microphone. sfgovtv is streaming live. we will be receiving public comment on each item on today's agenda. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. when you have thirty seconds remain, you will hear a chime

indicating your time is almost up. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. first item on the agenda is to request a continuance. a conditional use authorization is requested for a continuance. a large project authorization is proposed for continuance to

october 14th, 2021. under your regular calendar we received an 11th hour request to continue items 11, 12a through c c. for the property at 469 steven street for the certification of the environmental impact report adoption of findings and conditional use authorization respectively. the request is for a one week continuance to july 29th 2021. if there are no immediate questions from the commissioners, we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on

only items offered for continuance. i see no members from the public -- i take that back. you have two minutes. >> am i allowed to talk about the 15th street one. >> clerk: only on the matter of continuance. not on the project itself. >> no comment yet. >> clerk: when that matter is heard by the commission, you can submit your public writing. i also strongly recommend you provide your comment in writing and via e-mail. public comment on your

continuance calendar is closed and now before you. tan i would feel comfortable continuing. i would like to offer to the project sponsor, just a comment. i know we're looking to get to agreement on neighboring

groups. one idea is to have more moderate housing but create some more ability for the households here in the city. just an idea. with that, i'll move to move all items as proposed. >> clerk: (roll call) so moved that motion passes unanimously, six to zero. placing us on your consent calendar. the only matter listed here constitutes your consent

calendar is considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single role call vote by the commission. there will be no discussion on this matter unless a member from the public or the commission so requests. item three golden gate avenue. potential use authorization. members of the public this is your opportunity to have this item removed from the consent calendar and heard at the end of today's agenda. seeing no questions public comment is now closed and the item is now before you. >> move to approve.

>> clerk: this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak. public comment on the minutes are closed. they are now before you.

seeing no requests to speak froe on. director's announcements. >> we have a long calendar. >> clerk: there's no report from the court of appeals. the commission did meet yesterday. >> good afternoon commissioners, this week there was one item on the land use agenda related to

planning. the clean up ordinance. you recommended approval of this ordinance on february 25th of this year. there was concerned about removing the provision as projects with a history of the ellis act eviction. we cannot use an ellis act eviction as justification. he moved to duplicate the ordinance and deletion from the main file and continue the duplicated ordinance to the call of the chair. these actions received unanimous support and moved the amended

version to the report. the shared spaces ordinance both passed their second read. as you may recall this item was amended by supervisor peskin. one provision that was remanufactured was the elimination for principlely pery permitted businesses. this conflicts with another item in the ordinance. the planning department does not have magical superpowers to allow us to bend time.

>> i just wanted to welcome them to the commission meeting. we received a huge number of applications for an internship program. i want to thank tina chan who is managing. i just wanted to make sure i mentioned that. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and they considered one item for the art installation on the freeze temple of music. they ultimately approved but they did pay special attention into the method of attachment and any damage it might create

during its installation an removal. if there are no specific questions related to the board of superiors we should move onto general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission with respect to agenda items your opportunity to be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission up to three minutes. through the chair each speaker will have two minutes. when you hear your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> i joined the call a little late. i apologize for that. this is regarding the 15th g,

has that project been moved to october 15th >> clerk: that item has been moved to act 14th and you can make your comment related to that project at that time. >> i sent you an e-mail from my general public comment with a little map. i messed up the western boundaries but i think you get the general idea. these were 39 projects that all --

>> the situation in front is

really a hazard. i've already experience and told you because of the hotel being there how dangerous the intersection is but for first time when i was walking up the south side an got near i was unable to proceed and in terrible danger going back. i got blown down on the street. we have to live here. that happens to be my cross street. i was driven across the sidewalk and thrown down in the street.

people can be injured from those impacts. >> clerk: that is your time. okay. members of the public this is your last call for public comment. seeing no other callers. general public comment is closed. we can move onto your regular calendar commissioners. first up is item eight. staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. i just need to share permission. this is mr. shaw, planning

department staff. is that visible. >> clerk: it is but if you could increase it, that would be b great. perfect. >> thanks for waiting. planning department staff. the item before you today is an ordinance proposing a zoning code and planning map for the life science district. it was introduced as a central

water front plan. protect industrial uses. the plan struck this balance with policies to preserve core distribution and repair in the southern part of the plan area while transitioning to mixed use as shown here in the peach. with the exception of life science laboratory are permitted in the umu. in the laboratory and health services are also permitted. the life science is generally bounded to the north and to the south. support medical services. the f cd principally permits and

floor by floor zoning controls.

also no change from today laboratory uses would remain principally permitted for both parcels. vertical controls that would apply. minimum -- we're recommending

this modification because the life science it aligns with the general plan and general use neighborhood plans. it allows for additional protections and removes the loophole that allows for self storage and greater uses of laboratory uses.

that concludes the present and staff are available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. we should take public comment. members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. you should press staff three to be added to the queue. you will have two minutes. >> good afternoon. i live an work in the eastern neighborhoods. i do appreciate the careful and expensive planning that was taken. i'm primarily supportive. i feel like the removal of the industrial protection zone as an add on recommendation is hasty

and hasn't evaluated all of the considerations for the ripple effects that i believe will occur. i think that this should be analyzed as a special project taken by the planning department. it's a very large area of the city. there have been opportunities allowed by the industrial protection zone that i don't think has been taken into consideration. industrial uses are allowed under the p dc. meals on wheels has built a kitchen in that area. it would be great for them to be able to locate more of their operations nearby there which would be allowable under the ipz but not allowable in much of the pdr zoning.

i believe reevaluating the ipz is appropriate. i do believe a further of study before eliminating this needs to be undertaken. thank you.

>> this commission just approved a project a few months ago that would not be able to obtain its permits. there's another project self storage project that already filed a pta earlier this year and application earlier this month. significant costs have been sunk into both of these plans and rely on the existing zoning. it would only be fair to add a grandfathering for these projects. it would probably suggest an

even more appropriate time line or deadline for that grandfathering. i want to speak to the larger policy. i agree with the previous caller. i think this requires a little more study. i think the concerns about encroachment from some of these uses is unfounded. unlike office use, a use like self storage is not one that has the ability it take over these industrial districts where we know office is that type of use. this commission has obviously approved tens of thousands urban apartments in recent years. less storage capacity for the residents. there is need for some storage despite it not being the most

favored use in the city. i think that needs to be thought through a bit more. all to mention that -- is that my time? >> clerk: that's your time. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'm the executive director of meals on wheels in san francisco. i refer back to the first commenter today that talk about our project. we just in november opened a 39,000 square foot parcel industrial kitchen. we still host another building in the adjacent district that we would like to potentially move those operations closer to the kitchens unify our work force in a general frame of space or location.

we're concerned that the ipz special use restrictions would make it very difficult for us to do that. what we're attempting to do is a mix of office and pdr use. we would request that those impacts be reviewed before this proceeds. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm a representative for the 425. our project involve a minor self storage. i would ask the planning commission to be certain to include a grandfathered clause under the ipd, sud and allow them to proceed with issuance

and construction. we have spent a significant amount of capital into this project. we ask the grandfather clause be applied to projects that have already been approved by the planning commission. thank you. >> clerk: members of the public. last call on this item. you need to press star then three. seeing no additional questions to speak from the public. public comment on this item is now clezzed and before you commissioners. i'm in agreement with staff's recommendation but do hear the call for the originally proposed

projects. i would lean towards including the grandfathering for projects that applied before let's just say today. commissioner moore >> vice president moore: didn't staff entertain a discussion about the project south storage and meals on wheels or was that just an oversight? >> we have spoken not with meals on wheels, we have spoken with the mc kinon project but that was not prior to the case report being published. it is a conversation that --

it's a cycle that we have considered. >> vice president moore: are there any additional comments you would like to make on this. >> we have had recent conversations. we're aware of the mc kinon project. we're not aware of the project for meals on wheels. this is new information to us. we'll be happy to consider the implications for that. it sounds like they have an existing industrial project and are looking to combine some projects. a number of months ago. there was a similar self storage

project that was being considered that had applications on caesar chavez and there was a grandfathering provision that would have applied to that project that didn't fully grandfather it as they weren't necessarily fully acquiring it. that's the most recent precedent. i believe that project is actually not moving forward. there with a provision put in there by the board. >> vice president moore: for all intents an purposes, i think this project deserves the same type of consideration. i would support staff's

recommendation with the addition of the grandfathering clause for the two projects that were brought to our attention today. >> commissioner diamond: move to approve as recommended by staff with the grandfathering revisions made by commissioners moore and koppel. >> clerk: i do see one additional member of the public wishing to speak, should we take that caller. >> this is mat stern again >> clerk: i'm sorry. we don't allow for multiple comments on matters. unless commissioners, you would like to hear from mr. stern.

there's a motion that has been seconded to approve >> if the grandfathering is for specific projects or projects made before today's date. >> as the maker of the motion i should lead the grandfathering just because they didn't show up today doesn't mean she shouldn't be subject to the same grandfathering. >> clerk: grandfatherring any project who had an application on file by today's date.

