[indiscernible] -- we all have to be on the same page here so that we can get to a situation where we are making a decision. >> chair: thank you, linda. i think your sound is a little bit [indiscernible] -- i think the next item is adjournment, right? >> clerk: yes. >> chair: thank you all for being with us today and we look forward to the next meeting which will be in october. >> thank you. >> chair: bye. thank you. [adjournment] [♪♪♪] fll

[♪♪♪] ♪♪♪] yesterday was my birthday and i was out a little later than normal. it was nice to really celebrate a birthday for a change and i celebrated in ashia sf in san francisco where -- oh, my goodness, the performance was amazing. the food was great. the drinks were wonderful, the people were wonderful, but what i most enjoyed about being at

asia sf is that they require everyone who comes through the door shows proof of vaccination. and so i felt a little bit safer when i was there last night and today's announcement is really about making sure that people feel a little bit safer in our city, but most importantly, what we're seeing now with this virus is very challenging. and of great concern to me and i know many of you as well. but let's take it back just a little bit. the fact is that we should be proud of san franciscans. when i asked you all over a year ago to shelter in place and basically change your entire lives to support one

another and ensure this virus didn't spread. you answered the call, you stepped up, you did your part. our health care workers showed up to the hospital to take care of those who unfortunately contracted the virus. but ultimately, we saw the best of the people of this city. and now, we need just a little bit more. and, again, going back to where we are. we've seen in this city 78% of people in san francisco have been fully vaccinated. that's still more than any place else in the country. and i know the rest of you all are coming kicking and screening, but let me explain why this is so important. it's important because kids under the age of 12 cannot be vaccinated. so we have to make sure we're protecting them. it's important because there

are still people who are elderly and sick and those with underlying health conditions that may not be eligible for the vaccine. we're doing this for them. so the reason why we're here today is because we're actually following the lead of small businesses and in particular, many bars in san francisco that decided on their own we're going to require proof of vaccination before you enter our bar and the reason why we're here at vericio is because the owner, wherever she is, there you go. janet clyde, she took it the extra step. she took a lot of heat for it. she said i want to keep my customers and my employees safe, so i'm going to do this

despite how challenging it was. how it impacted her business because she put the health and safety of the people of this city and her customers and her employees before anything else. that's what being a good san franciscan is all about and so we appreciate you letting us be here at this historic location to recognize that we really are in this together. and because this delta variant has been so brutal i don't know about you, but when the virus first happened and over that time period. i knew less people at that time who actually got the virus. and there are a bunch of folks that i know how who have in some cases been vaccinated that have contracted covid because the delta variant is just that

more contagious and we are not out of the woods as it relates to covid, we're still going through it. yes, we're sick and and tired of it, but it's not tired of us it's still coming back with a vengeance. we're seeing 263 new cases and those people are younger in some cases than what previously existed and dr. cofax said if i'm going to get covid anyway. it's a difference being home every day or being in a hospital on a respirator where you can't breathe and this is real and it's hard to understand when you don't complooeld see it, but in some

cases they can't talk where in this past year and a half, there have been people who died who have not been able to have funerals. when we think about those sorts of things, how can we not do our part to get better, to get vaccinated to make sure we're protecting one another. to make sure we're protecting our children because they can't get vaccinated. so why are we here today? well, part of it is we're taking our steps around vaccinations just a little bit further and starting august 20th, you will need proof of vaccination in businesses for your customers in high contact areas like

bars, restaurants, clubs, theaters, entertainment venues. indoor gyms and fitness and large indoor events with more than a 1,000 people. by october 13th, employees at these establishments must be vaccinated as well. all of the employees need to show proof of vaccination by october 13th to their employer. now, to be clear, this will not include people or kids who are under the age of 12 because they can't get vaccinated. so what we don't want folks to think is a family of four that you can't go to a restaurant, you can. because we know that your children cannot be vaccinated and will not have the ability to show proof, but the parents will need to. and, this does not impact those who are coming to pick up to-go

orders. a lot of folks who do the deliveries. so this won't impact that. as i said, why are we doing this? it's to protect the workers. it's to protect kids. it's to protect those who can't get vaccinated. it's to make sure we don't go backwards. it's to make sure that i never have to get up in front of you and say i'm sorry we just re-opened and now the city's closed again because we are seeing too many people die. so to find out information about getting vaccinated go to sf.gov/vaccinated. you can call if you have any questions or need additional information, but this is an

important step towards our recovery. i saw on the news hamilton just opened and people were there with smiles on their faces. underneath the mask, i saw the high cheekbones. i know you guys know what that looks like and it felt good. i don't know about you but when i went out to asia sf, the women who performed there to be out in a city, to go to a restaurant, to see people again, there was a time we could not do this, so if we want to continue down this path if we want to make sure people are healthy to make sure we're in a good place as a city from a public health perspective so

