and park a fully noted and recommended that the planning commission find that the shadows past project would not be adverse to the use of mission doris park. the report provided to the commission and the draft motion that finds it under the project shadow analysis that the new shadow cast by the project will not be adverse to the use of mission forest park. on may 7th to examine ceqa as a

class 32 category cal amount of public comment on june 7th, 2020. the sponsor held a preapplication meeting as preferred by the planning department. 30 public correspondences will receive that includes inquiries and terms about the project construction noise, the project height and mapping and resulting impacts of the open space and increased density to the related group housing use. nine public correspondences received support of the project's density. the project sponsor has twice met with a group of neighborhood representatives. during the second meeting and in followup correspondence, the neighborhood recommended modifications to the project including a reduction to the floor to floor ceiling height. a reduction in height and lengthening of the building and the relocation of the project's communal area and bicycle

parking directly to the neighbors and was in sponsored brief dated july 6th and included in the case report. since the posting of the case report 13 additional comments and letters have been received by the department in opposition to the project. and the comment letters including the adjacent owner to the east at 3838 18th street received concerns of the project's vaccine, scale, and density and the neighborhood group resubmitted their original letter to the commission including five additional signees. there are three items within the case's draft motion i would like to address. the first is a correction to finding open space located on page five of the draft motion.

which states that common open space for the that number's 736 square feet based on the required 43.three square feet per unit. item number two is a correction to finding 8-0. the findingses and whether the project increases the number of on site dwelling units. the current response states that the project in the district. as reference to a single family home. the project will be revised to state 19 bedrooms of group housing but it's not a dwelling unit for more than two definition. therefore, the project would incease the number of housing units on site, the number of dwelling units would be reduced as a result of the existing

single family home. related to the proposed ownership of the project and serve and acknowledged by the sponsor that the change of the tenureship and finally number 13 located on page 18 of the motion. the project sponsor is aware of the procedurals manual requirements for ownership the m.r. units and that there must be a competitive lending environment at time of initial purchase and resale. if the sponsor is not able to provide multiple conventional lending sources to the b.m.r. owners as a result and as a result the size to switch to rental project required by law at that time. to summarize, the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the

general plan. to help alleviate certain severe housing prices additionally 20% of the group housing rooms or a three unit will be on site. the department also finds i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, jeff. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, can everybody hear me okay? >> yes, we can. >> great. good afternoon commissioners. mark rose on behalf of the project sponsor. we're excited to present this project to you today. it is sensitively designed in a

location and meets many goals with a wide range of density. of the 35 frontals of this block on 18th street. the block features an approximately 20-unit site, the 107 unit mission terrace development in the middle of the block two lots from the project site and the 12-unit building on the opposite side of 18th street. now, i want to run through some notable design aspects. several setbacks including an 11.5' setback in a 25% rear yard and additional significant and front. it also includes four 350 light rails ranging in light from 16 to 30'. the project meets this requirement with a common rear courtyard.

a key component of the project. all units will face either 18th street or the rear yard. next slide, please. the project's 19 units range in size from approximately 380 to 420 square feet. each unit has a bathroom, a murphy bed, a washer drier, and limited kitchen facilities. they will sell for less to own their homes. three of the 19 units will be b.m.r.'s affordable 40% a.m.i.. to be sure, not every group. we have similar diagrams for other units and are happy to

discuss those in more detail. we have had discussions with owners of nearby properties and while we appreciate their suggestions, unfortunately, we think they cut against sound design principles and would result in a worst project. the neighbors ask for ceiling heights to be reduced on all fours. currently they're 8'8". considering the relatively small size. the neighbors ask for the building to be increased in length to be added between the front and rear facing units. these units would only have potentially requiring an open space exception. similarly, the number of units requiring a dwelling unit would increase. the current something this

commission and mechanical space without significant cost. it would undermind the livability of the project. we cannot agree to make the community room into a windowless movie room. it significantly enhances the quality and livability of the building. and bike parking should not be in a basement. next slide, please. although the project will cap the small amount of shadow on the mission park, it will not have an 1% quantitative significant threshold in the late afternoon in shaded areas that aren't used for recreational activities including a muni stop,

