. >> clerk: remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgov television is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment on each item on today's agenda. opportunities to speak in today's public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 146-739-4778. when we reach the item that you are interested in commenting on, please press star, three to enter the queue.

when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will have three minutes, and you will hear a chime when your time is almost up. when your time is up, i will mute your line and take the next caller lined up to speak. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly, state your name, and turn down the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we do expect commissioners moore and chan to

be absent today. first on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case 2020-007481-cua at 5367 diamond heights boulevard, also known as 1900 diamond street. a conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to october 14, 2021, and item 2, 2019-011944-ofa, 660 third street, proposed for continuance to october 14, 2021, item 3-a, 2018-015983-cua at 136 del mar street proposed for continuance to october 21, 2021, and item 4,

2020-000788-cua at 722 wisconsin street, has been withdrawn. furthermore, item 5, at 2021-003142-cua, at 333 fremont street, and finally, 2021-004810-crv, commission rules and regulations, is being proposed for a continuance with no set date. we will open this item up for public comment, and again, we are only speaking to the matter

of continuance. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> hi. i am michelle [inaudible] the program director for the mission s.r.o. program collaborative and a member of the race and equity coalition. i'm here to respond to the proposed [inaudible] that state the commission directs the planning department to ensure -- >> clerk: ma'am, we're not discussing that matter now. we're only taking public comment on the proposed continuance of it. >> oh, okay. i will lower my hand. >> clerk: thank you. >> oh, hi. it's georgia schiutish. i hope you had a good break. i'm just wondering why it's

being continued, the rules and regs. i was going to comment why it's only two minutes. usually, three minutes would be better. dr. fauci said we would not be together until the spring because of the variant, so could you just please explain why you're going to continue the rules and regs indefinitely. thank you. bye. >> clerk: sure. miss schiutish, i'll try. in our explanation to the public, it appeared to create more confusion, and given our attempt was not palatable to community organizations, we're going to go back to the drawing board to see if there's something that's more accepted, but at this time, we don't see any need to make those changes.

again, there really weren't any intended real substantive modifications, only to provide clarity to the public as to current procedures, so we're just going to hit pause on that effort. members of the public, last call for public comment on all items proposed to be continued. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and those items proposed to be continued are now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you for the explanation. i move to continue. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion and second to continue all items as proposed -- [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. zoning administrator, what say you in relation to item 3-b? >> i will continue the item to october 21. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, that will place you under your consent calendar. the remaining item hereunder constitutes your consent calendar and will be acted upon by a separate act of the commission, and there will be no separate hearing unless a member of the commission, staff, or public so requests, in which case there will be a public hearing. item 6, 2021-003994-cua, at

3995 alemany boulevard. members of the public, this is your time to comment on the consent calendar. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is now closed, and the item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that -- well, there is a member of the public requesting to speak. should we take that caller? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. we are taking comment on the consent calendar. did you want this item removed from the consent calendar -- >> i was working from -- [inaudible] >> clerk: then, commissioners,

there is a motion to approve item 6 on your consent calendar. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that item passes unanimously 5-0, and will place us on item 7, consideration of adoption draft minutes for july 29, 2021, joint meeting and regular hearing. miss hester, this will be your opportunity to speak to the items. >> sue hester. i'm commenting on the minutes of the joint hearing. it's been difficult getting the motions that were approved.

i got them after 5:00 yesterday, and i got some of them today. i don't think the planning commission is well served by getting minutes of complicated cases at the last minute. i don't think anyone has read them, because even it is difficult for people that are familiar with the project, and so my question is when they're posted to be adopted, are the minutes including the motions? thank you. i want the commission to puzzle this through with me. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on the minutes. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. i would only respond to miss hester's concern related to 530 sansome in that the commission

and/or staff made no amendments to the draft motions that you adopted, so those motions remain the same as when the case motion was made one week or even two weeks prior to your consideration of those motions, so there should not have been any substantive changes to any of those motions, so they are the same as those that you reviewed prior to the hearing. i'll leave it at that. if there are no other comments or questions, we do need a motion to adopt the minutes. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond?

>> commissioner diamond: move to approve both sets of minutes. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, and on those motions to approve both sets of minutes from july 29 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0, placing us on item 8, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i just had a question for director hillis, and maybe other staff who want to respond. i'm just curious now things are going. i know we kind of free opened, and maybe there's kind of confusion in public service to counters, but i'm assuming we've been able to maintain some appointments for those who have been doing business with city departments, just maybe an update on how things are going

with the delta variant and how things are challenging many organizations and the reopening efforts. that's all. >> director hillis: commissioner tanner, happy to -- was going to mention this during my comments, but we continue to accept walk ups and approvals over the counter during regular business hours. one thing is employees telecommuting, the original date they were going to come back to the office was in early september, just after labor day. that's been pushed back to november 1 as the date, so most

of our staff will continue to telecommute until november 1 and then to a hybrid commute to the community, so i believe that's going to be the case, as well, for in-person commission hearings, that they won't start until at least early november. >> commissioner tanner: i appreciate that. >> clerk: yeah. i was going to add, that although i haven't heard any additional word, the intention was to open city hall in early november. commissioners, if there's no further comment from you, we can move onto department matters, item 10, director's

announcements. >> director hillis: so welcome, commissioners. one, the board of supervisors returned from their summer recess. august 27 is the last day for fiscal committees and legislation to be heard. september 3 is the last day to amend legislation, and september 10, the last day to pass bills, and then, the governor has until october 10 to sign bills. and this is relevant because there's been activity on both s.b. 9 and 10, which will have implications for us. to remind you, s.b. 10 gives cities the options of rezoning a parcel, up to ten units, without going through environmental review. that was passed out of the assembly on monday, 41-9. it's going to go back to the senate, and then, we'd need the governor's signature. s.b. 9, which would allow for duplexes and lot splits for