that our economy can really recover to its fullest extent, then we all have to do our part. we need to get vaccinated. we need to make sure that we are respectful to the businesses that ask us to put on our mask, or to produce your vaccination cards. we need to continue to have grace as we deal with one of the most and count your blessings and let's make sure it isn't anyone else in the future because that's what this is about. making sure that now that we have a vaccine that we take

full advantage of it because that's going to make the difference for us. and i want to thank a couple of folks here joining us including rodney fong from the san francisco chamber. thank you for being here. sharky laguana, thank you for your work and advocacy. thank you. and we have a couple of other folks joining us. i think ben blyman is going to say a few words representing the bar owners here today. you know, it was not -- asia sf is somewhat like a bar. it's a bar, performance, food, they have it all. so it's like the perfect bar space where you get everything. anyway, ben is here to talk a little bit about that. mary ellen carol is here from the department of emergency management to answer any questions.

and, i think um, who else is here? like i said, it was a long night. and, right now, i'm going to call up dr. grant cofax to talk a little bit about the specifics of our health order, what the plans are and just thank you all so much for being here and thank you all for continuing to do your very best to comply with these very complicated sometimes numerous health orders, but they will keep us safe and they will save lives. thank you so much. well, good morning everyone. and thank you, mayor breed, for your steadfast leadership. as we continue to navigate covid-19 as a city. and thank you, janet, and visuvio for your important efforts as we recover from this pandemic.

and i want to thank our acting health officer who worked hard on these orders and for director marry ellen carol for your ongoing partnership in this response. the business community has been an important partner in our efforts ever since the early days of the pandemic which is now well over a year and a half. from capacity limits to masking requirements to everything in between, you have responded and adapted to the many new ways of doing business throughout. and, for that, we thank you. i look out at all the new outdoor dining pots and walk-ups these days and i'm so pleased to see the way san francisco has adapted and come bang to life. even in just the last few months. the difference is palpable. our ability to adapt, change and respond will service well because even as we beat back this disease. we also know that covid-19 will be with us in some capacity for

the foreseeable future. we are now in a new phase of the pandemic. and even as we see a surge of cases, we have the powerful tool to fight this disease and keep ourselves and each other safe. the vaccines. let's use them. the updates to our safer return together health order are designed to make sure we can continue to keep businesses open and enjoy our lives in san francisco safely even as we face the delta variant and other variants to come where people are at close range. breathing heavy indoors. it's simply common sense. it makes sense to require vaccinations in indoor settings where food and drink is served like restaurants and bars and where aerobic exercises happen

in gyms and fitness establishments and where many people gather like at indoor venues of a thousand people or more. we believe we will continue to make a major difference in lowering the spread of covid-19 with the common sense solution of vaccines. the vaccines continue to work remarkably well especially and dramatically lowering the risk of hospitalization and death from covid-19. the vaccines are our armor. they are our life jackets. they are parachutes. d.p.h. launched a vax to you campaign last week that will bring a mobile vaccination team to your home or business if you

have at least five people ready to get the vaccine. we ask businesses to please take advantage of that and you can go to sf.gov/vaxtoyou for more information. you can continue to get the vaccine from your health care provider or at a farmee or many of our drop-in sites across the city. we are also ready and in hand to have the new tools to implement the new vax even requirements. while today's announcement applies to these specific kinds of business, we also encourage all businesses in the city to do their part and require their employees and patrons to get vaccinated as soon as possible. for anyone who is on the fence about getting vaccinated or hasn't made the time, we very much hope that the incentive of eating at your favorite restaurant in san francisco or grabbing a drink will remove

any barriers that you may have for getting vaccinated. the vaccine is safe, effective, and appointments are readily available. and, just a reminder, that even if you've already had covid-19, we in the city strongly recommend that you get fully vaccinated. thank you, and, with that, i'd like to introduce ben blyman, head of the san francisco's bar owner's alliance and an early leader in requiring vaccinations at bars and encouraging others to join. ben, thank you. >> thank you. first of all, i'd like to say happy birthday to mayor breed. happy birthday. second of all, i just want to thank mayor breed for her leadership throughout the pandemic. for many of us, it's the worst year and a half of our professional lives and i can't say how grateful we are to have