>> clerk: i believe it's with staff's modification as being proposed in the rest of the legislation. is that clear mr. shaw? very dp. very good. there's a motion to approve the proposed modifications.

to include grandfathering on applications up to today's date. (roll call). so moved. that passes unanimously placing us on item nine for the conditional use authorization for residential care facilities. this is a planning code amendment. >> i have jacob who will be giving a short presentation on this item before i give the staff presentation. >> thanks. and good afternoon commissioners. i'm here on behalf of supervisor mannedle man. permanent controls on

residential care facilities. sometimes referred to as board an care facilities. they provide both stable housing and basic care. including mental illness and addiction. these are essential to the city's broader efforts. unfortunately we are losing them at a rapid clip at a time where the need is ever greater for these populations. a 2019 report documents that the alarming rate that these facilities are closing. according to that report san francisco lost 43 residential care facilities. it was a 30 percent decline over that six year period. sadly this trend has continued

sense then with the loss of 11 more facilities. in the two years since the report was issued as of 2019. requiring a conditional use for the removal of change of use or demolition renovation. it will be the maximum 24 months possible for maximum kn troll. maximum control.we have seen thl oversight and transparency provided by the controls with the condition use requirements can can be helpful in preserving

more of these facilities. a 33 bed facility was at risk of closure when the property owner indicated their intention in the it renew their lease. they were ultimately successful to extend that lease for another three years. having the cu on the books. the interim controls have been helpful that closed after a fire. this proposal did trigger that cu which is still pending perfect you. this has given community advocates to seek out willing operators who are willing to restore the facility.

it will make a few tweaks to the findings that the commission must consider. specifically the first cu finding from the interim control adds the golden gate regional center. the second fining is taken out of the ordinance as it's frankly somewhat redundant with your 303 findings.

the ordinance today would make these facilities principally

permitted. in closing this ordinance is designed to make it harder to remove but easier to open. i want to thank everyone for their great work on this ordinance. we're available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to eliminate the rh1 and rh #2 districts. whether or not that facility is established with proper permits.

we have received one submission for public comment which was sent to you via the commission secretary. we recommend you approve with modifications. our modifications are as follows. proposed change of use after three years. encourage the sponsor and other city agencies to seek non land use solutions to alleviate the financial burdens by current residential care facilities. only this establish is is established legally. allow other parties that may be relevant to an individual case to be consulted.

that concludes the presentation of staff. >> clerk: members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star three. you'll have two minutes. when you hear that your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hello. i'm a meanter of the menial health community. i work in mental health and have worked with seniors, i have also worked in the rcf field as well. i've been witnessing both the waiting for clients to get into these kinds of accommodations when their health needed it and mandated. i have also looked for housing

for this community. at the age of 56 having been on disability for 12 solid years, i have very little savings stored up. i'm concerned about my own well being in health as i move into old age, where will i live? where will i get the care that i need? obviously those statistics about the loss of rtf's across the years is terrible. we need to do everything we can to keep rcf open and doing an excellent job so people like me and others don't end up homeless and trauma creating housing like

skid row. thank you for your time and attention to this matter. >> this is sarah short. i'm with home rise. we're a coordinator of a coalition. i want to say a little more about the case that jacob mentioned. we were part of the group of advocates that worked with that property we are continuing to do so. we're able to do that because of this very very critically important legislation. this was a home of five to seven disabled folks and the community and the neighbors were very familiar with them an that home

as their neighbors, it unfortunately burned down an the developer bought it an wanted to convert it to market rate luxury home. what this requirement meant was that we could slow down the whole process an have conversations with the developer and the department of public health and others in the city an seek out a possible purchaser who could perhaps preserve it as a boarding care facility or other facility that helps address our cities homelessness and mental health crisis. this resulted in the owners offering a letter giving us the right of first refusal. now we are in conversations about the possibles of the communities purchasing this property rather than it becoming a market rate luxury home in the

mission. we hope to contribute to this problem, the diminishing stock of board and care homes. they don't realize the direct relationship to homelessness. that without board and care homes we will see more people who cannot take care of them themselves and have extremely low incomes. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional questions to speak. public comment is now closed and the item is now before you commissioners. >> i will be supporting this recommendation and call on commissioner diamond.

>> commissioner diamond: i'm support as modified by the staff. i think we have a very significant problem in the city with the greeing population of oaler a dulls who are frail and need assistance. this ordinance as modified by the staff is a step in the right direction. i do believe, however, it's likely to be a financial issue not a land use regulatory issue. it's important that we not rely on this land use regulatory as the end all be all. i believe the board of supervisors need to examine and figure out where it is we can allocate additional financial assistance to these facilities. in the absence of that i suspect

many of these facilities will continue to close. i'm in favor of the three year sun set clause. we ought to give this three year it see how it plays out. if the permit process really isn't helping, there's no reason in my opinion to keep it in place. the need is urgent. i'm support of the or >> nancy:s modified by staff and would move to approve. >> vice president moore: i wanted to thank supervisor and all community an non-profits and neighborhood activists who helped make this happen. this is a remarkable step. i'm glad interim legislation paved the way for this legislation to come forward.

i'm also in support of the modifications and in particular wanted to emphasize my support for the other strategies that commissioner diamond eloquently elaborated on. >> commissioner fung: question for staff, historically a lot of these facilities were funded by the state, weren't they? >> thank you, commissioner. i apologize i'm not aware of the various facilities. i know some have been privately funned an others have been funned through state allocations. i'm not sure -- >> commissioner fung: the corollary question too would be is the city now funding these or

are we using federal dollars now? >> thank you. this is a little bit out of my area of expertise as well. i have learned a lot about this. the overarching situation as you say the state really has a abandoned our hospital program. in terms of the state hospice, they have their problems but we never came up with another solution. the facilities we have today, the department of public health of san francisco is involved in some of these properties. usually a little larger. dph had the lease to operate a facility there, they then contracted out. these smaller facilities generally are privately run.

they have clients -- one of the financial difficulties, the clients that are being served are not eligible for reimbursements. it's not technically medical care, it's assisted living. there's a gaps in these programs. the correct amount of subsidies. that's my best understanding of the dynamic we have. >> thank you. gentleman i'll add that we do have our expert on this chiming in here, she said the state does provide reimbursement at very low rates. the city has been looking at ways to supplement. the mayor did have specific funding proposals for

residential care facilities. >> commissioner fung: i remember quite a few cases being appealed. it was pretty much of a cottage industry in san francisco predominantly handled by minority families. i see that the nature of them probably are changing. >> commissioner imperial: you mentioned there are gaps in funding. is your office thinking about legislation when it comes to funding lake the cottage. >> thank you commissioner imperial. she was correct there is some amount of safe funning for these. when we're looking at medical it's not a sufficient reimbursement.

the mayor's office did leave some changes to the reimbursement structure. i mentioned around getting more state funding. that is one area we're exploring. we're looking at what other opportunities might be available to secure revenue locally in san francisco. it's complicated and costly. there are a number of other supervisor offices and we're continuing to work on as we put out this additional safety net through the ordinance at this time. >> commissioner imperial: i believe that for the funding hopefully after three years there's funding for that. thank you. i also support this

modification. >> clerk: very good. if there's nothing further there is a motion. (roll call). so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. placing us on item ten. for the review of large residence developments. this is also a planning amendment. >> thank you. i'll reintroduce jason to speak to us on this item. >> hello commissioners. it's a double feature today. thank you for having us twice on your agenda. this item is an ordinance before you today that is intenned to

address another ongoing strend trendparticularly in our rh1 din trend. older relatively affordable homes being converted into four, five, or six foot luxury mansion that's are sold and flipped for millions of dollars. we continue to see this in district eight. without adding new housing supplied and only exacerbate the severe housing crisis that we're all aware of. making it harder to convert a single family home into a much

larger one. specifically the ordinance would require a conditional use. on a vacant will the a ceu would need to be obtained. triggered for lots where there's an existing residential unit.

as you all can imagine this is a proposal that have elicited some

strong reactions. since the supervisor initially proposed this ordinance in february, we've had a lot of conversations with residents, homeowners, builders, architects about this. i want to briefly summarize some of what we've heard and how that impacts our thinking going from here. 2500 square feet is too small or way too big depending on who you ask. it it represents about a one to one far or roughly two story building on a standard

residential lot. we fully recognize this may not be exactly the right number. we welcome your suggestions on this piece of the legislation. others have suggestions that they should vary by neighborhood throughout the city. some suggested picking a bigger number. the average size of single home expansions, secondly an closely related to all of that is the concern that those that want to build these large homes just want to generate the cu's no matter one. our intention is not to create process for the sake a process but effect change in the homes that are being built in

residential neighborhoods. we appreciate the staff recommendation to simplify the cu triggers by creating one set of rules. we'll take this into consideration moving forward. there's a lot of concern in our existing neighborhoods. you can allow for larger units without adding density. including a hard cap or limit on the size of any single unit you can get to on what people might agree is truly acceptive. the requirement on the size of the adu that would provide for an exception. we propose that second unit

should be at least one third of the size of the unit on the property. we recognize this could be difficult to achieve in some cases especially when dealing with another building. keep it proportional but allow for some wiggle room. plus or minus 10%. in closing, i want to be very clear that we do not believe the ordinance drafted today is necessarily the only combination of controls that are are fix this issue it is by no means set in stone. we fully intend on taking all of that into account and consider revisions that achieve the basic goal and disurnlg the

proliferation of luxury homes in a city like san francisco where space is just so precious. with that, i want to thank staff who have been great partners on this process. and the great work for preparing the ordinance. i'll be here for any questions on this one as well. >> thank you. i think once again, he provided a very comprehensive overview and report. the one thing i want to make sure is also understood is this ordinance currently written would apply to applications filed this year. we recommend approval with

modifications. modify the ordinance to remove the condition of use trigger for the 50% expansion an exempt all projects from the 2500 square foot if they are going to increase the density on the lot. the second is to increase the marginal allowable increase from 10% to 20% for homes already over 2500 square feet. prohibit historic properties from being exempt from the conditional use requirement. for purposes of this program accessory parking should be included in the units gross floor area so long as it's able to made into habitable space.

the department has received many public comments in the forms of letters and e-mails that have been included in your packet as exhibit e. we have received additional public comment. this concludes staff easess presentation. >> clerk: members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star three. each member of the public will have two minutes. >> hello i'm a member of the

policy and advocacy committee. i'm an avid supporter of affordable housing. a close analysis of how the design, permitting, an construction processes work in this city it will do nothing to achieve this purpose and will do the opposite. we've been given no clear definition of what a so called monster home actually is. no evidence that they are a problem. no data of how many are built throughout the city. no data on how limiting home size will incentivize construction of more units. the reality is this legislation is based on a fallacy that it's

a zero sum game. if someone builds a large home someone loses their home or is unable to build one elsewhere. this will are disincentivize the modest and sensible expansion of homes that -- we have grave concerns about this legislation as proposed. we ask the commission to send it back to the supervisor. thank you very much.