single-family zoned lots also passed out of the assembly today, so it's going to go to the senate and then to the governor's desk. but we'll provide you either a memo or informational hearing. and then, on the budget and actual financial situation, just wanted to give you what happened actually last year. we ended the year with a $12.8 million shortfall. our finance team and budget

team did a great job managing that shortfall, so we were able to fill our expenditures and bring in some deferred revenue to balance that budget last year, so again, huge lift by our finance team. we're looking at better revenues for the upcoming year but still some shortfalls, and as you know, we just wanted to give you an update on where we ended last year, and that's all i have. >> clerk: okay. thank you, director hillis. commissioners, that'll place us on item 11 for review of pass events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. there is no report from the

board of supervisors or the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did meet while you were on break twice. they don't take a summer hiatus. they met on august 4 and august 18. on august 4, they commented on 2400 mariposa street. that is on your agenda later today for the same purpose, but they also delegated minor scopes of work to the planning department, so if there are no questions, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction

of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be when the item is reached in the meeting. general public comment will be heard for 15 minutes, and when the amount of time exceeds that limit, it will be moved to the end of the agenda. >> oh, hi again. it's georgia schiutish. i sent you all an e-mail on the 20 of this month, last month -- or last weekend about this excavation across the street from me, and the excavation is to create a basement unit in the basement through a bedroom unit, and it had egress problems, as i detailed in the thing. and actually today, four of those big things took away all

that beautiful soil, and when i saw that, i couldn't help but think about the ohlone indians and what would they think? i think the open floor plan is sort of losing its popularity because it's an inefficient design, and you can have a more efficient design to have three bedrooms on one level. and then, you can use the garage level and share the rear yard instead of turning it into a bunker, just like across the

street is. this thing about putting a unit in the garage where a garage unit is required, this curb cut could be retained for m.t.a. street parking. it's something that i hope the rdat and the staff and commissioners will promote a different template, so this would be important for those projects seeking densefication, especially those being done by developers and speculators. that's it. be well, be safe, bye.

>> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. seeing no other requests to speak, we can move onto item 12. these are planning code and zoning map amendments. miss flores, the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, planning department staff. today, i'm joined by zoning administrator mr. teague, and we also have mr. lee hepner from the supervisor's office to speak on the item today, so i'll go ahead and invite mr. hepner to say a few words, and i will follow up with staff

presentation. >> thank you. hello, president koppel and commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. these are targeted amendments that are responding to community concerns. far be it from an omnibus bill or sweeping citywide changes, every once in a while, we come forward with a bill like this that are addressing needs of the community, all of which are set forth in the really great staff report by planning staff veronica flores. thank you so much. the amount of context and analysis in there is really

something. i want to address just a few matters before turning it back to commission and staff. in the staff report, one of the staff recommendations is to increase the abandonment time in the chinatown district from 18 months to three years. abandonment provisions are really important to our zoning district. they provide strong incentives for landlords and property owner to see release their property -- owners to release their properties for advantageous uses, in this case, size limits described, and without this, we run the risk of having property owners and landlords sit on their

sites instead of actively marketing something. so i really want to say that those abandonment issues are really important in a zoning district, particularly in the context of parallel efforts that have come before this commission. much of this legislation is aimed at providing a little more flexibility in our code, and for that, we have particularly in mind the large legacy business banquet halls, which are really cornerstones of the chinatown community. we have strong desire to maintain the long-term viability of those uses, particularly as we anticipate construction projects like the

100% affordable project at 772 pacific, which is a site of malaysia, a really wonderful banquet hall that everybody has been to or should go to. i've forwarded to the commission yesterday evening a couple of comments that we have received, suggestions, that i would like to make sure are on the record before the commission this afternoon, even though they are not addressing planning staff reports. one pertains to the chinatown mixed-use districts and replacing the references to institutional uses with the slightly narrower institutional community use.

i think that that just makes sense, and then, there's a suggestion that came in that we adopt some version of modified storefronts, i believe more specifically at the intersection of columbus and union. equip, i would want to talk to planning staff and deputy city attorney vickie wong for their advice on that, but given the strong desire for special groceries and for the desires to keep what limited number of

locations are in the area. thank you for your consideration, and i think i've said enough, and thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. hepner. i'll first start with the changes in the chinatown district. in these districts, social service will be allowed to exceed the use size maximums with a conditional use authorization. in the chinatown community business district, the maximum would be 5,000 square feet. these site limits would not apply to a restaurant that is a

legacy business or an constitutional use in all the chinatown districts, and the last amendment in the chinatown districts is that uses that exceed the use size maximum would be considered a [inaudible] or if a business has not been in operation for a period of 18 months. currently, this is a three-period. the revision to the abandonment clause, as well. the resulting merger would still need to be under the maximum use size in the district. and lastly, the north beach financial service limited financial service and business

or professional service subdistrict boundaries would now exclude parcels on powell street south of union street. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance with modification because it supports the small businesses in the chinatown mixed use districts, the north beach, and polk street neighborhood commercial districts. the proposed ordinance responds to specific community concerns but could potentially yield benefits to other businesses, as well. so i'll go over the proposed modifications, and the first proposed modification is that in addition to c.u.a. findings when considering [inaudible] requesting to exceed the use size maximum, the planning commission shall find two additional aspects, and the first is that the proposed use

primarily serves chinatown, and the second is that exceeding the use size maximum is appropriate for the proposed use and parcel. the second recommended modification is to retain the three-year abandonment period for use sizes in the chinatown district. this time frame is consistent with other districts, and it's in keeping with the three-year abandonment policy decision that you made in 2019. and the last recommended modification is more of a technical correction. this relates to some changes made during the 2019 chinatown [inaudible] related to the chinatown district's nonresidential use size control. the additional language stated that use size would not not considered abandoned if the change of use is for a legacy