somebody in the highest leadership of san francisco who actually cares about us and doesn't just help us when it's politically expedient to do so. time and time again the mayor's shown she truly cares about our issues and is willing to go to the mat for us. thank you for that. i just wanted to call that out. about three to four weeks ago, the san francisco bar owners started to notice alarming cases of break through infections with staff members of ours. these are vaccinated individuals working in bars who suddenly were coming down with covid, thankfully, none of the cases were serious. there were no hospitalizations but it was enough to give us pause and have a robust conversation. in that conversation, three things came up that i noticed and it was a very robust conversation. one was how scared we were for the health of our staff members. specifically, we have a lot of staff members who have young children. we have a lot of staff members who take care of elderly

parents and the idea they could bring something home and put them in danger was scary for us and real. we have a sacred obligation to our staff members. we know that. we feel that way, and that was really first and foremost in our minds. the second was the impact it was having on our businesses. if somebody comes down with covid, even if they don't go to the hospital, they're out for at least ten days and we're having a staffing shortage already across the u.s., so this has a serious impact on our ability to do business. i myself had to close a bar for a night because my bartender got covid at a different job of his and we were unable to find coverage. and the third thing that came up was the frustration that we felt as a community. for the first year of the pandemic, we were fighting an uncontrollable virus. it could be sort of managed, but it was kind of out of control and we kind of had the sense of fatalism. but that was no longer the case. and the bar owners were veryis

a sievous and it was something that came up and we floated the idea what if we just don't let them inside. after a poll we did, over 80% of our membership responded that they would like to go through with that and they declared we would only allow vaccinated individuals to hang out indoors at our establishments. in actual practice, it was a little bit of a nothing burger. if anything, almost every single person was happy about t. they were thrilled. they were thankful. they were safer. the pushback we got was online from a bunch of remarkably right wing trolls whose trolling was so bad hopefully i could teach them about how to

troll correctly. that said, we've gone through with it. it works. it's helping to decrease exposure to our staff members. we know that unvaccinated individuals are eight times more likely to contract and spread coronavirus and we need to make sure that we keep them from exposing our staff and their families as much as we can. even though there wasn't much pushback, we still kind of felt like we were on an island as a group. we didn't do it thinking other people would follow. we didn't do it to change hearts and minds. if hearts and minds do change, that's fantastic. but we did to to protect our staff and families. but the fact that san francisco is doing this now is a huge thing for us. we're not alone anymore. the city is making a bold statement if you want to participate in our society fully, if you want to be able to cough into the mouths of other people around you in closed tight areas, you must be vaccinated indoors.

the fact that we're not alone is a huge benefit to us and i thank the city of san francisco for going through with this. it's a giant deal for us so thank you very much, thanks for having us. >> thank you, ben. and, thank you to all the bar owners in san francisco. thank you to the vasuvio and janet in particular for your leadership and work and advocacy. as i said, the bars did this a couple weeks ago and the city is following their lead which i think is truly remarkable. the example that they're setting what we're doing to keep people safe is most important at this time. and, with that, i'll open it up to questions from the press.

>> the planning commission remote hearing for thursday, september 9, 2021. 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-tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. and we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 1-(415)-655-0001, and entering access code 2491 201 1816. when we have reached the item that you're interested in commenting on, please press

star, 3, to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been un-muted that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime saying that your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached i will take the next person in the queue to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like it take roll at this time. [roll call] commissioner diamond, you may be muted. i can see that you are here, commissioner diamond, but you are not audible. [roll call continues] we do

expect commissioner chan to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is the consider of items for continuance, and case number 1, 2021-004901cua at 1111 california street. this is a conditional use authorization and to continuance to september 3, 2021. and for 2a and b, 2019-020031cua. and are at 2867 san bruno avenue. known also as 90-98 woolsee street. and to continuance to september 30, 2021. and quam 3, 2021-003396cua at 790 valencia street, proposed to continuance to october 31,,2021 and case number 4,

2021-002667drp-03, at 4763 19th street. and for continuance to october 31st, 2021. and on your commission matters, item 10, the draft minutes for july 22, 2021, we are requesting a further continuance to september 23rd -- next week you have no hearing on the 16th. so september 23rd. and then finally under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 17a, b and c. for 2016-015987pca for 1750 van ness avenue, for continual use and variance, it needs to be continued for procedural matters for the city attorney's office to look at the planning code

amendment and sign that document form. i have no other items proposed for continuance so we should open up public comment. for members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3. okay, i don't -- we do have one you have two minutes. go ahead, caller, you have two minutes for those matters proposed to be continued. >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: i'm at unit 610 on sacramento street. and i feel that and other folks at 1776 are like people trying to change the shape of an oncoming wave. yet i'm compelled to voice my concerns about the american buddhist society building up