>> good afternoon. i'm an architect with more than 20 years of practice within the city. i'm a director of the american institute of architects and a chair of the chapters housing committee. i'm speaking today in opposition of the proposed legislation. i was born in san francisco with my parents who have recently immigranted from europe. my parents did as many middle class americans have done when aiming for the dream of financial self sufficiency. they began developing wealth from homeownership. the proposed legislation would contradict this national eej

ethosby limiting this pathway to generational wealth. san francisco is a city of neighborhoodses. many districtly different in scale. the limits of 2500 square feet or area limits are arbitrary. out of sync and discriminatory in others. the 2500 scare foot limit some five hundred square feet from the current average permit request would be small impacts heights but would be discriminatory in neighborhood ses that would enhance the value of the modestly sized property. the proposed legislation would

trigger conditional use applications slowing the city's already slow planning process. this proposed amendment is an unwelcome distraction and obstacle to the natural evolution of our city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am calling in support of this legislation. much needed ordinance to actually encourage people to build homes affordable by design. the previous callers, architects, they should know beer. if somebody wants to buy one of these cottages and turn it into

a monster home -- there's ways we can improve this and make it neighborhood based based on an fir. we need some limit that are making san francisco less an less affordable. the concept of affordable by design is well understood and being advocated by many activists. the plan in planning have been

talking about it for years. we need to look at this from the standpoint of people and equity. racial an equity just as much as the slogan. try to be more sensitive to the people's needs, the modest -- people with modest income and particularly the ones that are first time home buyers. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm speaking today in opposition to the legislation as currently written as well. i support the creation of housing but the negative impact of housing by the analysis out weighs any of the positive impacts.

the proposed legislation needs to be reconsidered so we can create legislation that actually does what it is intended to do and does not penalize living in san francisco. >> i wanted to share my concerns concerning this proposed legislation. i've been a homeowner in san francisco for 25 years and own a

small art collection firm. i want to focus on a few specific points about the unintended consequences. as outlined in the 2018 san francisco housing needs and trends report. the housing stock is much holder than the stock in the bay area. obviously modern size code standards and fire sprinklers provide a much higher level of safety than years ago. burdensome processes that may prohibit upgrades to existing

homes. fewer homes will be required to implement these safety upgrades this legislation reduces the likelihood that high income households it's virtually impossible for low to moderate family make it impossible to keep their homes. 65% of existing housing units with three or more bedrooms the report mentions that overcrowding is --

>> clerk: thank you that is your time. >> hello commissioners. i'm a long time resident of san francisco. an architect for a small firm here in the city. ware opposed to large homes ordinance for a lot of reasons. one of them is the issues of equity. by imlitting the increase of the proportion of the home size, it allows homeowners with bigger home to begin with to add an additional cua. the home may be their principle source of wealth. it may also be too small to house a mulley generational household. this adds expense time and

uncertainty. such a household might be pushed out of its home and city. wealthy homeowners will stick it out and do it any way. more sophisticated will move elsewhere while it takes the additional two years. they have the mean it pay the additional fee it the city. please stop pretending that privately funning housing units can be affordable if they are small. the only affordable unit is is too small to accommodate.

>> i'm a long term resident. i believe the proposed legislation is actually targeted at neighborhoods such as mine. i want to start off by thanking you, the commissioners, for your hard work and dedication. i follow your work closely an know that have you the best interest of the city in mind. i feel the proposal at hand is a disserve to the commission and its purpose. your body of works tirelessly. such a proposal to me does not

seem to address social equity, increase affordable housing, or protect the environment. it seems to me a political for the sake of advocates. i can only imagine the sheer impact this will have on the commission. you are already working so hard to address the needs of the city. i also see how packed agenda's lead to meetings lasting as late 11:00 o'clock at night. your body seems to have more broader initiatives. i believe the projects that need

scrutinizing will make their way to you. the more effective way to effect affordability would be to build more 100% affordable units. i have seen some of their projects. i want to say that i have seen properties trading at 1600, 1700 per square foot. even if you shrink the size down, you're still looking at a hardly affordable home at $4 million. >> clerk: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> i currently live in cal hallow. i live next to low mountain for

several years. i want to give you my perspective as a citizen of san francisco for the last 25 years. as well as a real estate investor in san francisco. we bought a rh2 zones single family home. with the idea of improving it so three generations can live in. we wanted to make it two units with neighbors opposition we decided 20d keep it as a single family home. there needs to be some sort of incentive for people maximizing density. instead what we ended up doing which was a compromise with the neighbors was have three levels

so we could have three generations in place. with this legislation in place, we could not do that. how many cu's would have been created in the last five years. cost in san francisco is close to six hundred dollars a square foot. adding additional lawyers and staff time is going to make it even more expensive. i really encourage you guy it think through this very carefully and instead of creating a stick create some sort of carrot. follow it. why are we deciding on who can

live there. thank you for listening. >> good afternoon. i'm 56 year old native san franciscan. i was born here and lived here my whole life. with the exception of one of the prior speakers. i'm in support of the proposed legislation. i thank him for his diligence on this and competency by which he has approached this an the good faith. i thought the presentation that was given earlier was fantastic. i think, i'm also unique in that i don't make money off of building houses. i'm not an art intellect. an architect.i don't have any fe

in what's going on. what i would say if you look at one block of of this city, that is the poster child for the monster home problem that's gooding on right now. there are exactly four properties that have been demolished in the past or about to be demolished in the five years in one block. they are 3660, 801 twenty first street. the case point i want to take about is is one that wasn't

demolished. that property went from being 2,000 square feet to six an the construction has been going on for -- since 2014. they have been constructing that thing >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> good evening. earl white. there's been a lot of good points here. i think one of the things that seems obvious to me is on larger lots, it's going to maximize the volume of a building. while we all would like to see more affordable housing, by decreasing a buildings volume, let's say you could have built a

7500 square foot volume, that makes more sense to increase density limits. the other thing is the larger units out there, they are going to get way more expensive. it doesn't make sense by neighborhood or lot type. a steep lot is a different animal. you're go to go have a will the of area that's underground. the incentive here should be maximizing the the volume of the buildings and doing that by increasing density, not by limiting square footage. thank you.

>> my name is john. i live in the the wood lans lans district. i think this is a really great idea. just as a disclaimer i'm not an architect, i have no financial interest here. looking at people coming in and buy a house, do a san francisco remodel, demolish it. they built the land and build out a huge house. in the previous where it went

from 950 square feet to 39,000. all of them are built with existing rules. this helps provide oversight for egregious projects. there's way too many of these going on. many are still in progress. more being permitted and bought. anything you can do here would be dwrait. great.

>> good afternoon. i'm a 20 year resident of san francisco, a member of the public policy committee at the aia, i certainly appreciate the intent of this legislation. i'm deeply concerned that it will not achieve its goals. i'm very much concerned about the impact on planning commission calendar and on planning staff. this seems to me something that will increase more processing and create more cu's. this will delay housing and permits for families who seek to improve their housing and may

get in the way of more affordable projects that are also in the line. i also feel that this will unfairly favor wealthy people who have the time and resources to wait through this process. i'm also concerned with with the redundancy of these legislation already in place. there's already a discretionary review process. resident review guidelines that talks about appearance an context. we're trying to create a one size fits all solution to a unique set of problems that the zoning and design community can resolve without this additional

burden. thank you. >> hi commissioners. i am a long time resident of san francisco. i currently live in north beach. i want to propose how the 2500 square foot threshold only makes building homes more difficult. this specific threshold only helps the current community you are trying to control. it does nothing to help our housing crisis. it will make planning commission meetings extremely long. thank you for your time and consideration.

>> i'm calling to express my concerns about the legislation. housing comes in all shapes and sizes. with already enough hoops to jump through. i hope to keep my family here. thank you for your time. >> hello. i'm speaking in opposition of the legislation. i have been in san francisco for over 22 years. i live in heys valley with my mother and kids. i believe the city is in dire need of more affordable housing but limiting the size of the

homes to 2500 will not help accomplish that goal. currently my family and i are only able to afford staying in san francisco by sharing a space figure enough to accommodate us.