business or institutional use or it's a run to business after the three-year abandonment period. so the amendment is that the new size [inaudible] and the proposed language for this technical correction was included on page 4 of your staff report. all of these recommendations still meet the intent and goals of the proposed ordinance, and they would still yield the same results. as you've seen in your packet, the permit received one public comment regarding the proposed ordinance, and the comment was from a building owner, stating the difficulty in renting out one of the commercial spaces in the chinatown visitor retail district. in addition to that comment, staff also received two additional e-mails, showing

their support for the proposed ordinance. this concludes my presentation, and again, the staff administrator and i are available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, veronica. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star, three to enter the queue. when your line has been unmuted, you may begin speaking, and through the chair, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is alan low. i'm pro bono counsel for chinatown community development center. ccdc is in full support of this proposed legislation with the recommendations of supervisor peskin's office on their modifications. these are important technical changes to c.c.b., c.c.r., and crnc zoning controls. it achieves the original intent of this legislation by

preserving chinatown and ensuring that there's not an encroachment of the financial district into chinatown, but most importantly, it does revitalize or help revitalize the chinatown neighborhood, grant avenue, that commercial corridor, has been decimated by covid-19 and the subsequent economic pandemic. these proposed changes will encourage community uses, bring museums, and hopefully more foot traffic to grant avenue and all of chinatown. we respectfully request that the commission support this legislation as it is an important step for bringing chinatown back to life. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john kettle here with reuben, junius, and rose. we are representing one of the

building owners in chinatown. chinatown has some of the strictest and most detailed zoning codes in the city, understanding the special unique community and resource that chinatown is. as of today, the zoning has size controls that employ very strict maximums on the size of the commercial spaces. in china unto, you cannot go -- chinatown, you cannot go over 4,000 or 5,000 square foot, depending on the building you're in, and there's no availability to go to ask for a variance to that. it's to maintain the small neighborhood scale of chinatown. i will note in recent years, these controls have been begun to be applied on upper floors of the building that, practically speaking, we have not seen that happen before, and that's kind of been

happening as the last year has gone on, so this is any space in a building, second floor, third floor, as well. this legislation does help with that. it allows to exceed these use size limits for certain nonprofits. as of right now, the legislation says the nonprofits must primarily serve chinatown, which is, as you can imagine, pretty restrictive in terms of nonprofits that primarily or only serve chinatown. we are proposing, and when i say we, my client who owns the building, but there's also the two letters that miss flores had mentioned are also from other building owners in the neighborhood asking for a small change to open up this exception slightly to say that you could exceed the use size maximums for nonprofits that include chinatown as one of their service communities. just in the last year, my

client's buildings, they've had interests from two different nonprofits that do provide services in chinatown -- >> clerk: that's your time. >> thank you. >> i just had a question. what is a philanthropic facility. do they get deals on renting places? that is the question i had. >> clerk: if that concludes your comment, maybe staff would respond. this is not a question-and-answer period. >> i tried calling the planner number. i never did get any information at all. i'll try again. >> clerk: all righty. thank you. members of the public, last

call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, this matter is now closed, and this item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: two questions. first question is for staff. staff, are you supportive of the modifications that we received yesterday from supervisor peskin's office? >> we've reviewed the proposed recommendations, and there's -- we're partially in support, so i do see mr. starr has joined us, but i'll pull them up as we

were able to share them in a moment. >> yeah. we haven't had sort of time to delve into them to provide support one way or another. >> commissioner diamond: then i have a couple of questions for mr. hepner. is he still available? >> clerk: let me find and unmute mr. hepner. i believe this is mr. hepner. mr. hepner, i believe i unmuted you. >> yes, hello. hi. hi, commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: hi. so i have a couple questions for you? the first is that given that staff hasn't had enough time to review the two modifications, are you seeking our recommendation on those today or were those merely an f.y.i. for us? >> think they are merely an -- i think they are merely an f.y.i., and to be honest, i'd

appreciate the commission's thoughts about them. as i noted in the correspondence, we are still thinking through the implications of both of those requests. i wanted to make sure -- basically, i wanted to submit them to the public record so that they were included in the file in an orderly fashion but acknowledge that, you know, there's, you know, probably additional time needed to weigh the pros and cons of moving forward with either and we've not, you know, committed to doing so at this point. >> commissioner diamond: and so when this matter comes back to the board, would there be an opportunity for staff to weigh-in on these modifications because we haven't had time to think them through at this point? >> commissioner, i think i would put that question back to planning staff. certainly, when this comes back to committee, there would be another public hear on the file. -- hearing on the file.

i would seek out their input or assessment or any additional changes before it comes to committee, so in that sense, our doors are wide open for that dialogue to continue. >> commissioner diamond: can you stay on the line -- well, maybe i'll ask you and then come back to staff. the question from the reuben junius law firm about broadening the exception so we didn't have to just serve chinatown, just chinatown had to be one of the neighborhoods or one of the groups that the nonprofit served, what's your office's thought about that? >> you know, i've not vetted that. i would, you know, i would want

to ask staff, you know, whether their ability to really apply that standard is reasonable and whether they can apply that standard at all. includes services to chinatown, that it be a very deminimus service to chinatown. i think there can be a standard of primarily serving chinatown, acknowledging that it is, as well, a higher standard, meeting that threshold. i don't know what standard we're talking about when we say include services to chinatown. it just seems a lot more kind of vague and permeable. >> commissioner diamond: great. okay. thank you. so maybe i'll turn back to staff because i wanted to follow up on two of those items. is there a way, from staff's perspective, to address the legitimate concern that mr. happen ner raised, which is

pretty ambiguous if you just say -- hepner raised, which is pretty ambiguous, if you just say chinatown? mr. starr or mr. teague? >> i'm happy to speak to that. corey teague, planning department. so to be honest, it's not defined. i think the issue remains the same either way. ultimately, those uses are going to be required to come to this commission for a conditional use authorization, so, you know, if whether it was primarily or some other type of

description of how much their services would be needed to come to chinatown, i think that's going to be a challenge, especially for the planning commission, if and when those projects eventually come before you. >> commissioner diamond: so let me ask you a follow up question. it's a procedural question. the modifications that we received yesterday that staff hasn't had enough time to weigh-in on, and the question from the reuben junius law firm. it seems hard to address those recommendations right now, given the fact that staff hasn't had the opportunity to weigh-in. can we provide recommendations to supervisor peskin's office at the committee hearing, at the board? what is the timing for more input by staff on this?