maintenance area, and walking path. this is an image of the affected area. also, the project that meets the best majority of the objectives section 13 including increasing housing and adding bmrs and we think it is generally consistent with this objective criteria as well. next slide, please. so wrapping up, this is a sensitively designed mixed income project in a mixed density neighborhood. it will be affordable to a wide range of future residents. it moderates mass through setbacks and light wells and will result in a net addition of eighteen new units including three bmrs in an appropriate location for smaller sized housing. thank you for your time and we ask you to approve. >> thank you. that concludes your presentation. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak of

this matter by pressing star then three. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. go ahead, caller. okay. we'll take the next caller. >> thank you, commissioners for this opportunity to comment. my name is [inaudible] i live in the east upper structure we have been in this location for about twelve years. myself and over 35 neighbors would love to see the curb side develop and would be thrilled to see the new neighbors. we are asking nod not to approve this project as proposed. the shear height of 68' and the shadows it will cast will negatively impact the surroundings from our homes, to

our yards, to our sun panels and open walk space. we don't think the benefit officer this construction should occur at the sole expense of the neighbors. the developer has been completely unresponsive to our concerns and we ask you to bar the need for more housing. notifications to move the bulk to the rear and other changes to lower the height keeping the same number of units. ironically, one of the reasons was that this was going to have less light into their new units and address concerns. the state density bonus should not be carte blanche. slightly compared to the one unit building that's there now. we also believe the developer is stretching the rules.

but instead, they use a group housing rules. group housing was meant to be used for housing such as sros sold individually and then they combine the housing rules and they do so by only allowing other units and fetching prices but they're likely not achieving the goals. the proposed building would tower over them and dwarf them in size. and request the developer to work with the neighbors to address concerns and bring back a project that we can all enthusiastically support. thank you for your time.

>> hello commissioners and thank you very much for the opportunity to respond. my name is chris rudy. i'm the owner at eighty-two thousand four hundred eighteenth. that's two parcels toward church street. i am familiar with mark because we've had some back and forth all of our suggestions and attempts to reach something that's workable for everybody. i'd like to start by just saying that the i feel like this project needs to really be kicked back to the state which the state law is what's governoring that the developers and the applicants are allowed to do and i'm sure the

intention of the state law was not to crush the livelihoods arranged the neighbors of these projects. we appreciate the need for more housing and he gave you some numbers on what is absolutely acceptable for this neighborhood. i'd also like to say part of that crush comment i've been a donor for about 27 or 28 years and i'm trying to do the right thing by all the rules. this would wipe out my generation capabilities and also, you know, i've been abiding by all rules. i just got done digging in to my own pocket. so when he says that when mark

and the applicants say this is a sensitively designed project. is it a well designed project? yes, from their point of view. that they're not developing in their little cube of availability. so from that point, great. everybody else, too bad. the code exemptions big deal, they've got three the quality is that they're going to cast asia doe over everybody else so everybody you've heard in the shadow analysis which are going to be just drastic. and my suggestion to reduce the

number of units was not addressed by mark in his comments. he said they addressed all of our suggestions and that is not true because we brought of the idea of having less units and that was not addressed in any of the correspondents. he promised he was going to be taking that back to the owner. my last bit of comments would be a question. i want a better explanation of affordability and who is going to guarantee afford nlt going forward. >> thank you, sir, that is your time. >> hello there. thank you for allowing us to comment. i'm the president of the 3818 18th street homeowner's association. our building is about three parcels down from the building

being proposed. we have a four story building it includes three condos i've been authorized to speak on behalf of the eight residents in our building and we are all going to be directly impacted by this proposed building happening up the street from us. we're on the north side as well. three buildings away as i said and we are going to be impacted by the current design and a very large shadow that would be cast on our yard. all these buildings have openings in the back which people used for barbecues and exercise classes and all that

would be into shadow. so i'm hoping that you will deny the petition as it's been proposed and ask them to please make the building less tall, less deep so it would cast less of asia doe. thank you. >> hi there, my name is joanna gutman. i live around the corner at sanchez and hancock. i live in the area and i've been a homeowner since 2007 with a couple short breaks in the middle. i go on this block practically daily whether it's going from delores park or whether to visit my sister in mission and i'm calling in to say i'm a

really big fan of this project and i strongly encourage you to approve it without delay. and we need multiple places that work for many different types. when i was a little bit younger, i would have loved to live on my own, but that wasn't affordable to me in this neighborhood which i love and really that kind of harassing landlords and even though i was past the age of having all of that make sense for me, this type of housing just would have been so fantastic. now i'm due to have a baby in september. to be closer to her future grandchild. condos here are way more expensive and it's just not