>> clearly if you're in an rh1d zoning where your lot is the minimum lot is 4,000, five thousand, square foot and we're supposed to be limited to a 2500 square foot property that triggers a conditional use. i don't see how this benefits housing. it really seems that we have a housing shortage, we need to produce housing for all san sanfranciscans of all income levels, and sizes. i'm opposed to this legislation

and i think it need it -- goals are fine. we really need to take a look at this 2500 square foot and come to something that is more equitable to everybody. the families that can afford it, they'll be able to hire their lawyers and expeditors, they will lobby an get things done. i really urge the commission to take another look at this. thank you. >> good afternoon. i would like it to express my strong support for this legislation. placing a limit on the maximum size is consistent with the

planning department and the goal of increasing housing density in san francisco. it is nice to see legislation that most of us can support. opposition to the legislation come from a small group of individuals who design and construct these large homes and the economic impact of the legislation on their businesses. their economic interest conflict with what is best for the city. thank you. >> hello. my name is derek and i work as a realtor here in san francisco.

i'm also a san francisco property owner and father of two. i'm calling today to express my concerns about proposed legislation an it's impact to families staying in san francisco. i've worked on behalf of many families and from my experience families want or need a home with three bedroomses on one floor, a garage and yes, they need a car when the children or sick or school drop off during rainy days. a conditional use process is most legal, the most complex, an the most expensive process we have. why is this challenging process being proposed to families.

we're discouraging these homes from being build in the rh one zoning. where are large families supposed to live. where are multi generational families supposed to live. extended families live together. why are we preventing the production of housing to this group. historical units have architectural boundaries. they are separated by building walls and property walls. who came up with the 2500 square foot as the magic number. this seems to be an arbitrary number. some neighborhoods have large lots. some neighborhoods have small lots. this legislation takes the 2500

square feet and applies it universally to the city. the artificial threshold of 2500 square feet. >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hi commissioners. thank you very much. i'm a resident here in san francisco. i'm calling on behalf of my best friends who couldn't call in today. they live in a two bedroom scart home their baby just before the pandemic closed down. they had had a toddler and new

baby and work from home. my understanding is this would be retroactive so they would have to go back an get a conditional use for this family. they and i are opposed to this legislation. >> it's tough to pile anymore wisdom and thoughtful response to all those who have spoken in opposition to this legislation which i'm adamantly opposed. the conditional use burden on the planning staff. the redundancy of this legislation. everything all the callers an opposition have stated. i would like to be a big plus one to everything stated before.

strongly request that the commissioners deny this legislation an send it back to be rewrit eastbound an remove the random treasurer hold of 2500 square feet an take a look at all the other unintended kn consequences that might come from this. thank you very much. >> i'm a san francisco homeowner and resident and father of two. i am calling in opposition of this legislation. i am calling in sup or of many of my friends who are in the same stage of life. two young children. perhaps thinking about a third or fourth. figuring out how we can make it work in san francisco. watching all of our other

friends flee the city. my wife and i are are very committed to stay here and raise our family and see it as a beautiful place for our kids to grow up. one of the things we are looking for a maddest house that we can expand to meet you're needs. this legislation would prevent us from purchasing a home that has that capable. it would cut off a dream of raising our kids here in san francisco. many of our friends share same dream. we would be looking at a home that's already constructed over

this square footage amount. it would put us out of the ability of affordability of those types of properties. i'm opposed to this lemg slaition. legislation.i encourage you to t families that want to stay here in this city and keep that dream alive. >> i'm a d5 resident. the people that you've heard from today do not represent the majority of san francisco. their material interests are being asked to take a hair cut.

half of them are presending to o care about equity and affordable housing. i strongly support this legislation. i don't think it should be an option so slow down the planning process. i hope awe prove this. you approve this.thank you. >> i'm president of the residential builders

association. i'm calling today to share my concerns with this legislation. this important piece of legislation needs more work. i really feel we need a continuation a time out, i'm not sure what the right word is. we need it rework some of these provisions. this cannot be done on the flai. the defining characteristics varies drastically. trying to tailor each project into the specific context of its site. using an arbitrary square foot number. how and why 2500 square foot the magic number. it should be based on meaningful site criteria.

i can accept the lot size being an influencer. we should not be doing anything to slow down or afd to the add o complexities of an already struggled process. unit size or boundaries should not be defined by simple math. you should be bound by natural architectural factors. the one third rule may be a good goal. maybe even a good policy put it needs flexibility. there are many times that units are one third mauler for good, sown reasons. policies are already in place and has addressed this concern.

why are we punishing a certain type of housing an multi generational families. if we want to encourage more density -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> i oppose this proposed ordinance. it's similar to -- i think this resolution comes from a miss guided set of priorities. multiple units is better than the existing house. i think the actually priority is multiple use is is better than a

large house but a large house is better than an existing house. i disa dpree with the push for equity for dwelling unit diversity. a t allows poorer people to live in the neighborhood. large houses can be rented out by the the bedroom. i've known multiple people who lived in large units such as - the large house had many bedrooms is it was more affordable because it was renned by bedroom.

[indiscernible]. problem of the expense of all the renovated units can be addressed by relaxing the 207 units. >> clerk: that your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. i work as an accountant here in san francisco. i'm not wealthy. me and my family do represent the majority of san francisco. i'm calling today to express my

concerns p the proposed legislation. i don't have real estate experience and making it virtually impossible and cumbersome exactly that. my home based on my needs. why is this challenging process being proposed for my family. provide a welcome sign to neighborhoods. this is anti family. we deserve ape friendly process. pleaz vote against this legislation. thank you. >> veterans affairs

>> the risk cost and timeframe for any residential expansion without action to help a forrable housing. please oppose this legislation. thank you very much. >> i'm a resident of san francisco. i work for the city and county. i'm really not supportive of this change. 2500 does seem very arbitrary. during this pandemic having to work from home.

both my husband and child. having a parent needing to live with us as they age. we need to be able to bill out needing to do so. this would impact our ability if needing to do so. thank you. >> hi. i send an e-mail around 12:10 p.m. i had to think about this. my overarching thought is this, if it had been adjusted sometime in 2009, people who want to flip proper for these large homes, they don't care how much of the house that gets demolished. people who want to live in the homes, i did that in 95.

recommendation one will only work as intended if they are adjusted. they don't care how much of the house -- large homes continue to sell as single family homes even with a second unit.

recommendation three -- maybe these were slipped through but once the calculations are adjusted the homes should be covered by the ordinance. please consider finding objective three which says preserve naturally affordable housing types. i'm done, goodbye. thank you. >> hello, my name is pete bran. i'm a san francisco rez den. resident.i help families buy anl their homes in the same streets and neighborhoods as i delivered newspapers in decades ago.

those people that are lacking lookingfor homes are usually the families want three bathrooms on one level especially since covid. everybody -- many people have moved out of condominiums and smaller places in a larger places that have outdoor areas available to them to get out side and enjoy the outdoors as well as inside. and really everyone ecial will everyone especiallytoday is looo they don't have their windows broken and cars stolen. parts of their cars taken off. to include garages into living

space limitations can be in today's world here in san francisco is ridiculous. r8 zoning in san francisco is is the last place where a large single family home can be bill. this bill seems to take that away from families who want to stay here in the city and will certainly encourage them to live in another area in the bay area. i don't understand why limitations in the neighborhood and the people who pay their taxes -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that your time.

>> hello. my name is mauda. i'm calling to oppose the legislation as a homeowner, as a parent, and as a professional. what families need especially single families is a stream lined permitting process so that growing and multi generational families can stay in san francisco. if a family want it renovate their home, an artificial threshold of 2500 square feet can make it harder for family it stay in san francisco. it will not improve affordable housing or keep the wealthy from billing homes. please reconsider this. thank you.

>> hi commissioners. my name is is karen. i'm a small contractor developer here in san francisco. i live in the village area. i have been working a long time in san francisco and i have concerns about the proposed legislation being brought forward. with the impact on families in san francisco. i'm a contractor, developer. i work in projects from five hundred square foot units to four thousand square foot buildings. i don't understand, i feel like one group is being discriminated against in this situation. i don't agree, one of the main

reasons is i wonder if the commissioners realize how long it take it get a permit in san francisco. from start to finish. you're looking at five years. that's where the problem is. concerned about housing cost, something needs to be done about the process not complicate it more than it already is. that's basically how i feel about it. i don't understand more layers onto the problem. thanks for your time, as i said, i have concerns about the

proposed legislation. >> i live and work in san francisco. i've been in san francisco for 30 years. i've worked for the planning department. i have not seen anything as bad as this legislation and trying to complicate people's lives. post pandemic one might say current pandemic world where family with children need more space and are leaving our siy iy in droves because they need more space. we're losing families in san francisco. we have the lowest rate in. our planning department is

broken. it takes months and years to build anything in san francisco. now we're asking everyday families to good through this process of proving to a political body that it is necessary and desirable for them to build a larger home for their family. this is an absurdity. i ask and urge you to oppose this horrible legislation. >> clerk: okay. members of the public. last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three. >> good afternoon commissioners.

on behalf of the housing coalition. we had previously sent in a letter that hack and spur coauthored together. it's not something that our members build but the additional cu's this would require, we are concerned about the work load for the planning department. one of the other big ideas. it's the intent of the ledge legislation -- it's gooding to get us a much bigger bang for our buck. if we want to incentivize the

building of apartment buildings in san francisco. a couple people mentioned taking that carrot approach as opposed to try to disincentivize things we don't want. this was mentioned by a couple speakers to actually understand how many projects this would have effected in the last five years

>> hello. my name is david. i'm an architect in san francisco. i've been practicing for well over forty years. been through the no growth movements of richmond specials. i see this proposal as simply a ruse to stop large housing. if you want to do that, that's fine. but this is not the way to do it. it seems to me -- by the way, i love this city. i love working and living here. if you really want to provide affordable housing and more housing. it's a much more global problem. it's not just limiting 2500 square feet. as far as i'm concerned. this is a minus ten, there are so many thing that's could be done or starting to happen.

i love the fact that we can now do adu's. i love the four units at corners and what's going to happen with this, if you look at all the parts of san francisco. almost every house out there is an unfinished garage and utility area over one flat. every one of those houses is already close to or close to 2500 square feet when you finish down below. you are discriminating against all of these people. i'm angry. i think this is one of the most id idiotic ideas i've seen in san francisco. this is almost nothing to do with no growth and nothing to do with housing.

upzoning the western part of the city so people can can add a second flat. if you upzone. people will do multi unit buildings. thank you. i agree with most of the point of the previous speakers. but the reality is the process right now five years. we don't need a conditional use process. the reasons because it is backlogged. you guys continue -- you have

these continuances every week that are four months out. why aren't we coming up with ideas of making the process easier for families to stay in san francisco. why aren't we coming up with ideas to make it more affordable. i read in an article about a non-profit organization in san francisco that are building for $750 per square foot kurnly. in relation to all the lummer prices everything has gone through the roof. this has pushed families out. this legislation even though the intent good, it needs an awful lot of work and changes. i believe it's ante family. it's a five year process.

we need to come up with creative ways. every part of the market is in turmoil right now. please revamp and talk about it and make the procedure for families to live in san francisco easier. thank you so much. >> i was on the call to support the trader joe's. i stayed onto listen to this. i'm not a homeowner but it's hard to find a single family home to accommodate. i have two in-laws that live in

fremont. it's hard to find places where my family can live especially with my in-laws age. i'm against this. we should make it easier in general to build all cosines off housing. different people with different budgets will find places that suit them. i'm in support of more density. i think people should be able to build an additional unit or more space if they want to. generally more restrictions make it more expensive to everyone to be able to live here. we need to develop more housing of all cosines. kinds.that's it.