>> so normally, we like to get them a little bit ahead of time so we can evaluate them and be prepared to answer any questions at the hearing. we can certainly work with supervisor peskin's office to go every the issues and see if eventual -- go over the issues and see if eventually staff has any recommendations to the modifications. but our recommendation is really only to the office. we can't say the planning department recommends this at the hearing. we're there to say what your recommendations are and convey that to the board of supervisors. so we can work intentionally with lee -- internally with lee and supervisor peskin on what they're doing and provide feedback, but it's not something that we would present at the land use committee. >> commissioner diamond: so that makes sense to me. and one last question is our only alternative is to continue a recommendation on this until

you've had time to look at those other suggestions. does that work on that, too? >> you can do that. i'm just trying to -- except, august 30 is the deadline for you to review this. so you could ask lee if he would be open to a continuance, but right now, august 30 is the deadline for making comments on this one. >> commissioner diamond: thank you very much. i am interested in hearing what the other commissioners have to say, but at this point, my thought is that i would be in favor of recommending -- supporting staff recommendations with the modifications proposed by staff with the suggestion to staff that they work with supervisor peskin's office so that they can provide input on the two modifications that came yesterday and language around

the suggestion provided by reuben and junius' office so it's not as vague and there's rounds of service to chinatown without is happening to be primarily to chinatown. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond, you totally took the words right out of my mouth. i can totally support all of that. next it commissioner --

>> commissioner tanner: -- it would be shortened to 18 months instead of three years, and we can't plug that use back in, unless it is one of those three uses, and so those other three uses. let's say it's 19 months, it's 20 months, it's 36 months, the restaurant that's a legacy business, and the others that are listed, the philanthropic would be allowed to use that operate without reverting to another use. is that correct or would you correct where i had any errors?

>> commissioner tanner, veronica flores. your recitation is correct. i see the zoning administrator nodding along, but i'll invite him if he wants to add anything further. >> thank you. nothing, really, to add. i think you got it right. this gets a little confusing

because -- >> commissioner tanner: yeah, and that came through really clearly. what i'm interested in hearing from staff and if mr. hepner is available, we'd welcome his feedback on the duration, and then, there's an incentive that we can [inaudible] and your

pool of potential lessees becomes smaller. with the staff recommending three years, we did change it relatively recently to three years. we should just keep it. that, to me, is not the strongest argument. is it consistency with the rest of the [inaudible] to spar them, continuing the three-year for abandonment. i don't know, mr. teague, if you want to take that, or miss flores, if you would want to respond? >> i'm happy to let miss flores respond additionally in terms of the rationale behind the recommendation, but yes, the standard abandonment period in the code when it comes to not performing uses, conditional

uses, and use sizes, is generally three years. that's also the same kind of period for planning performance and performance evaluations. it's also the same kind of use-it-or-lose-it time period in the code, and because that's the standard -- and to your point, 18 months may encourage people to use it more quickly, but sometimes we have situations where people have legitimately a hard time finding tenants, and so 18 months isn't that long in the grant scheme of things, and miss flores can respond additionally. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> mr. teague actually went over a lot of the same comments that i wanted to share with you, but just also wanted to reiterate that there might be other types of uses, but it doesn't mean that these would be the only type of uses that

would be permitted at the site, so just as any commercial property or any rental unit that you're looking at, but that was where our recommendation landed. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i think if mr. hepner is on the line, you want to respond, if you have a strong feeling of the 18 months or three years so we don't jettison which situation the abandonment would occur. >> yeah. the three years mirrors other period. i think the castro might have a three-year abandonment clause. that recommendation came from the community, and i would want to check in with the supervisor and relevant community stakeholders before opining on

a specific preference there? the only other thing, to reiterate veronica's point, abandonment is also kind of an attrition. it encourages the leasing of space to other uses, so there's a type of uses that we are trying to encourage with these abandonment issues, as well. the only thing i would say about the 18 months is it more closely mirrors the time period in the forthcoming vacancy tax. if you kind of even game the system, you might have about 18 months of a vacancy before you start looking at a vacancy tax and really wanting to get a tenant in there, so relative to various standards in there, that's another sort of

reference point that we're thinking about in this context. that said, i encourage the robust discussion and appreciate it and will take that back to the supervisor. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, mr. hepner. it's great to hear your thoughts on that. just last two questions. miss flores, we heard a member of the public asking about philanthropic organizations. how would the staff determine what type of organization that applies to? >> so under the planning code definitions, social service or philanthropic facility is actually combined in one land use, so we're really looking for institutional communities, more charitable in nature, so a lot of nonprofits we see, they may focus on housing,

education, training. those are just some examples, and this is available in the planning code. so i'm happy to follow up with that general public caller. i unfortunately did not receive a call, so i'll be sure to look into that further. thank you. >> commissioner tanner: great. thank you. appreciate that. i think my comments would just be that, you know, i greatly value consistency in our codes. i do think, given the special circumstances of chinatown and at least akin to some other areas in district 3, i think the 18-month provision does help to support some of the broader goals that we might be trying to achieve in terms of getting the spaces occupied, ensuring that there's a vibrant social district, so i would be