their structure in front of 1776. >> clerk: if you could hold on for a moment. we are only taking public comment on the items proposed to be continued regarding the continuance. so you want to speak to the project, you will need to wait until the item is called. >> caller: thank you. okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. >> caller: sue -- i have a question. what is the continuance date for 1750 van ness, item 17. >> clerk: september 30th is proposed for 1750 van ness. okay, last call for public

comment on items proposed to be continued. seeing no additional requests to speak, for members of the public, the public comment is closed. and the continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: i move to continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to continue the items as proposed [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us -- >> president koppel: jonas, quickly, those continued items to item 17c as proposed. >> clerk: thank you, city

administrator, my apologies for not calling on you. commissioners, now we can move to your consent calendar. all matters under the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and they may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there's no substantive discussion of these items unless the public or staff so request. in which event the matter should be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing at case 5 at 2020-011473cua at 2075 mission street. and case number 6, 2021-005099cua, 4126 18th street. and case number 7 at 2021-003600cua, 506 castro street. and item 8, 2021-003599cua, at

2234 chestnut street. and item 9, 2021-001859cua, 3800 24th street, a continual use authorization. members of the public this is your opportunity to request any of the items on the consent calendar to be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing by pressing star, 3, to be added to the queue. seeing no requests for members of the public to speak, commissioners, your consent calendar is now before you. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: accept all items. jcts second. >> clerk: on that motion to approval items [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners.

that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. under items 10, consideration of adoption draft minutes for your august 26th, 2021 hearing. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the august 26th minutes by pressing star, 3. seeing no request to speak to the minutes, public comment for the minutes are closed. or is closed. and those minutes are now before you, commissioners. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the minutes for august 26th. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for august 26, 2021 [roll call vote]

so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. placing us on item 11, commission comments and questions. if there are no requests to comment from commissioners, we can move on to department matters, item 12, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners, we have a couple of items. one a couple of you -- >> clerk: commissioner diamond, did you have something? i missed you? >> commissioner diamond: but maybe the director was anticipating that. i was asking about the possibility of getting a report on sb9 and 10. >> that's what i was going to mention. i mentioned providing a memo to the commission and a couple of you have asked for a hearing in addition to that memo. so we will do that and we're prepping for that. so it still has not been signed

by the governor. i think that he had to early october to do that. so we may wait until just after that, but knowing that it's likely to be signed. so look for that to come too. and i also wanted to highlight with mr. ortiguez here that he sent a memo on prop m and now amended by prop e. so we wanted him to take a few minutes to give a quick summary of that because it's related to the item that you'll be hearing later where you will be asked to make an office allocation. >> yes, thank you, good afternoon, commissioners, corey teague, zoning administrator. it's really an updated accounting of the various kind of buckets that we have to track now, and that amended prop m. and the discrepancy that had to be corrected was that in december of last year, you

granted an allocation to 598 bryant street within central soma. at the time based on our tracking, we had a certain amount of availability in the large cap, but not enough for that entire project. so some portion of that project was allocated out of the central soma reserve. what we subsequently learned was that parcel g in the rock development had actually received zoning permit prior to that hearing. and so that automatically comes out of the large cap, and it's instantaneously, and so that changed the accounting whereas whenever you granted the allocation for 598 brandon street we were already in the red in terms of the large cap and the full allocation of brandon street needed to come out of the central soma reserve so the memo details that and gives the numbers. that was the first project to pull from this central soma reserve. a reminder that reserve was one of the features created in prop

e that kind of set aside a certain amount of 1.7 million-square-feet to the central soma projects, only the key sites. if they met certain conditions, such as providing certain community benefits. and so that was the first project to pull from that. so there was no kind of situation where there was -- we were close to the limit of that in any way, it's really more of an accounting correction, but we wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. and we'll be updating a more comprehensive tracking of the program and sending it out in the next couple of weeks. >> thanks, corey. and so if there aren't any questions related to that, i. ed to mention in october 28, we're going to have an informational hearing with oewd, and it's to piggyback on the recovery strategies hearings that we've had before to kind of

look at more spaces and how the recovery is impacting office vacancy and generally where the office market and pdr and markets will touch on where the markets are going. and how this recovery compares to prior downturns and recoveries, you know, in the changes in kind of how we work and how that may impact the use of future -- future office spaces. so that's scheduled for late october. >> i have a question for you. the discretion of the commission can extend or shorten pending approvals that have been distributed yet not been realized. you're coming to a very kind of strange space where we have approvals hanging out there.