>> clerk: okay. commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from the public. public comment is now closed. it is now before you. >> thanks for all the staff involved. especially all your experience. definitely in support of what we're looking at but i do think we need to have more of a discussion an figure out where we're going to land with the figures and square footages and whatnot. i'm interested to hear in what other commissioners have to say. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i want to thank everybody who called in today.

i want to thank commissioner mannedle man for his work on this project. good critical thinking. i'm going to start off but i want to hear from my fellow commissioners on their thoughts. there's a lot of different aspects of trying to solve different problems. identifying the problem we're trying to solve is critical to figure out how we want the legislation to end up and next steps. a few things i feel pretty strongly about but i'm hope to what the commission wants to do. what is the problem that we're trying to solve. from what i understand the problems we're try to go solve ing to solveand goals we're tryo

achieve is how to guide the development of new housing in san francisco for the coming decades. what this legislation achieves is it does stop the proliferation of very very large homes. sometimesthe very large homes when there's -- going to be more expensive than a modest home. in my perspective house sg verys very expensive in san francisco. it's expensive to build a house here. when talking being this legislation we're talking about properties that only a fraction of our population can can afford to purchase. many people can rent single family homes as well.

it begs the question if we're trying to stop very very large residences from coming into being, what are the right tools to do that. i would like to see this legislation be more refined and nuanced

>> i was also like to see this

program be more intensive base. so if it's adding density, then i think the maximum square footage should increase, essentially saying if you want to build a larger home that's great. we'd like you to do an rh1 and build out the adu and create an incentive to add more space for the additional unit. i also would like to hear what we think should be included in square footage. i think that's limiting what is counted to what square footage should be limited to whether it's usable, habitable square footage and what to define and support what happened in the last 10 years should not be relevant. i think the effective date of

the legislation should be the effective date, february of this year and approve the additional footage. if you're already at that square footage amount you can already expand your home and i do support conceptually the idea of some type of unit equity or ratio. and open to whether we're going to square footage or f.e.r. but depending on the zoning of the property to be somewhat comparable at least to the larger and a third may be too big and 20% may be more reasonable. those are my initial comments.

i wanted to ask to consider eliminating hr1 and hr2 besides just allowing the a.d.u.s and if it came up in the research conducted. >> thank you for the thoughtful feedback and question as well. i did notice folks making link with the density equation. we're working on that in the context of allowing for units through a waiver in each district. we did consider a lot of different permutation. while the supervisor feels strongly it doesn't make sense to limit the people or number of families living in a particular

envelope, we feel like the height and bulk zone in the residential districts is material to people's quality of life and their expectations for their neighborhoods. we had to be with the shifting terrain of the a.d.u. at the state level and the density law has made it fairly difficult to find a narrow path we can walk where we feel we're able to provide for an appropriate increase in density that's allowed with no strings attached in the h.r. district up to 4 and so it fits in the envelope but in a way to not allow for the possibility of frankly unlimited concessions and waivers from our planning code and residential design guidelines. that's why we're starting with a more narrow approach though it is one pending the housing element the ceqa hurdle we'd like to see applicable in all

hh.r. districts the district allowing four units and a.d.u.s according to height and bulk. i know it's important to think about and it's always shifting and can have legislation that can move it faster than what we're moving at and thinking of it as a package in how do we allow more homes in the land existing in the city and how we balance larger homes versus having more homes or make it encouraging how do we encourage more folks to say hey, you know what, it's worth it. i hear the comments about the cost. a home owner trying to enhance a modest home for their own development adding another kitchen and bathroom and walls and other things for other unit is a significantly larger cost

than just the renovation or expansion proposed. that's why i'm supporting a larger f.a.r. or square footage if we're going have one. do the directors want to answer this? i know we have through our housing element work and our housing policy team and equity council, wonder if they've waived in on this and what outreach we've gotten from communities of color on this particular legislation and if we heard a lot of from the community directly or through organizations? i think the report highlight the ways communities of color live in larger holds and in more populated and more people per household. if we haven't heard from those groups directly, i'd be very concerned on advancing the legislation without specific target outreach. director hillis or if you've done outreach you want to speak

to that'd be great as well. >> some of the goals from supervisor mandelman proposed is something we're looking at in our housing element. we're in the midst of the outreach process and back and forth with the public on the housing element. we haven't specifically talked about this legislation but concepts in the legislation are clearly also a part of our housing discussion. >> would you feel at liberty to say if the conversation from housing element or those you're reaching out to would favor having the restrictions or are you hearing like, yeah, we would like to have larger homes. we're living in larger homes.

we'd like to enlarge our properties. if not it's fine i just want to highlight if we haven't done the outreach it's a problem in advancing the legislation. >> i wouldn't be able to count what we're hearing at this point. >> we look forward to hearing from you and look forward to your thoughtful comments. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. >> i resonate with most of your comments. my comment i feel i need more finding for before going forward and in racial and equity lens we should ground ourselves before

every land use legislation. i would also advise supervisor mandelman's office and planning staff to look into our housing inventory. i remember in that discussion a couple of month ago there was data and it it spokes to the legislation. and how are we outreaching this to the community members that may be affects or greatly concerned about this. i do also believe that there

should not be a one size fits all for this type of solution for this kind of issue. we should look depending on the neighborhood. i'm kind of aware. not aware but concerned in terms of looking into the average home size in the city and even for neighborhoods because i think what this legislation, if i'm right, is trying to do is to make sure the monster homes where you're demolishing say a 2,000 and constructing it in a way that is up to 6,000 or 8,000 square feet. will that define a monster home? i also agree with commissioner tanner in terms of the adding of a.d.u.s and whether this is the intent of the legislation as

well in terms of the square footage and how to say in areas of rh1 and rh2 to increase the equitable size for an a.d.u. and not just i think appease for the planning commissioners to approve of. for me i'd like to hear more, see more findings on this. i would be actually probably more in favor in continuance of this and having more robust findings and discussion with other community members. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> as i listen, the more questions i here i have

additional questions. while i believe it's a good beginning point i think the discussion has to be far more subtle than nuanced before we can support the legislation. i do appreciate the beginning point. thank you to supervisor mandelman staff and public for weighing in. the first question i'd like to ask is r.m. included in the discussion. the legislation from what i understand addresses the district. i recall in january or february we looked at legislation that came from supervisor peskin limiting a cap of 2,000 square

feet and was a density related cap. my question is and this was expressed by a number of people, is one size fits all reel wily -- really what we need? the subtleties of the different neighborhoods i think requires us to be more neighborhood specific perhaps block or site or lot specific. i heard a number of people express that desire and a believe a unified cap of 2500 square feet is probably not equitable, hard to understand because who can really define what a 2500 square feet is. where i live the majority of homes range from 700 to 1100 square feet so a 2500 square

foot cap would be difficult to implement in this instance. the real question for me is maximum size rather than minimum density the a.d.u.? it would require a sponsor to apply for a variance of the code and not simply using c.u. criteria and for a code variance, something has to be proven as being an extraordinary circumstance. given the diversity of our city, perhaps that may be an equitable way to find metrics that really address what is at the core of the question. right sizing of unit expansion

and right sizing of existing enlarged homes or new homes in a city with limited land, resources and mandate for increased density. these are questions i want to put into the other important questions from my comments. >> thank you, commissioner. i can answer a few of the more procedural questions rather than the policy and fis -- philosophical question. you asked whether the r.m.s and right now it's just r.h. i believe the legislation from supervisor peskin's office are interim control placed on r.c., r.m. and most r.t.o. projects

not proposing to maximize they're residential density and they'll be in effect until july 22 of 2022 unless a supervisor proposes permanent controls in their place. i'll leave the rest of the questions out to the ether. >> that's a good answer for me to know. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> my comments are probably going to be jumping to a couple different areas. one is the legislation will produce, require additional process. and i'm not sure that process

necessarily produces anything since it's in a non-codified manner in the sense it requires conditional uses which are quite discretionary. other than the fact that it probably will create full employment opportunities for entitlement consultants, i'm not sure what it will ultimately do in terms of the desire. if you look at the initial comments that were made in presenting the legislation, three districts were brought forward. if one added pacific heights to

that grouping, these are the district not only exhibit the greatest amount of public angst with respect to civil family home either expansions or alterations, but also represent the larger majority of discretionary reviews which most of it relates to some of the same issues with respect to size of the projects number of bed rooms, height, etcetera, etcetera. when one brings forth a simple metric in terms of a square foot cap, it appears to be quite ash

try. -- arbitrary. outside of approaching the city neighborhood by neighborhood, which historically we have seen some of that. if you look at the first neighborhoods that initiated whether you want to call it design criteria versus a specific code amendment, that occurred with whistler park and vernal heights. now we have one mentioned for porona heights and the established f.a.r. the arbitrariness of the

numbers, the metrics doesn't necessarily apply to all neighborhoods. more importantly i think it's been already brought up a couple times here that the approach of doing this across the entire city is not an equitable process. i'm not sure people in bay view areas have heard of the legislation or know about it. and some other neighborhoods may not be aware of what is occurring. at this point in time i can't support this legislation.