okay with that. again, not having staff having weighed in on the institutional use versus institutional community use, that makes sense, as i understand there are businesses not allowed in chinatown. that would seem to create confusion on the part of applicants if they think oh, i'm allowed but then, they realize they're not allowed, as well as carving out specialty grocery in terms of having special exception for mergers, wanting some pathways for those. just on their face at a very high level, but also staff can have the time to look into this and provide more insight, and they're a great feedback to the supervisor and this process. and my very, very last question, is this a change in practice, is this a change in

reading the code? we looked at it closer and oh, we determined that we had not been [inaudible] so that's my final question, honestly, and i will turnoff my video, and i look forward to the answer. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i wasn't sure if commissioner tanner were asking a question? >> commissioner tanner: it was a question. >> i can answer. it's not the size of the use in chinatown, it's not a change in terms of how we're implementing the code, it's something that's come up more recently just on situations that have occurred, and with the introduction of

abandonment of use sizes in the code, which is still a relatively modern phenomenon. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, mr. teague, and thank you, commissioners diamond and tanner for all the questions and for all the clarification. my first -- my comment initially is because there are things that are just, again, presented to us in a way that i wish we had better findings and i wish the planning commission had more input in, and i understand there is a deadline. but in terms of the 18 months abandonment, again, i wish there is a -- 'cause that's one thing that i would like to see in terms of in this zoning area, whether the 18 months in other zones areas, as well, has been affected, and what are we

expecting on this, really? and i do -- and also, i believe consistency is good, but we're also in this pandemic time that feels like we have to allow flexibility. again, the implementation would be another question of that. i am for -- you know, i'd rather have this continued, but i also with, what commissioner diamond stated earlier, in that language that we'd prefer it, i'd be supportive of it with the languages that commissioner diamond has stated, that supervisor peskin will have input from the planning staff, as well, during the passage of this legislation. but yeah, i will be supportive of the staff recommendation, but more on the 18 months -- to maintain the 18 months

provision as stated by the original legislation. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of all of the recommendations that staff have put forth. i would be supportive of maintaining the three-year. i think anything less, given the economy, the lack of interest in the empty storefronts, anything less would add as a blockage, and i don't think it would add anything to the small business

recovery. >> president koppel: okay. does anyone want to make a motion? >> clerk: just hold on one second, commissioner koppel. i believe that commissioner diamond is having some technical difficulties. i'm going to provide her with the call-in number. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'd be prepared to make a motion to adopt the recommendations that the department has put forthwith the three-year

abandonment clause. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. >> commissioner tanner: can i ask a question, [inaudible]. >> clerk: any action other than a procedural action such as a continuance requires four affirmative votes to take that action. for a continuance, you would just need a majority of those present, and so as stated, commissioner diamond is having some technical difficulties and is requesting your patience to allow her to rejoin.

>> commissioner fung: you want to take a five-minute break? >> clerk: i don't think it would take that long. she just needs to call in, and then, i can unmute her. so let me see what she's -- there she is. commissioner diamond, you need to mute your speaker. >> commissioner diamond: yeah. can you hear me now, jonas? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> commissioner diamond: yeah. so i heard there was a motion and a second with maintaining the three-year abandonment clause? >> clerk: that is correct, by

commissioner fung and seconded by president koppel? commissioner fung, correct me if i am wrong, but i understood your motion was to simply keep the modifications presented by staff. >> commissioner fung: that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: commissioner fung, i don't want to vote on the motion, i just want to include a motion or a recommendation that staff provide that input -- i don't know. does it need to be a part of the motion or how do we do that procedurally? >> commissioner fung: commissioner diamond, if it's the issue of the two items that were presented by supervisor peskin's office last night, i could include that staff provide their input and present it to the supervisor's office.

>> commissioner diamond: would you also be willing to include the suggestion raised by the reuben junius law firm and my discussion with mr. teague looking at how we define how much of the service needs to be provided to chinatown for it to apply, whether it needs to be primarily or some amount? i don't know how much it needs to be, i just think it warrants more discussion and input with supervisor peskin's office. >> commissioner fung: if you want to look into it as further research by the department, i would support that, but i would not support that as part of my motion for an active change in the language. >> commissioner diamond: yeah, no. i don't want to include it as a change, i would just like staff to look at that issue and provider input to supervisor peskin's office. that's what i'm hoping we could agree to. >> commissioner fung: accepted. >> clerk: if the recommendation is just for staff to review,

commissioner diamond, then i'm not sure it needs to be part of the office. i think it would be part of the regular process. >> we've heard you. we've gotten the direction from you. you don't need to necessarily include it in your motion, but if you want to, that's fine, as well. >> commissioner fung: i think if staff wants to communicate their analysis back to the commission, that would be fine. >> clerk: okay. very good, commissioners. i believe there has been a motion to approve the zoning code amendments with modifications and the existing three-year time frame. on that motion -- [roll call]

much. >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-1, with commissioner tanner voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 13, for 2019-021994-env with the -- [inaudible] . >> clerk: i'm going to mute you, commissioner diamond. looks like i am getting a lot of feedback on that. -- for the draft environmental

impact report. staff, are you prepared to make your intention? >> yes. [inaudible]. >> clerk: i will. >> i've prepared a brief -- >> clerk: absolutely. >> thank you. is the presentation visible? >> clerk: it is. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jennifer mckellar [inaudible].