affordable. my mom's not low income, but she just can't afford it. this would be so perfect for her as she ages. she needs less space. she doesn't need to keep up a larger space. she wants to be super close to my family to help me with child care and my family of course. it's also great to have a place where someone like my mom can be close by and have that local family here. this is one of the most wonderful neighborhoods in the city and i can't wait to have more young people and more seniors here. my understanding is they do offer buildings to be built and having the space is an important driving need and i encourage you to follow the

rules and everybody it has to offer. thank you. >> hi. my name is elizabeth batey. and i live across the street from 3832 18th street and i would like to say that as many of my neighbors have said that we support higher density housing in my neighborhood and in san francisco. it's just the issue with this particular design of development. there's a couple of issues that i would like to raise. the way these 16 market rate units are designed is they do not have full kitchens.

so from a long term housing is these will be sold to the highest bitter so these are not going to be bought by low income or san francisco residents to begin with they don't have a full kitchen and people who are average income or lower income cannot afford to go out in san francisco for every meal and they need a full kitchen to be able to prepare their food and what's going to happen to these units is what happens to other small units that don't have kitchens. and we have a lot of those in the neighborhood and in the city already. so that is my primary complaint is that these units are not

going to be affordable housing. people are going to by the units and rent them out short term because that's what they're designed for. i also agree with some of my neighbors that the height does not need to be as tall as it is. we could have 14 units with a full kitchen. they could be a little bigger so they could bring families and make this more of a community housing. we're looking for new neighbors who actually want to stay here, not owners who are going to rent out these units short term to other people. so i request that this development be denied and ask the developer come back and increase the number below market rentals because we're

looking for more affordable housing in san francisco and increase affordable housing in san francisco. thank you. >> hello, thank you for this chance to speak. my name is nicholaus spangler and i'm a resident of san francisco calling for this project as proposed. this project places a nonhistoric flooded single story home. this adds eyes on the streets. it promotes the use of bicycling and for 21 all of the transit development density within 250' of the jay church. it creates affordable homes with three on site below market rate units. and child care services and fund public schools.

as we all know, san francisco is in a desperate housing shortage and i think the project as is would be a total benefit to the neighborhood. thank you. >> hi, my name is louis gourder. i live across the street from 3832 18th street and 3827 18th street and i sort of resent that person saying it was a blighted house. it's a cute little victorian and the people who bought it from the they remodeled it so

many victorians in the neighborhood are similar to 3832. have been tastefully remodeled. i hope that might happen and reserve the neighborhood character. 3832 18. the mode will is occupied at this time. four stories of family housing would be welcomed. thanks a lot. i'm calling in support of this project.

i'm a san francisco native and i'm at an age where my peers in other parts of the united states or even in the bay area are beginning to be able to buy property. that a project like this might afford the opportunity to buy in the city. i currently live in the mission and as i said, i support this project because we're in a housing crisis and the city of san francisco needs to approve more projects and more varied projects. this is a market rate project and it's on a transit line which is hugely appealing to a large number of people and may encourage people. there are no comparable housing stock on the market right now that you can compare to the proposed project at 3832 18th

street. additionally and aren't considering enough people who have not had the opportunity to do so. thank you. >> i live in district 5. now i think this project is a great example of the kind of housing we should be building in san francisco. this is a project which has gone through the whole process and has been i think following the rules as greatly as we could if you want to demolish a house and build something bigger you have to get a conditional use permit. we went to the recreation and

parks to say that the shadow casting would not be substantial on delores park. they're using the state density bonus. i think this is a great project. it's not for everyone. i think a lot of the owners around this project probably would not want to live in group housing because they already own. 350 square feet is not attractive to everyone. but for someone who is just hanging on who really wants to live in san francisco, this might be something that they could afford. this might be the only thing they could afford. i mean, real estate in san francisco costs over 1,000 per square foot. so the chance that we could see housing available for under $500,000 is not is an anomaly, but it's also something we should be aiming for. so if this is what it takes to get housing that cost under a million dollars, it cost under