>> i want to thank all the people who took the time to show up and testify and want to thank staff for their work and supervisor mandelman on identifying the issue and unlike the legislation supervisor mandelman proposed on r.c.f.s we voted on earlier and the legislation to increase density

at corners i'm excited to see, i'm having a great deal of difficulty with this particular piece of legislation for large houses even as modified by staff. i agree with virtually all the comments that were made my fellow commissioners but i'll repeat some of them so staff can try to sort through everything we're all saying to see where there is agreement in order should they want to move the process forward. i will start with my concerns and then talk about areas that i could see supporting legislation on if that's the pathway the planning department wants to continue to pursue. as i heard, i heard two goals.

one was to stop monster homes in district 8 and encourage density. i'm in agreement with the vast majority of the speakers who came today and is the correspondence we received the legislation even as modified by staff is way over broad in terms of addressing those two particular problems. to start with, it's not clear to me the problem of monster homes is pervasive across the city. we've been presented with no data whatsoever to indicate this is an issue that is felt with the same amount of intensity and emotion, for example, in the richmond or sunset or excelsior or bay view as felt in district

8. i'm loathe to start i am posing city wide regulations affecting those districts when as commissioner fung pointed out, it's not even clear the residents of that district understand what the legislation would do to home expansion. it's not like they would. it's not like most people track what happens at the planning commission on a daily basis and the fact that most that spoke are realtors and architects are the people who track what happens at the commission. i believe the legislation is extremely antifamily. an unnecessarily complicates and burdens life for families who we want to attract and retain in the city. it's not unreasonable for a family who wants to live in the city to try to find a house either as it exists or modify an

existing house so it has three bedrooms on one floor which is what parents want when they have small children as well as a garage that can handle one car. that is as was discussed earlier really challenging to cart kids to all their activities by public transportation and the reality is most, i won't say most, many families are looking for a house that has a garage in it. many families in the city, maybe most are two-income earners and childcare is extremely expensive and many rely on grandparents and other family members or au pairs to live with them to provide for children. finding a house with room in it for those kinds of caregivers is really important. and that was all before the

pandemic. now we have many people doing remote work looking for a small quiet space in their house in order to work from home. we don't know it will continue but it's a likely possibility. it's not unreasonable to think that and i agree with the prior speakers and commissioners who said i think the legislation is inadvertently going to affect way too many people in the city. if i look at the housing stock on the west side of the city they're smallish sized houses roughly 1200 square feet of floor and they have a garage with maybe a room behind the garage that's finished or unfinished and above they have living room, dining room,

kitchen and two small bedrooms. i believe what legislation is passed we have to allow to expand a second floor without getting a conditional use permit and at the moment i don't believe it's drafted to allow for that. i believe the legislation will result in the extraordinary increase on work load on planning department staff and commission without tangible benefits. i don't understand why we would be devoting so much of our time to single family houses when we have enormous projects we're dealing with on a weekly basis and it will divert resources from other projects with greater impact on the city and greater equitable impacts. i'm really struggling how to decide whether or not to grant a

conditional use permit. the idea that we'll be involved with size of bed rooms to grant a conditional use permit i find a distasteful exercise. i don't understand how we're supposed to make findings about necessary or desirability without guidance to company that and agree with the speakers on the one size fits all approach as being inconsistent how we think of and value our neighborhoods. it is not appropriate in my mind to have garages count as floor space against the calculations

and that any move to continue this type of approach needs to not punish people for wanting to convert their garage or having a garage. i do believe that much of the destruction around this is duplicative with the discussion we already have on d.r.s and will now be subjecting home owners to this rather discretionary process twice. one through the conditional use permit and one through the discretion review process and i don't think that's necessary or appropriate. so if we're going to pursue this kind of legislation, then i think we need to be very clear about what the goals are that we're trying to accomplish and narrowly tailor the legislation, target the legislation to accomplish those goals. so if the true problem that

we're wrestling with is egregious cases of real monster houses, 6,000 square feet in certain areas of the city we should be direct about that and address that head on. i also think that we should be creating incentive to increase density and we feed to be separating in a very clear way new construction from renovations. so with respect to new construction, i can see supporting legislation that had no requirement for people proposing a three-dwelling unit project in r3 zone or three dwelling project in an rh2 zone and if it's new construction with some amount of parity. in those two situations i don't have a problem if a unit has a requirement if it's an a.d.u.

it's one-third the size of the other units. in an rh1 zone and it's a new construction, i think if someone's providing an a.d.u. of some bear minimum size they shunt have to get a c.u. either. i think we need to be wary of using a percentage figure, for example if, you're build 2400, well, 2600 or 2700 square foot house and new construction i don't believe the a.d.u. has to be 900 feet, one-third, to avoid an a.d.u. it makes no sense. we talked how 2500 square feet is a reasonable at of square footage to provide the two-bedroom, two-bathroom house people want. and we have to address we require a c.u. for demolition.

if we're proposing some kind of exception to the c.u. requirement for house expansions, we undermine that if we still require the c.u. for demolition. i believe any re-writen and with respect to renovations we need to recognize people are limited by what's on their property. if they want to build an a.d.u., it's likely going to be very expensive. they may need to sprinkler and to tuck it into some space already pre set by what's there and we need to have rules that of adding the a.d.u. flexible because it will be likely being accompanied by an expansion of the house at the same time and

need to encourage that and not require c.u.s under those circumstances. and i do not believe that garages should count against this and think we absolutely need a sliding scale if we're going to continue down this path while a 4,000 square foot home may seem large in a neighborhood that has 25 x 100 lots and everything around it is 2,000 feet a 4,000 square feet will not seem out of context at all with a larger lot and any proposal to have some kind of cap if we're going to pursue, needs to have a sliding scale that accounts not only for lot size but as somebody else pointed out, for neighborhood context. i will also add it's not clear to me that the absolute square

footage limit is the way to go and f.a.r. may be more appropriate and don't want to take it off the table at this point in time. i would like to say i agree with what the commissioner said and maybe other commissioners were saying it implicitly that given all the comments in writing and testimony and points of view offered by commissioners, it would be appropriate and would move to continue this item until after the break where staff can go through all the information we heard and provide recommendations. >> is that a motion? >> i second that motion. >> commissioner fung.

>> question, commissioner diamond. do we want to think of the timing of the continuance with the next round of the housing element i think the housing element starts as a broad framework. >> i think that's a really good point, commissioner fung. i've been struggling with how we're dealing with this particular issue out of context with the larger issue in the housing element especially combined with commissioner moore's comments about whether the c.u. is the right way to go about this at all and it may be that setting rules that one has to seek variances to may be more appropriate than the c.u. process. i'm not sure i would necessarily agree with that but would definitely want it explored.

i'd be interested in comments on commissioner fung's comment. about the timing and whether you want to consider this ordinance separate from the housing element and what the timing is on the housing element. i will say, i recognize supervisor mandelman is dealing with a pressing issue in district 8 but deferring the rest of this discussion to the housing element discussion. i don't know. i put that out there and don't have strong feelings. i'd like to hear what staff and supervisor mandelman's office says. >> i'll jump in after that. the housing element is a relative time frame. we have to do an e.i.r. the next iteration of the draft

policy will be out at the end of this year and i don't know the exact date then there's the ceqa work and not until the end of 2022, really 2023 before we can have [indiscernible]. i certainly recommend this be linked with supervisor mandelman's legislation to allow fourplexes which is coming in late september. there seems to be agreement amongst you and many of the callers that we're looking for ways to create additional smaller moderate-sized homes and units in our districts. that's clearly a major component to this and you can't get additional density if all we allow for is a single-family

home. i think we should couple this and bring back recommendations based on your comments today with the supervisor's office in late september when we hear that component of overall housing legislation by supervisor mandelman. >> commissioner tanner, did you have more or just seconding the motion? >> i had one question in light of the comments, in particular commissioner diamond's comments. is there an option of an s.u.d.s and recently adopted s.u.d.s in staff report and if the issue is strong and acute in district 8 perhaps an s.u.d. for some portions of the district may be more appropriate and like the

experiment you have three s.u.d.s to learn from and decide if there's something in there amongst all three of them would be appropriate city wide and give us time to craft that in a manner with the outreach and understanding that would be necessary from different parts of the city. i know you can't speak to it but would that be a different direction perhaps to take the legislation? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. i appreciate the idea of special use district certainly. we certainly did consider the option of something tailored to particular neighborhoods but it's also the case that we do rely on our colleagues, the board of supervisors, when you put forward a proposal for city wide zone changes we've had conversations and i appreciate having the ordinance out there

has provided a platform to learn more what different folks think or may not work in their neighborhoods. honestly, it helps spark conversations in areas where the issue hasn't become what the issue has become in neighborhoods ideal with on a regular basis. it's a fair suggestion and something we can consider in terms of next steps and commissioner diamond mentioned maybe there's some things that happen en one time frame and others in other time frames and it's all very fair fodder for consideration. with respect to the timing question, dr. hillis, it was a fair point about linkage with the four-plex legislation and the timing and the housing element will put out what it puts out but will not involve

rezoning. there'll be a series of rezoning action to implement the housing element which i'm sure will create complexity and conversation to what we're talking about today. no time like the present to continue working on this critical issue but i appreciate your thoughtfulness today and comments we heard and wouldn't think an extension of this conversation until after the break would be unreasonable. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner moore. >> we sit on the hot seat literally every week with projects in the heights and the valley and feel the pain and see the conflicts and really understand what the issues are. maybe we have interim legislation to bridge us over the time since at this moment we're not quite there but could happen and could be the time to

bring it no more housing element update particularly the neighborhood inputs missing from a larger number of neighborhoods that may be affected. and would allow us to perhaps be more comprehensive in terms of time and complex and different neighborhoods have the same issues. the issue from the legislation from supervisor peskin is based on a precedent in that district. it's not an abstract on its own. it's different from what's happening in the heights and valley. why not find the common ground where there is a broader city wide understanding of what this means and that gets in the policy of understanding right sizing. right sizing is crucial to all of it. i want to add one small comment

which made me think deeply of the responsibilities of the commission are. last week we had a home i divided by the average size of housing we're asked to approve which ranges in the 2030 square foot and realized i could stick 38 housing units into this single family and leave it for that for people to understand what our responsibility is we need to bring to the discussion. >> thank you. commissioner diamond you made the motion. is there a particular date you were targeting after the break

we can go to end of september as suggested earlier. >> i believe we should hear it at the same time as the four-plexes. september 23 or 30. >> 23rd. >> i would propose it. >> there's a motion to continue it to september 23. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commission president koppel. >> so moved. the motion passes unanimously. commissioner diamond, there's an

echo coming out of your speaker. thank you. commissioners, that places us on item 13 as items 11 and 12 have been continued to july 29 for case number 2015-009955cua1525 pine street. a conditional use authorization. please note on may 6, 2021 after hearing and closing public comment a motion to approve failed. subsequently, a motion to continue to june 17, 2021 with direction from the commissioners was adopt a vote of 5-2 with commissioners imperial and moore against where it was continued to today's date.

staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> thank you. the sponsor will be provided with three minutes and members of the public provided with one minute as it is the second hearing on this item. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with department staff. the proposal would demolish the one story restaurant and construct a new building with a restaurant and 21 dwelling units. the project realize on the density bonus for a total of 21 units. on may 6 the plan commission held a public hearing and after lengthy deliberation they

continued the project and direct the sponsor to further investigate what would impact the dwelling units at 1545 pine street. on june 1, the project sponsor submitted an updated statement and affidavit requesting one additional incentive. other than the procedural change no modifications have been made to the project since may. they're now seeking two incentives for the bay windows that do not meet code and seeks waiver from eight development standards including rear yard, usable space and transparency, height and bulk. the department has received many letters in opposition to the project. those in support cite the new creation of housing and reuse of

features and the return of the restaurant and ally activation. those in opposition generally expressed concerns over the proopposed -- proposed building impact on light and air on the adjacent building. the density and over supply of housing and construction impact, historic preservation of the diner and the lack of pedestrian safety on austin street. the action item before you are as follows. conditional use authorization to allow development on a 3,000 square foot lot as well as allowing a 2800 square foot restaurant to operate 24 hours a day and a density law for the concessions and waiver. staff finds the project is on

balance consistent with the conditional use criteria, general plan and the objectives of the general plan as stated in the staff report. staff recommends you approve the two actions before you for two reasons. a housing project would provide 21 new dwelling units and two on-site affordable units on a narrow that constrains the available floor area and qualifies for the requested incentive and subsequent waivers. though the diner, a culturally significant business for its connection to the san francisco lgbtq history would be demolished it integrates salvaged material and providing the late night eatery would provide a 24 hour development with more eyes on the street. the department finds the project is necessary and compatible with

and will not be detrimental to persons for adjacent persons in the vicinity. the project sponsor is here and has a brief sponsor as well and will be available for questions afterwards. >> clerk: oddly enough i did have the sponsor's phone number in my sights under the list of attendees and it just dropped off. project sponsor, you should call back as soon as possible. i saw it.

>> there you are. >> i'm with the project sponsor. the architect will be on the line and can answer any specific design comments. the project was continued to allow further discussion and analysis regarding the courtyard. after of the hearing the sponsor prepared a light analysis. on june 25 they shared results with the owners and answered

questions. they are also here and will answer questions and get them on the line after i give my talking points. there's a negligible difference because of the sun's prevailing entrance to the courtyard. the analysis shows there's no health and safety impact from the project and the amount of light matches normal indoor conditions. the project sponsor studied a reflective wall to allow natural light and potentially create intense glare and heat and the cat walk conditions does not meet fire code. the project sponsors looked at adding light and found adding lighten hanses brightness and as a good neighbor the project sponsor has amended their plans to do so. at the may 6 hearing whether the courtyard conditions were

unusual were also discussed. we found the issue of interior was called out and discussed and make findings it was not unique but common in the neighborhood and the courtyard was generous by courtyard standards. our project which matched the courtyard further will the side and the courtyard meets building code standard for exposure 16 x 16. and the caption notes were attached and have been submitted as part of the record. before my comments i want to reiterate we understand the frustration of others at the austin but want to make sure every owner knew about the project and were all required to sign a disclosure that a project was on file and even if they do not read the disclosure, anyone purchasing a unit should have

known the single story restaurant would not remain and it has the full protections of the housing accountability and the planning commission cannot disprove the project or lower density it less it finds there would be an impact and would have to add policy conditions and health conditions as well as mitigating or avoiding public health or safety impact other than rejecting the project. the findings cannot be made as shown by the report by pre vision. thank you for your time and have any questions please let me know. >> thank you. that would conclude project sponsor's presentation. we'll go to the appellants, and organized on opposition.

there should be three speakers and each member of that group will be permitted to speak only as long as as any other member of the public. you'll have three minutes but you'll need each speaker to take up one minute. is this ms. calderon. >> mark. calling in opposition to the building height of the project. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> please go to slide 4 of the presentation. >> hold on one second. let me make someone else the presenter. i'll let you know when your slides are up.

your slides are coming up now. you can start. >> okay. hello. my name is mark cubert. i do not oppose. the slide doesn't reflected and using the data from the sponsor's light study the inside units will be dark and inside the unit we measured at to the window and took a picture of the living room. the lied is 147 and 50% lower and considered dark and very dark in the kitchen. slide 5. we've done the same procedure for all the mornings throughout the year. the morning the most impacted and always in the dark all year. having natural light in the morning is important for me that's when i spend most the time at home before i go to work. you can see on the slide the

afternoons are impacted and very dark during fall, winter and spring. >> samantha you're next. >> scroll through slide 7 and 8. the sponsor study tried to match the light impact by presenting light averages outside the courtyard. you can see the actual light reduction is significant. more than 90% in the morning and afternoons compared to what we have now and showing the proposed building sets them on the roof with the correct sun orientation and measure the second and third floor light using a meter. at the height of the pine street building is lowered to four floors and at the light at 10:30 a.m. is [indiscernible] the light blocked will be an eight-fold improvement for the second floor which is the most impacted unit. >> go to slide 10 and then 11.

go ahead, samantha. >> so as you'll see on slide 10 and 11, if you reduced the building height four floors the light blockage is difference and there's an eight-fold improvement in the amount of light. >> in conclusion, our light study shows the residents of the 10 east facing studio units which only have one window will be spending prolonged period of time without natural light. the lack of access to natural light is detrimental to the physical and mental health of any person and the sponsor solution of adding a handful of light bulbs is not a good solution and furthermore there are no guarantees the project sponsors will maintain the artificial light and maintain

and should lower the height by four floors. if the commission approves they're setting a dangerous precedent that allows developers to destroy the inhabitability on the banner of increasing housing when they're adding substandard housing to the city's inventory. thank you. >> that concludes the organized opposition.

>> and this is what we refer to as the pope street lgbtq community. and the project will make possible it's my hope it will soon be built. thank you for listening. >> hello, commissioners. thank you for allowing me a chance to speak. i'm a resident in one of the units and would like to strongly urge the commission reject the project sponsor's application and have that come up with a four-story development.

first of all we don't have windows facing trees and only natural light comes from the east. the proposed building will cause all the light to be blocked as demonstrated in slide 1 and you'll see the light first thing in the morning. [indiscernible] there's no match for natural sunlight and urge the commission to please have the plan for no more than a three or four story building without an adverse environmental impact. lastly, i'd like to point out over 200 new homes have been added in the last few months in a two-block radius.

>> thank you. >> i do not support the development on pine street because of the impact of the surrounding units and quality of life therein. i ask the commission consider the natural light and liveability for myself and the neighbors. the builders have not adequately addressed this and this project as proposed disproportionately supports the building owner rather than residents. i'm not opposed to more housing in the neighborhood but there's got to be a better way to get this done. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is alan choi.

i'm a musician born at ucsf, for instance. next year will be my 70th birthday. thank you for the opportunity to lend a support. the train car is not only an historic artifact from our local past but also a symbol of an enduring legacy and metaphor of building forward together. my interest is more about the perpetuation of the diner. it was part of the system of the train which i remember ride 1950s across the bridge. it's been hosting a community and camaraderie fueled by classic diner comfort food, a whimsical aesthetic and it's not

just anywhere you can experience such a jubilant scrumptious haven of mutual respect and inclusivity. >> that is your time. >> i want to comment on the disclosure that the residents signed with respect to the project. we were informed the building would be 65 feet tall. the disclosure is a mixed use development. prior to the development i went to the planning department website and the architectural drawings currently submitted at the time were 65 feet. who would go through the trouble of filing to change their minds? so we signed our disclosure and did purchase our condo. i believe then the planning department or commission staff recommended to the developers

they apply for the state density bonus and build a taller building. due to the significant light impact to result on many units at the austin i ask this be denied. one last point, we never opposed the reconstruction of the grub steak restaurant. thank you for your time. thank you for your time. >> hello, i'm a neighbor and not feeling well together my voice is odd. i just wanted to call in to support this project. i moved this neighborhood because there's a huge number of opportunities living here and heard on the call someone earlier someone who would like to become my neighbor is exciting for me. i hope we can welcome as many

new neighbors to the neighborhood as possible. thank you very much for your time and i want to register i agree with the staff. we should build this thing. thank you. >> i'm a drag queen and 30-year resident of the area and of grub steak. i spoke with the owners and i've seen the plans and i'm very happy with it. [indiscernible] i find to be the eyesore.