and covid with the significant global change in the economy, not to mention the ocean -- our ocean project on mission street i am wondering if we should sometimes under your guidance that we visit some these long-standing entitlements and seeing if they're coming up near caps for new entitlements to kind of [indiscernible] some of them. it doesn't mean that we have to revoke a project but we can say that the entitlement has to be passed to someone else, the allocation -- the cap has to be passed to somebody else, instead of holding up other people from getting approvals. >> we can address this too in the october hearing when we talk about it. i mean, one of the issuing as corey said is that we're negative in our allocation. so we can't grant approval

necessarily unless they fall under the kind of central soma reserve. or it's a port site or other specific conditions. but we can definitely address that too as part of the hearing in october. >> commissioner moore: i think that our responsibility is to create a healthy balanced situation where approvals have been realized and not being stalled by those who are not capability to realize the project. it's a critical balance and i think we should visit that as a question. >> sure. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: i have a question regarding sb9 and 10 since it's not been signed -- officially signed by the governor -- how will this affect our eir in terms of the housing element that we are in the process of right now? >> it shouldn't have a big impact. i mean, even if it's signed and adopted, it won't have a

significant impact on our housing element eir. if our housing element eir was strictly looking at kind of changes to zoning that would allow for under sb10, there's 10 or 12 units, then we wouldn't necessarily need to do an eir related to that. but it's looking broader. so it shouldn't have an impact to our eir. what it may impact is like supervisor's to change 1, 2 and 3 to allow for four plexes city-wide so that would qualify under sb10 and not require any eir to do that. so i think that legislation was waiting for our housing element eir to be completed to be able to move forward. and in sb10 if enacted may change that and allow that to move forward prior.

>> commissioner imperial: in terms of the state legislations and, you know, i'm not keeping up and i'm pretty sure that the planning department is keeping up with all of the state legislation. and then with our housing element in terms of the analysis, sometimes we can request the financial impact of this -- you know, specifically for sb9 and 10. i wonder where that can be in the process where we could ask some sort of analysis on that too. especially if it's not included -- or it will not enact the eir for housing element. >> we can -- you know, again, we're -- we're trying to analyze sb9. it sounds simple but it gets a little complicated with our code. so, i mean, that's some of the information that we'd like to provide to you when we come back to you and give you an informational hearing on those

two, and those two bills. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: thank you, director hillis. a related question to you is that this commission has been approving a large number of housing projects and yet we're hearing and seeing i think that it isn't necessarily translating into site permit approvals or the commencement of construction on any of those units. and i'm wondering if we could get some kind of analysis about the pipeline of approved projects, and how many are being built, are we needing to extend those entitlements? what is the issue that is preventing those from going forward? i know that we're hearing about construction costs and rental rates and places being out of whack, but it could be great to have the context and understand the disruption that might have been caused by covid and the ability to actually produce these residential units as opposed to just getting them in

title. >> yeah, you get that quarterly report which kind of gives you a snapshot where the housing projects you've approved are in the process, but perhaps we can add some more kind of color to that, to show -- understanding as far as we know as to why they may be kind of stuck or some of the changes that we're seeing from prior pipeline reports. if we're seeing more entitled and not moving forward with building permits or whatever the case may be. so we can look at that. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> clerk: that concludes director's announcement and move to item 13 review of the past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals

and historic preservation commission. >> because of the holiday, the land use committee did not meet. and the one item concerning planning and the conditional use appeal for 450o'farrell street was continued to september 28th i have a short report today but i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. thanks. >> to let the commission know that the board of appeals did not meet last night. >> clerk: okay, very good, if there are no questions we can move on. to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit,

general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star, 3. through the chair, you have two minutes. >> caller: member chapman, i'm going to have to be speaking to represent the residents of knot hill and the existing property owners because there's nobody else to do it. and you have neighbors who absolutely represent only project sponsors and are paid good money to do so coming before you claiming to represent the community. it is a tragedy that when we discovered -- me and the other former leaders of knob hill associations -- two others -- we discovered that lower neighbors existed. we didn't even know that it existed since the end of the hospital project when the person who was the architect making his financial arrangements with the

hospital -- when that was done, lower neighbors disappeared. and then we heard that they existed completely out of sight and no way for anybody in the neighborhood to know about it. okay, so we decided that we would have to resurrect the neighbors and in april of 2020, we had the supervisor coming and we had the room, etc., and then, of course, covid came. then we planned for september this year so that we could, again, give the residents an opportunity, like i did with some ad hoc meetings around trying to get senior housing where the little methodist church was being removed. you know, 60, 80 people came. and lower pope neighbors has nobody going there because they don't know that it exists. all right, so we decided september this year we would do it and that's off again, all right. so, anyway, in the meantime, you know, the director called me. he was very kind. and i have to say he'll probably never call me again.