$800,000. this is more of what we should be doing. this is the kind of process that we should have. so i ask that you don't delay this project for arbitrary reasons like, you know, because the neighbors feel that their solar panels might be impacted. there's no perfect housing project in san francisco. you know, that's why every project is contentious, and this is one of the better projects that we could hope for is the project that will be relatively affordable even if it's market rate. so i support this project, thank you. >> hello, my name is heidi mueller and i live at 125 hancock street. i've been in san francisco since 1976. i have seen the richmond special that have been and also

since pulling down all the houses. number one. number two, i am a realtor. i sell below market rate houses. three below market rate with 19 units, that is not impressive. everything else is going to go market rate. why not build real ones. real ones below market rate for people that they want to live there. not only that, we are run over with the lovers park by parking and everything around it and knowy valley, knowy street to be slow now. so everybody's driving through hancock, for example. and so you have no parking. do you think that the people that are going to live there are going to all have bicycles. they are going to all have on top of it including on top of the lover's park and everything

else. how can you allow in the neighborhood that is has high enough already something that is higher than the four stories that allow. why do you want to be so adversary alto everything around including people who want to be the group housing that you cannot. maybe you have done all your squeezing and pulling to make everything work, but not illegally, but it's not good for the neighborhood. it doesn't that is not impressive, you know, and also group housing with no kitchens, forget it. that is just -- we are going to have regret having this i can tell you already. i have been a realtor for 34

years and i have seen people coming in front of the planning commission. the market rate where it's going to be the affordability. you know, like -- thank you very much for listening to me. >> hello, my name is david rogers. i moved to the castro neighborhood because of the beautiful neighborhood. all the reasons people are mentioning why the neighborhood is amazing many people are concerned about the concept. i think we're all concerned

about pricing and livability. we want to look out for them, we want to care for that within our community. this project doesn't do that this is at the expense of the community. it's too tall. it's too deep. the light situation doesn't make any. these guys are going to make a bundle. so good for them. turning into 19 units it's a little bit out there. mostly, i would say two points. to increase their profits. so this group housing project takes the planning code to stop as many units as possible into that small site. until recently, that group housing was typically sro, not

the market rate. so the base density would be different for the house that's owned with a maximum 800 square foot. so taking advantage of that. i think they followed the rules. now i don't think rules are being followed here. and what we're trying to do. secondly, i would like to get more meaningful community outreach. i don't think that's a way to work with the community to start with. so aside from the preapplication meeting, these sponsors have held only two meetings with the neighbors. one to request the supervisor mandelman office for us neighbors and, excuse me, the followup meeting with the architecture didn't go well.

so i'm in opposition and thanks for listening to me. >> hi, my name's liam i'm a d5 resident. i have strong for this project. i really like the project because it's 100% affordable by design and that's because of the shared living spaces because they have smaller rooms like 350 square feet. it's also because the tenants will have reduce transit costs since they live near transit hubs and additionally some of the units are subsidized. so when you say you want this project to be smaller with fewer units, what you're really saying is you want your working class and middle class people to afford san francisco. and i think that this project is great because san francisco should be an inclusive place where we have a big enough heart to welcome new neighbors. i don't think the delay will help here. based on what i've heard it

seems like the requests from neighbors are conflicting. some people say it's not affordable enough, but other people say it's a bad thing for renters to be part of the neighborhood or that you need to add kitchens which just adds amenities to the place and increases the rents. other people say they want it to be smaller and inherently, if you have less economy of scale, you're not going to get affordability. so my impression is that it will be a dramatic change for the neighborhood. but let's be clear about the status quo. when rich neighborhoods with homes that cost 2.5 or $3 million of new housing, they're adding more and more pressure to gentrifying communities that are already dealing with major projects going up in their back yard. this is really about fairness and sharing the burdens of change. we desperately need more housing and that means more housing in every community. not just communities that are

less politically influential. so i really support this project. i hope it gets approved without delay. >> hi. i'm annie watts. i'm a native san francisco and i'm happy to be part of this project. i think quite frankly it's a good location and even that, not exactly high density and i think it's really good for use of the existing i'm out there looking for a unit woult displacement you though, san francisco has a long history of these microunits and there's demands in this type of housing

and the new type of housing, you know, it's a from san francisco and quite frankly, those younger san franciscos. this is something to afford. people have been coming into town and buying up the rest of the real estate. so z you know, know, i think in terms of keeping people in the city and providing housing for people looking for work opportunities is great and i get why and a lot of change is happening and i think that we have kind of backed ourselves into a corner here and this project is i think one of the most interesting and best solutions i've seen in awhile

and yeah i just want to go with my support. >> hello. >> go ahead, caller. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's the indication to begin speaking. >> yes. my name is chuhar shatar. i look at this project and i look at affordability in san francisco. it's a little bit better and maybe a little bit study. they looked at i think affordability on major