>> hello. did we lose you? your connection is cutting in and out. >> sorry, can you hear me? did you hear my intro? >> we heard about 30 seconds of your comments. >> great. so i am in hope this is going to go and get built. there's pieces of the grub steak that i believe will be still installed into the new building which makes me very happy. it's been a long time part of the lgbtq plus community and then i hope it continues to be. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a 10 year residents of this neighborhood.

i actually wanted to bring your attention to the project that was planned approved by the commission in february 2017. it was on 198 valencia street which was going to shadow across and this commission approved rule 6-1 to lower the height on that development in order to not cast a shadow. i would ask the commission make a similar decision today because when we bought the homes in our building in the austin we had a similar understanding our homes would not be under a shadow. the last few days the project sponsor has been unethical in creating crick -- clicky fish bate being -- bait and as far as the disclosures i was an

original owner and i never signed anything like that. thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is robert. i live in district 5. my building is on two sides of my building like there's allies but there's also building that cast a shadow on my apartment and the dining room and the kitchen. i mean, it doesn't even make a huge difference to me. i still have enough natural light. i think this density bonus project i don't think there's any health and safety reasons to deny the project. i ask that you approve it. thank you.

>> can you hear me right now? >> yes, we can. >> hello. my name is emily jane corbett. i'm a long time resident of the bay area and calling in support of the grub steak diner. i think the project should continue if the manner it's been formulated. in particular i think it's been an iconic much needed spot for the lgbtq plus community as noted before and would like to support the project. thank you. >> hello. my name is parker jay. i only have a minute so i'll keep my comments really brief but i live a block from 25 pine

street and want to call in and express my strong support for this development using the density bonus. we need as much as housing units as possible in san francisco and the neighborhood is well poised to add the density with transportation and i don't think there's health or safety reasons to deny the project. thank you. >> hi, this is jill richie. born in san francisco and the owner of vegan pick across the street i'm in support of. it's better for business. it's better for housing. i think the neighborhood needs it and again i'm 100% in support. thank you for your time.

>> go ahead, caller. we'll take the next caller. >> i'm calling in to vocalize my support for this project exactly the way it is stated with the current height and dimensions. that's it. >> hello, i'm in full support of the grub steak proposed planning inviting people back to the city, bringing new housing and a venue like the grub steak is a flagship of reciprocity amongst the neighborhood and the community. i'm in full support.

>> hi, my name is daniel darkman. as an owner of a business very near the proposed development i am in full support of it. i definitely could use the additional housing in the neighborhood after we've lost so many people to the neighborhood. thank you. >> hello, my name is raul maldonado and calling in support for this. initially sought authorization using the density bonus. when you have this many residents and not to be displaced we can keep them in s.f. and keep the business flowing particularly within that

location of san francisco. i tried to support small businesses as much as i can but it's great to have more neighbors to support the businesses. thank you and have a great remainder of you're week. -- your week. >> good afternoon, i'm gary virginia. i'm a past president of san francisco pride and past president of positive resource center. i'm the organizer of the petition that went to the commission on july 12 with 67 signatures of lgbtq leaders representing more than 25 different organizations and businesses in support of this project. the owner reached out it our community more than three years ago asking us what we should keep and [audio digitizing] and historical architectural units

and we did all we could abiding by the law and want this to go through to salvage the gub steak. we want sparky's diners and we keep losing lgbtq defenses and we are in full support and hope there's no more delay on this project that's been delayed more than five years. >> hello. i used to live on the austin and i would request to come up with a different size and i lost access to light and there was an change to my mood and i'll be

moving and looking for a more sunny home. i'd like the commission to take into account seriously the concerns being brought up about losing sunlight. there's no replacement to direct natural sunlight. ambient lighting cannot do that and if it could do that the planning codes would be different. thank you for listening. >> good afternoon, commission. i'm mike chen. i'm a president of district 2 and have been across the corner at franklin and pine and walk by this site a lot and think it's a great re-use of a lot currently one story and commercial only to something mixed use and creates more amenity to the neighborhood and housing. delays add more cost and fees and we'd like to have it and makes things much harder. thank you very much. >> thank you, members of the

public. last call for public comment. press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line unmuted that's your indication to begin speak. >> i'm a d5 resident and support the project. i only wish it had been approved earlier. it's been in planning review since 2016. i think it will be a great project to improve the neighborhood and also add more housing for san franciscans. thank you. >> hi, this is patricia rose. i'm not opposed to the grub steak restaurant. i'm asking the project at 1525 pine be modified to reduce the impact on the 20 homes of the austin. the application of the state density bonus program to this project does not provide value to san francisco and its residents. why would you ruin the liveability of 20 unit for six

units in a new building. i'm sure it was the best of intentions but common sense must take precedence. i'm asking you to deny the conditional use permit for 1525 pine street as planned. please ask the developer to make modifications to the structure so it doesn't impact so many. thank you. >> hello. >> commissioners, yes, i'm a resident of the austin and deeply opposed to this. i live in the light well, facing the light well east, all my light is going to be taken. i'm disabled and was forced into early retirement. i'm not asking for a spacious

bedroom, garage or backyard or terrace. i'm asking for light. we have one window for circulation, for air. those of you calling in about grub steak, it's not about a restaurant. this is about the residents living here and those of us who did not sign a waiver. it is not fair to take our light away. it is just not a good quality of life. thank you. >> hello. i'm calling to say please approve this project. i live in a small studio in the neighborhood and love my small apartment. it enables to live near all the places i love and be a part of life in this city. i could not afford a bigger unit and could be a super commuter.

i know there's concerns about the smaller residences but it's truly an asset to people trying to live in the city. please approve so more people can live in the neighborhood like me. >> hello. >> go ahead. >> i'm brent pope. i'm a former engineer for pg&e and i challenge anyone in the austin project to say they're adversely affected by the value of their homes in the austin because of this project. i understand there is going to be less light possibly for this project but that's the nature of san francisco and live in an

apartment that is in the light well and there are challenges but i'm sure they can be averted. and i do challenge anyone to say their property value would get impacted by this project. i do support the grub steak. thank you very much. >> >> okay, commissioners. that concludes public comment on this item. i take it back. we have a late request. >> linda chapman. they do us a favor in replacing the unique survivor with replicas. the sought a tear down in any other neighborhood this ancient lunch wagon would be a landmark and tourist destination. the city density bonus you can't

be constrained to eliminate the standards of the city code that make housing livable in neighborhoods. we have city attorney and we have legislators and we need to respond to the argument of people that they should be able to eliminate the standards altogether. it could be worse if you don't give us what we want. they threaten the people who are objecting at the meeting i attended and also in your file. you look for subterfuge in their claims and then give them a subsequent response. >> thank you, ms. chapman. that is your time. >> hello. this is david i'm speaking on

behalf of one of the property owners in the austin. it's in conceivable we're still having this hearing to approve the project. if there was 20% shadow on a public park you'd be considering that significant. we're talking about averages of 50% or more loss of light to these human people and that is clearly significant. ms. pelosi already identified the state density bonus law that talks about any specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment allows the local jurisdiction to deny the state density bonus. this is reference to objective standards. the objective standards here have been in the planning code and in the building code that identify how a building should

be built to provide light. it's all in the lux standard in the study provided by the project sponsor. those lux standards show what pitch black is and what dark is. >> thank you for your time. commissioners that will conclude public comment on the item and it is now before you. i was supportive of this project first time around. >> i still support it today. commissioner tanner. >> thank you. to the project sponsor and everyone who called in and i'll be brief with this as it's the second go of this project. i want to thank the project sponsor for the analysis they performed to care a code compliant height with the state density bonus project. i think that illustrates not a

significant difference of five feet and the proposed project. i also want to commend again the outreach and work that the project sponsor has done with the community as evidenced by the testimony and correspondence received in re-creating a cherished and beloved landmark in the city. i'll repeat what i said in the last hearing. i don't see how the commission can take a look at the project and deny it by allowing the austin to have units that go on to this courtyard. that's a decision maybe before i was on the commission and took great pain and work by the commission to sculpt and craft

the austin and times have change and the neighboring rules have changed. they've changed not that significantly though in that a 60 foot versus a 79 foot building does cast additional shadow and there'll always be casting shadows from the building. and if you'd like to respond to confirm what was written in the brief from ms. pelosi the testimony regarding the courtyard at the austin being greater than or equal to similar courtyards for high rise buildings in san francisco why units get light and air from the courtyard. is that an accurate summary provided by ms. pelosi. >> i want to make sure i understand your question, commissioner tanner. are you asking if the courtyard provided for the austin is

something similarly seen throughout other developments in the city? >> yes. >> that is correct. we do. >> to provide light and air for the units in the courtyard. >> and if there's anything unusual about those units on the austin facing the courtyard that in the variance i believe that was approved for the project is there anything did we need a variance, obviously, it needed to say we're doing something we normally don't do like going on the street i understand but if there's any insight to the variance how it's different or extremely different than other variances for these types of units. >> i can maybe speak to that and may have been part of the item many years ago. there would be nothing in that decision or in the review of the project that would require an

adjacent property to remain unbuilt. under the building code and planning code you have to satisfy all your requirements on site. i wouldn't see any reason to deny the project for the reason that they're granted a variant themselves for the current configuration. >> thank you. to understand the variances as granted and we're able to find this building could meet the variation from the code and the code was able to meet it on site. >> correct. >> thank you very much. with that i'll make a motion to approve the project as proposed. >> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for staff, please. since we last saw the project the project sponsor has added lights to the light well which

shine on the light well of the austin. the project plans show the location of those lights but there is no condition of approval if i understand correctly requiring the approval of the lights or maintenance of the lights. can we add a condition to do so >> [please stand by] . . . .

>> then one other question. there is one unit in the proposed project that's causing me some concern. it feels like we're recreating with the unit the same problem

that exists. is there any way to increase light or change the dimensions of that unit so we're not creating similar problems >> i think actually, commissioner, that the project sponsor put together specifically related to unit 203. if she is still on the line. i can pull it up and we can take a look at it. give me one second, please. >>