the item before you is the consideration for the sfmta potrero yard modernization project at 2500 mar i pose -- mariposa street. [inaudible] copies of the draft e.i.r. have been provided to the commission in advance of

today's hearing. as the commission may recall, the sponsor of this, sfmta, gave a presentation to the commission on may 15, 2021. i will briefly summarize the project [inaudible] now. the 4.4 acre site is located in the commission neighborhood. the project site contains the sfmta's potrero trolley coach division facility, which consists of two service facilities and a parking lot. the building was constructed in 1915 and is individually eligible for listing on the california registry of [inaudible] therefore, 2500 mariposa street is a historical resource for the purposes of

ceqa. the proposed project would demolish the existing transit facility and replace it with a new, 1.3 million square foot transit facility, covering the entire city block, to include a 75-foot tall [inaudible] space for 213 buses, 97 nonrevenue vehicles, 18 [inaudible] and battery infrastructure. it would also include up to 575,000 [inaudible] and 75,000 square feet of commercial uses. the draft e.i.r. also analyzed four project squares which consist of various modernization of the projects that do not include [inaudible]

on the historic resource to this demolition, and a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality due to the unabated contribution of air contaminants. [inaudible] including documentation of the existing building, implementation of the salvage plan, development of an interpreter display concerning the history and features of potrero yard [inaudible] and collection of history pertaining to the site. while these mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the historic resource, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. mitigation measures to reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality impact include offroad construction equipment permit plan and an emergency

[inaudible] similarly, these mitigation measures would reduce the air quality impact but not to a less than significant level. the draft e.i.r. also found that the impacts to tribal cultural resources, [inaudible] would be mitigated to a less than significant level. all other impacts associated with the proposed project were found to be less than significant. a reasonable range of alternatives to the project were developed to avoid or lessen significant impact. in addition, the draft e.i.r. analyzed a full preservation alternative, and a transit facility modernization only alternative. the full preservation alternative would retain the

two story office wing with no new vertical location above it [inaudible] to reference the historic site and massing. this alternative would reduce the significance of unavoidable historic resource impact to less than significant. this would include 477,000 [inaudible] and 578,000 area foot transit facility. the partial preservation alternative would also retain the entire two-story office building with no vertical addition [inaudible] from existing construction. however, the set back of the transit facility would be reduced in comparison with those in the full preservation alternative, and several

residential levels would be constructed above the transit facility. the scale of the new construction would be incompatible with the overall massing and [inaudible]. therefore, this would result in a significant and unavoidable historic resource impact, with the same mitigation measures would apply, although this impact would be less than that. this alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable air impact to a less than significant level. this alternative would include 450 [inaudible] and a 597,000 square foot [inaudible]. the transit facility only alternative would [inaudible] in the proposed project, but no residential units. similar to the proposed project, this alternative would

result in significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource, which would be [inaudible], however, with the reduced density of this alternative, air quality impacts would be less than significant. a hearing to receive the historic preservation commission's comments on the draft e.i.r. was held on august 4, 2021. i have provided this commission with a number of electronic copies of that. the next slide summarizes key points of the modernization of the draft e.i.r. and process. i won't go into too much detail but would like to highlight [inaudible]. in august of last year, the [inaudible] to the sfmta's neighborhood working group. in april of this year, planning

department staff also gave a presentation to this group regarding shadow analysis at the proposed project. on august 19, 2020, the notice of preparation was distributed pursuant to ceqa and [inaudible] and was held on august 30, 2021 [inaudible]. today, the planning department is seeking comments and feedback on the draft e.i.r. and not on the merits of the proposed project. there will be opportunities to provide that input during the consideration of the project [inaudible] for members of the

public who wish to speak on the adequacy and accuracy of the [inaudible] please state your name slowly so that the court reporter can get the correct information now. revisions will be made to the draft e.i.r. as a [inaudible] please provide your contact information to cpc.potreroyardeir@sfgov.org. unless the commissioners have question, i request that the

public notice on this hearing be left up. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment is closed and it is now before you. oh, i take it back. there is one. through the chair, you have two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hello. this is sue hester. i am going to request a brief continuance of the public comment period. there -- this whole e.i.r. has really -- this is a really important e.i.r. for housing and for transit, and it requires really thoughtful

comments. i thought about pursuing, getting an extra e.i.r. on a thumb drive because i can't carry around the extra information around with me. can we get a longer public comment period? it ends august 31, and i suggest to continue it until the day after labor day, or the friday before, as no one is working for labor day weekend. this is a really important e.i.r. and a really important site, and how you look at the site, it is a source for housing as well as a site that provides transit is totally important to the planning commission and the city. thank you very much.

>> clerk: okay. commissioners, public comment is closed, and public comment is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: let me first check to make sure you can hear me. jonas? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> commissioner diamond: so this is a very important project, and the draft e.i.r. did a very good job of disclosing the impacts from this project. i believe the project has many, many merits, but the draft e.i.r. did disclose two impacts or issues that i think are worthy of perhaps two

additional alternatives. the first issue of concern to me is the fact that the proposed project has significant unmitigated impacts with respect to toxic air contaminants that i believe are a result of the construction period, and i wonder if it would be possible to develop an alternative that resembles the project as much as possible with the new transit facility and residential on top, but that reduces the amount of residential to the point where we get no significant unmitigated impact with respect to toxic air contaminants. it makes me uncomfortable that the city is proposing or with the developer is proposing a project where the preferred project could potentially have t.f.c.s, so i think it would be a really important exercise to

develop an alternative that tries to stick as closely as possible to the proposed project but in whatever ways are necessary comes up with additional mitigation measure soz that we do not have significant unmitigated impact -- measures that we do not have significant unmitigated impacts. in addition, the proposed project does not have shadow impacts. the e.i.r. -- draft e.i.r. does disclose that it is shadowing portions of franklin square, including significantly, the children's playground during the morning hours, 8:00 to 11-something during the winter. and while the draft e.i.r. concludes that that's not an impact per se, it is an issue of concern to me, and i would really appreciate seeing an

alternative that shows how the project could redistribute massing showing the shadow on the playground in the morning times when children could be using it. i would like to see an alternative that has no shadow or very little shadow during the time that children are likely to be using the playground, which is, you know, 9:30 to 11:00 in the mornings, so those are my two requests. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? [please stand by]