i was saying what a difficult position the commissioners are in. i know that you studied the projects, but you have to depend on staff. and you have to depend on, you know, the developers and project sponsors who are coming in and telling you very often lies. i mean, how can you discern it. and then the staff who are maybe committed to a particular project, and they're going to get it in some cases passed regardless. you know, it is very disturbing i'm going to tell you what it was to be a staff for the army and i'll probably have to do that next time because i was -- >> clerk: thank you ms. chapman for your time. >> caller: oh, good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia schutis and i sent you an email on saturday with changes of structures that are not adus and what they mean to the loss of natural habitat in rear yards. i know that you're concerned

about that. and that is just before you started and sfgov-tv is a cool thing and i heard about the gardens and they'll have a garden day in the end of september. anyway, i sent you an email about alvin duskin who died in july and not acknowledged by the "san francisco chronicle", which is kind of surprising. and i just think that he was precedent and prudent and so many of the things that he did in the 1970s -- i had never met him, i moved here in 1979 -- but i certainly heard about him and i know people and met people who talk about him with great fondness. and, you know, you're talking about high rises today, and office space, which is sort of interesting. and "the chronicle" did talk about office space and they had several articles in there about it. so i guess that i would acknowledge alvin duskin, and i hope that you got the email and the things that i sent with that

email, and people should look at the transformation of san francisco again by chester hartman because it does have a lot of stuff that's valuable for today. thanks a lot. take good care. happy holidays. be well, be safe, be happy. bye. >> caller: hi, this is tessa, and i would like to object to the changing of zoning admin straighter corey teague being removed from a director hillis, and moved to this body. i believe this is a direct conflict of interest. and interested in approving projects and the zoning administrator should be telling the director what the code says people say -- some people may say that our codes are restrictive and archaic and i think we can all agree that there are aspects of that, but the d.a. should be interpreting

the code regardless, and not reporting to somebody whose job is to approve projects. thank you. >> caller: hi, this is frances kerr and i support supervisor mandelman's adu enforcement item on the agenda here. i think that it's only fair that code -- >> clerk: sorry to interrupt you, but we're not considering that item now. we're taking general public comment for matters that are not on today's agenda. so you will need to press star, 3, when we reach that item. >> caller: hello, before i take your time up, can i just please confirm that item 2016-015987 has been postponed? >> clerk: what is the address for that, ma'am --

>> caller: 1750 van ness avenue >> clerk: yes, that's continued to september 30th. >> caller: okay, thank you very much. and we'll just call in then. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. go ahead, caller, when you hear that your line has been un-muted that's your indication to speak >> caller: my question was the same as the question before, it was confusing not knowing the ins and the outs of the planning commission. thank you. >> clerk: very good, thank you. >> caller: hello, this is jonathan randolph again. and i wanted to send another message to linda chapman to please check on your smoke alarm because it's been chirping for a couple months so you should probably replace the battery for it. and also i wanted to comment a little bit about the -- some of the complaints. we have heard that units are being left -- new adus are left vacant, but i wanted to say

that in some sense vacancy is the price that we pay for our tenant protections. when people -- when homeowners make a new adu because we encourage them to do so, many homeowners are not prepared to study the complexities of a code, the eviction protections that include to all units, including brand-new adus. so if a homeowner wants their in-law unit or granny plot to be available to their literal grannies without paying a $15,000 relocation fee, they need to keep that unit vacant because all long-term rentals are now subject to tenant protections, even if they're not reconciled and all adus are prohibited from short-term rentals. so if the landlord does not need the unit but doesn't want to manage a rental, he has to -- you know, to leave it vacant until, you know, he needs to leave it vacant until he's ready to rent it out or to the next

owner who is more willing to be a landlord. so i think we should be a little bit patient with vacancy of brand-new units. maybe the first homeowner isn't going to use a brand-new adu immediately, but he might be waiting for the right time for his relatives or the following owner might rent it out. thank you. >> caller: oh, hawaii hi, this is stephanie peak with the san francisco land-use coalition and i agree with tess wellborn about the proposed procedures for the planning department. but i wanted to talk about adus. i just don't think that it is fair to people who are renting that adus would replace their storage units. so protect our renters' rights. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm with san francisco

coalition. and similar to mr. peak, i'm calling to support the same points that ms. wellborn raised about the new re-org at the planning department. it is very disconcerting to see that two branches of this agency are going to be basically doing the same thing, and reporting to the same person. i've worked in regulated industries for a third of my career, and typically there are control the development of drugs and other government-related work. the zoning administrator is supposed to be -- supposed to be on a different branch and supposed to have an independent opinion about things such as variances. so if the zoning administrator is going to be reporting to the same branch of the planning