transportation corridor within the city. this is what we've been asking for for many years and the density has allowed us to do some of these things now t. you know, to be looked at, of course, this additional height does provide for additional housing which makes a project workable with respect to people who really can't afford homes in the million dollars price range and better and just to get financing at someone's middle rate salary would be a chore in of itself. the three below market rate units would help yet i support this project just in terms of its overall concept and it's placement on the transportation corridor. i feel maybe a little more

refined for it to take place, but overall, a lot of support for more of this. thank you very much. >> hello, my name is -- excuse me. hello? my name is connor mccloud. i live two blocks away. i support this project. the addition of 19 affordable by design units is exactly what we need in san francisco. the inclusion of three b.m.r. units is wonderful and desperately needed and i ask that you please extend this invitation to 19 additional families by approved this project. this project supports the district's and the city's goals to increase higher density

around transit and mayor london breed who continue to support bonus density projects around transit. when your neighbor hasn't moved in yet it's easy to ask that their unit sizes be reduced that there are amenities and that their community rooms be placed under ground. i'm here to living space even as proposed hardly compares to the rich living spaces of those in the beautiful adjacent could even be used to justify the reduction of these 19 future family spaces in this neighborhood. i ask that you adopt this project as proposed. it's a model for what we need

in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is kate canaky. i've lived here for 33 years. i'm speaking today to register my opposition to the scale and bulk of the proposed pod project, not the project itself. particularly, the hugt of six plus stories. as proposed, the building is 50% over the regulated height. as designed, the project is going to provide lodging, not housing. we deserve a need inclusive

project for families, for actual families. for couples, young children, as well as singles. we have been saddled with a state density bonus mandate that's tied the hands of all of our local input. it is failing my community. please vote to deny the request for waivers from height and exposure at 3832 18th street. go back to the drawing board and bring us 12 or 13 units of family housing for all people. thank you hi, i'm on yvonne sanchez street. this is not directly affected me, however, i do have concerns about the height and i don't

want this neighborhood to start to have taller and taller buildings. i understand that i have problems with the building being built that takes light away from current residents. i haven't heard anyone on this call deny the need to have this type of housing, but just to see if there's some modifications and some compromise that can be reached. my understanding is that although the modifications were reviewing, none present accepted and there were no changes in the building. so as a concerned neighbor i do want people to move into this neighborhood and have affordable housing, but i think there's some way we can meet

those. demands. thank you very much. >> hi, my name is gary peddler. by the way i noticed that a few commentators. the people who actually live in the neighborhood and are going to have to live with this building as proposed are mainly opposed to this project. who somehow thinks that families are going to move into these units. it sounds like he hasn't studied what this building is all about. this building is so high, it will cast asia doe down half a block of 18th street across church street and into north park. that's obviously a really tall building. the building will cast a shadow on my house and yard.

as another speaker in the city or people who want to rent them out on areabnb. all through the units would be sold on the open marketplace or rented out. so my opinion is a new building on this side this developer seemed determine to waste. please do not beach this enormous whale in our neighborhood. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is able wilson and i live at 3838 18th street which is directly next door. as earlier, the first presenter stated, directly to the west of me is another five-story housing complex which would effectively render us pretty much an alley way.

i'm excited by housing too and i guess i question the people and the callers who say that families are going to come in and pay top dollar although they're going to call it affordable for a 350 square foot unit with nothing more than a hot plate and a sink. for some reason i missed when kitchens became amenities and i'm happy that the developers designed the building for perspective tenants who will live as i understand with direct light coming from the back or coming from the front. unfortunately, that's not going to be the case for the tenants who couldn't call in today who live in our basement apartment who will effectively have all of their direct light taken from them and the owner of next door, i've never been part of any shadow study. i'm worried about the impact of this project and wonder if more

discussion needs to happen with this developer who's made no meaningful conversations with the neighbors. we have had legitimate opportunities for discussion and nothing has been given back to us so, at this time i don't believe this property is ready for a vote and i would thank you very much to deny it moving forward. thank you. >> hello, my name is maldanado. relevant ily now in the past but now i'm relatively well off and i'm calling in support of the 3832 18th and the reason

i'm calling in support of this project is that we need to focus on the benefit of including and ensuring that sf still preserves its locals and keep them within sf and not them having to move out. being so much greater than that en