. >> it will be great to have some findings of how many of the muni workers transfer from outside the city come to this area, especially into the times where

public transportation is not available. i think we need to think of that especially in terms of the of ti workers as well using these areas. those are my comments, initial comments on this. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. if there is no further comments, -- commissioner tanner. >> i have to wait for the last comment. i want to ask to the staff working on this. there are a couple comments are

extending the comment period. is that at the discretion of the department? there are time limits prescribed i am not sure what it is at this point. could that be extended or set and needs to be maintained on the 31st or 30th? i am not sure what date it was. >> i can speak to that. department staff. the ceqa guidelines 1.105 sets forth public comments of no less than 30-days and no more than 60 days unless there are unusual circumstances. for this project the comment period is over 60 days from jul. the department tries to be consistent in its approach and compliant with 15105. if the commissioners think there are unusual circumstances here

then the environmental review offer can consider suspending the public comment period. >> i agree with commissioner imperial. we have had covid continuing, in particular the comment period experienced a spike. we don't know what impact that has on folks t.there are other matters that require their attention. i would support the modest extension to next friday or september 7th after labor day holiday. i hope in the meantime other folks who called in to comment at the informational hearing could participate in this part of the process. i want to thank the commissioners for comments. i would be aligning myself with the comments regarding shadows and i want to support the

comments regarding oral histories and reusing the material in the new building. it is a great way to capture history of the building not just as a place but destination, as part of the community and coming into the next 100 years of service to san francisco. those are my comments. >> commissioner fung. >> can staff summarize broadly your overall schedule for environment -- for the environmental review? >> i was going to ask for more clarification. do you mean moving forward?

>> no, in general. the period that you had for the draft and then moving forward. that still doesn't answer your question? >> no, i should share the slide again unless you want to jump in here. >> yes department staff. we don't currently have an exact schedule in general. we wait until the comment period closes to see the scope and nature of the comments we receive. in addition, in this case, the joint developer is still being chosen, and we would need to receive the entitlement application and review it to see

if there is any draft e.i.r. changes that we would need to address prior to this project coming back to the commission. we do anticipate this next spring-summer. the final schedule will be determined once we have had a chance to evaluate the scope and nature of the comments we receive and the refined project description. >> in general, it would be approximately another year? i am not holding you to a specific date but based upon your comments, is it in that range? >> that is what we anticipate at this time, yes.

>> okay, commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on. case number 14. 2020-009481jua. 4034 20th street. conditional use authorization. mr. horner. >> good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. >> i am going to interrupt you. it is a little bit difficult to hear you. do you have any ability to increase your volume or get closer to your mic. >> i am before you at the

request for conditional use authorization for residential demolition. this was continued without being heard at the june 17th planning commission hearing. the project site at 4034 20th street, on the north side between noe and sanchez located in the districts. it is 5700 square feet in size with 50 feet of front sage. depth of 114 feet. currently developed with noncomplying 23-foot tall three family dwelling constructed in 1909. two studios and upper 1250 square foot two bedroom unit. the rear half of the existing

lot substantial landscaping and vegetation. it in the delores heights neighborhood. faces a great variety of architectural styles and scales and masking. in the vicinity of the project site rh-1 and the delores heights special use district. it was determined to be not a resource and the project received exemption from ceqa. they propose demolition of existing three family dwelling, subdivision for two lots and construction of two new three story over basement 35-foot tall single family dwellings each with accessory dwelling unit. building on the eastern lot is referred to 4034 a. western building is 4034b.

building 4034 a is total of 4580 square fees with 3145 square foot three bedroom unit on upper two floors. 590 square foot one bedroom dwelling and two vehicle garage. building 4034b is 4550. with three bedroom unit. 1730 square foot three bedroom accessory dwelling unit and four bicycle parking spaces. a.d.u.s would be allowed. both are fully compliant with the planning code. today the commission was provided with the june report. our apologies. this morning the commission was provided with the updated auguss

strikeout underline copy of executive summary and all changes between the drafts. to correct the effort the edits made to the report are result of new information the sponsor was able to provide on verified income level of previous tenant required by senate bill 330. the changes are located within 6 a on pages 6 and 7. 7f on page 9. condition approval 18 replacements units on page 20. conditions of approval 19 and 20 right of first refusal to return on both page 20 added to the project as part of the sb-330 and local rent board requirements. prior to the june hearing sponsor could not confirm income of past tent. it requires replacement on sitar

affordable unit when income unknown. sponsor was able to verify income for the tenant at level above the 80% a.m.i. allows replacement to be provided as rent control protection. following items reiterations what is provided in the august 26 summary. project proposing to demo multi-unit building. it is subject to provisions of sb-330 to look back to determine whether the site contains protected units. pursuant to record search with the san francisco rent board and sponsor's application, two of the three units have had tenants within the last five years. unit 1 not leased within 15 years. unit 2 rented to a tenant. unit 3 accepted buyout in 2020.

existing current tenants submitted letters nonopposition in the case report. in unit 2 there is a agreement to relocate to another construction accessory dwelling two lots west at 4022 20th street. any units subject to rent control are protected subject t replacement and relocation requirements. replacement provisions deepen debt upon income level of current and previous tenant. to discuss the existing units and propose replacements since unit one is vacant over five years. it shall be replaced. income level for the tents in unit two and three are above the 80% a.m.i. and can be replaced with rent controlled units.