department, which is going to be issuing the permit, obviously, this is a conflict of interest, and that's how it works. so we are very concerned and we do not agree with this re-org -- and we think that if the zoning administrator is going to report to the current planning division of the planning department, i think that it's a redundant position, no offense to mr. teague, but it seems to me this is a redundant position and we don't need to have a zoning administrator if the current planning is going to be reviewing variances. so just a thought that basically we are concerned about this re-org, which doesn't make sense as a conflict of interest. and makes the zoning administrator's job redundant. thank you. >> caller: sorry, i'm in the

wrong place in line. i will come back later. thank you. >> clerk: okay, members of the public, last call for general public comment. you need to press star, 3, to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak for members of the public, general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 14, case number 2021-006353pca, the accessory dwelling unit controls. this is a planning code and administrative code amendment. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, the planning department staff. the item before you is the excess dwelling unit, housing services ordinance. this legislation was co-sponsored by supervisors mandelman, ronen, preston and melgar. and we have mr. jakeon bentley

from supervisor mandelman's office who is here to speak on the item shortly. we are also joined by ms. ocowska, the adu coordinator within planning. from the city attorney's office we have mr. peter millenich, and we also have some special guests from the work board with us today, including the deputy director christina barner and the administrative law judge, mr. joseph cuma. with that i'd hand it off to mrf introduction and then i'll follow up with my presentation and then, lastly, i invite the rent board to conclude the staff presentation. whenever you're ready. >> thank you, veronica, so much for the introduction. good afternoon, commissioners, i am mere on behalf of supervisor mandelman. the item is an ordinance that the supervisor introduced in june in response to a concerning

series of cases that we became aware of where we had long-time tenants who are facing the loss of housing service, like laundry, storage, car and bike parking, or common areas through a proposed adu project. and while housing services are already protected under the rent ordinance, the ordinance today is intended to add transparency and to provide a process for ensuring that these protections are properly enforced, particularly in the case of adu projects. commissioners, i would like to share background on how this effort came about. a few months ago our office was contacted by tenants of a 30-unit rent-controlled building in delores heights about the plan to add four adus to the garage. the tenants were concerned because it appeared that the new units would be in the sail the e location used for storage and laundry and garbage. the tenants pointed out that they had used these amenities for years and they felt blindsided to learn that it

would go away without any discussion from their landlord. the question that i got from the tenants was -- this can't be right, can it? commissioners, i think that when most people put themselves in that situation, they would agree that the answer to that question is, no, it is not okay. yet this appears to be a pattern that we've been seeing across the city that appears to recently have escalated. at this moment, i'm aware of four projects where they have 30, 40 units of rent controlled buildings and they learned that their common areas are slated to go away to make room for adus. i reached out to the housing rights committeea that the time and learned they were working with tenants in at least 10 other buildings all across the city who are facing the same issue. so i wanted to be very clear that supervisor mandelman, you know, agrees that adus are an important way to add more housing options to our neighborhoods, especially in our zoning districts that we allow

for one or two units. frankly, that really is the type of sighting where adus were originally -- where they originated and were envisioned for. that said, the supervisor feels as i've said that it's not okay to do that at the expense of existing tenants who are already using that space as part of their tenancy. so this is about more than a parking spot or a storage locker. this is really about tenants' rights and one more way that long-time tenants, especially in rent-controlled units can, find themselves being forced to leaving the neighborhood or even the city. for many of us, you know, it might be fine to take a lease on an apartment that doesn't come with a parking spot, for example. but for seniors and people with limited mobility, that's not okay and that's part of why they chose that apartment in the first place or the storage or the laundry or whatever it is that they relied upon when they signed their lease. commissioners, the premise of this ordinance is that there's no good reason that someone who relied on one of these housing services for years and paid rent for them and is a tenant in good

standing should be forced to do without them or potentially leaving that apartment. all of that is why the rent ordinance already does recognize housing services as an integral part of the tenancy and that's why it's already prohibited to remove a housing service without a just cause, similar to how it's prohibited to evict someone from their unit without a just cause. even though that's the case, and since the rent ordinance already protect these housing services it's become clear, as i mentioned with the many cases happening right now, that these services are still removed or at least proposed to be removed unilaterally without landlords without the tenant's consent. and i have heard from many architects and property owners throughout this process, you know, that do not have clients who engage in that particular practice, but it is clear that it is happening enough that it has come to our attention in these many other cases. that's why supervisor mandelman introduced the ordinances before you today and it's intended to ensure that protections are