specific relationship of the size and occupancy is further illustrated in table one. located on the third page of the executive summary. other issue. project has submitted application to subdivide to create two lots. the project is within the boundaries of the delores heights special use. it was to preserve and provide established area with unique character. built to natural environment. no additional findings required but additional development controls are provided including required minimum rear yard. it complies with additional provisions. prior to the publicking one letter of concern and comment

was received from the adjacent property east with concerns over the impact from light and air. since the publishing the commission has been provided one letter in support. summary, department finds it is on balance consistent with objectives and policies of the plan, residential design guidelines and demlower resheights district they are to keep with existing pattern and neighborhood character on 20th street. the project includes demolition of three family residence two new residential buildings on separate lots to be built for net increase of density. department finds projectness, desirable compatible with surrounding neighborhood. this concludes the staff presentation. i am available for questions. >> thanks, jeff.

project sponsor, you have a five minute presentation. are you with us? mr. harris. i don't see your phone number. i have unmuted your computer, mr. harris. i don't see a phone number you provided us in the list of attendees. if you are calling in with a different number that you provided us, i suggest pressing

star 3 to raise your hand. why don't we try to give you a little time. i have a feeling it is very little time since no one is requesting to speak. members of the public we will take public comment. press star 3 to be added to the queue for testimony on this item. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, this is bruce would wena couple doors away from this project. i haven't heard the sponsor's presentation nor seen the final draft of the executive summary. i will go anyway. this project complies and is consistent with the owner rights

to develop. this is a stark contrast to most of the development and should be recognized for differences. it is developed by long time owners, family in the neighborhood and members of the community for decades, longer than almost anyone. it is delivering increase in number of reasonable units including housing for next generation. not monster, not financial speculation. conversion of three to four units represents increase to density. positive impact by sb-330. there is one good thing from this bill. i wonder if the city will monitor compliance with the law with the new information about the income levels of the prior tents less of a problem in this particular case, i understand. on balance the project provides net benefits to the city and reflects owner's rights to justify approval.

i differ with one statement in the staff report. the project is not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the visit. this is not strictly accurate. this add adverse impacts. this will change experience of neighbors and visitors to the block. project as designed has negative impact on the property to the east as expressed buyer the owner. not resolved as far as i know. it would be better if a resolution with the neighbor could be found. this is so much better than most approved here which continue to curtail increases in density. this actually delivers more relatively affordable family housing. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon. this is marsha. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. i am speaking in support of the project. i want to thank president koppel and the planning commissionners for this opportunity. the requested variance or conditional use for this proposed project should be approved. it is in alignment with the city's housing goals to increase available housing units and to provide family housing in san francisco. as mentioned the project complies with the neighborhood building context and also with the building and planning requirements. i have known the applicant michael harris and his family over 40 years. michael harris is an excellent architect with high-quality to positively contribute to the neighborhood and increase housing units in this part of san francisco.

proposed project will allow another young family to remain in the neighborhood to raise the next generation in san francisco. i urge you to approve this request for come use and thank he on o for conditional use and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. commissioners, we have contacted the project sponsor. he is trying to call in how. i believe he has successfully -- >> you need to turn down your volume on your computer. we have an echo. >> you have five minutes. >> okay. i am michael harris, project applicant. thank you for the opportunity to present this project which is the replacement of building at

4034 20th street with new buildings. your approval is required to move forward. the project will replace a building with three units containing four bedrooms with two new buildings with four units containing 10 bedrooms. existing two story building is outlined in red. located in the area of the required rear yard. current believe is antiquated in every way. on a brick foundation not seismically safe not meeting building, energy, electrical or plumbing or fire. it is not a historical resource. 50-foot wide lot will be sub

dwighted into two 25-foot wide lots with a new building on each lot. the new buildings will meet all planning and zoning requirements located with the required front setback to rear yard re-enforcing the pattern of contiguous rear yards in the neighborhoods to meet all building codes with fire sprinklers. my parents moved to 4042 in 1950 as renters then owners. my mother died last year at 97. my father lived there until he died at 99 two years earlier. i grew up there with my two siblings. this is my neighborhood 50 out of my 70 years. my brother lives on 20th street. the subject property is in my family since 1960. my daughter lives with her

partner in a one bedroom apartment. two bedroom apartment above them has no tenant for over 20 years. there is a lease for a new a.d.u. next door at 4042 20th. looking forward to a newer more accessible unit. the existing building at 4034 in the low her right photo taken from the deck at 4042. proposed building under the 35-foot height limit set back to the top floor with terraces with roofs away from the street. here you can see the buildings down the street. terraces upper level and balcons lower. there will be landscaping at the front to take advantage of is

the southern exposure with vines to create a green wall on the building. the building on the left three bedroom a.d.u. bottom level. right parking lowest and one bedroom a.d.u. level above. the building on the left has second three bedroom unit next two level and building on the right three bedroom unit on the next two level. it should be noted without sb-330 without required to come before the planning commission it could be expanded to cover 75% of the lot and additional unit could be added as a.d.u. i had a review meeting with

planning department six years ago received positive food back. two months later there was an issue with removing rent controlled units. i offered to maintain there was no way the new units could be subject to rent control. sb-330 now allows rent controlled units replaced with new represent controlled units. the plan is that my daughter and partner in one unit to raise arfamily. friends who also grew up in san francisco will live in another unit in addition another three bedroom unit and one bedroom unit providing homes for more people. thank you for your time. i appreciate your support. i will try to answer any questions you might have. story for the -- sorry for the mess at the beginning. >> thank you. members of the public, last call of public comment. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no request to speak from

members of the public, public comment is closed. this item is before you, commissioners. >> commissioner fung. >> i am prepared to support the conditional use pending other commissioners' comments. >> i as well am in support. >> commissioner tanner. >> my only comment is lovely presentation from the project sponsor. i thank staff for their work and make a motion to approve the conditional use authorization. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to approve with conditions, comings commissioner

tanner. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that passes unanimously 5-0. that concludes yourself first hearing back. >> thank you for coming. see you next week.