clear and enforceable. to be specific, first of all the ordinance would put the housing service on the same legal footing as a wrongful eviction. that means triple damages and the right to have your attorney fees covered. and it means that most tenants would be in a stronger position to push back and more likely to find a lawyer to take their case if they go to court to charge for a loss of housing service. secondly, to amend the rent ordinance to make it explicit that getting a permit to construct an adu in and of itself does not constitute a just cause for removing that housing service. in terms of the planning code changes which bring us here today, the ordinance would amend the planning code to require a landlord to notify the tenants in the building of their plans for an adu before submitting their application to planning, and that notice has to include information about the location of the adu and how they impact the existing housing services in the building. finally, this ordinance would amend the planning code to ensure that the impact of

proposed adus on the existing housing services is factored in to the review of the adu permit at planning. this is done by requiring landlords to file a declaration with the rent board prior to submitting their adu application, and then the declaration needs to indicate that the adu either would not impact the housing services or the just cause for impacting those housing services and which housing services could be impacted. on that final report, commissioners, i want to share one substantive change from the ordinance that was introduced in june for your consideration today. this was a change that i shared with you all and the commission secretary earlier today. this is an amendment that supervisor mandelman intends to include in the substitute version of the ordinance that we just were not able to submit in time for the hearing today due to our august legislative recess. while this language is not included in the version of the ordinance that is being impacted, the substance of the amendment has been developed in consultation with planning staff.

and it is factored into the analysis and recommendations before you today, which i know that veronica will be speaking to as well. i wanted to just summarize the contents for the record of what this amendment is and, again, you have the language in your inbox. the substantive change here is to build on that requirement for a declaration form from the landlord to include a process where the tenants of the building or the tenants where the adus are proposed can attest to the information about the existing housing services and how they might be impacted by the adu by filing a petition with the rent board. so specifically tenants would have 30 days from the time that the required notification goes out to petition to the rental board for a written determination if there's housing services available in the building sao so we have a clear finding of fact there. and whether the adu project would sever, or substantially reduce or remove those housing services. in the event that there's a

petition on file, they have to investigate and give a written determination within 90 days of receiving the petition. and they would have to hold off until that determination is received. if there's not a petition filed within 30 days, the rent board would be directed to convey the declaration form to planning at that time and planning would be able to proceed with the application. this language also does specify that in the event that a tenant has provided their written consent for the removal or the reduction of a particular housing service, that planning may also proceed with the adu application in that case. again, this is a provision that supervisor mandelman will be including in a substitute version of the ordinance that we will introduce as soon as we can confirm with the attorney's office. and there's a few more amendments as well that are smaller, frankly, non-substantive but important as well. these are specifically just requiring things like the fact that the notice needs to be posted in a common area of the

building, requiring that declaration form needs to be included with the mailed notice, rather than just instructions on just how to find it, as well as the substantive amendment that i referred to. so in closing, commissioners, the purpose of this ordinance is to make it crystal clear for all parties involved that housing services are housing rights. and to make clear that when the city of san francisco says that tenants have a right to enjoy what they've been promised as part of their tenancy, which we have for several years in the rent ordinance, that we do mean it. and that there is a process for making sure that those rights are enforced. that's the purpose of the ordinance today. before i conclude i wanted to extend sincere thanks to your excellent staff as always, and as well as robert columns and julie at the rent board and thank you them for their work on developing this legislation. i want to recognize and to thank the housing rights committee and

anti-displacement coalition and other tenant advocates for their support and collaboration throughout this process as well with that, commissioners, i am here for any questions and i thank you so much for your time and consideration. thank you. >> all right, thank you. and so to emphasize the ordinance enhances the existing tenant protections through a new declaration to the rent board. such declaration include a description of the housing services, where they are located and where the adus are proposed. whether construction of the adu would result in severance or reduction or removal of said housing services. and the just cause for the previously mentioned. the declaration would also be accompanied by a notice posted at the property for at least 15 days prior to application submittal. and, lastly, just emphasize again the ordinance explicitly clarifies the administrative code that the issuance for a permit for adu construction does

not constitute just cause for the purposes of severing a housing service. as also described earlier, supervisor mandelman will be introducing a substitute ordinance in the next week or so hopefully, and the changes primarily focus on the noticing requirements and further tenant protections. under these anticipated amendments, tenants would now have the opportunity to actually petition the rent board for a written determination of -- to verify the presence and also the defining characteristics of the housing services in question. and part of these anticipated amendments also include expanding the declaration noticing period from 15 days to 30. and the property owner would also need to have posted the notice and a copy of the rent board declaration at the site. so this change, proposed change,

balances the lead time before the required application submittal, and it also provides the tenants with more time to actually review the notice, the declaration, and file a petition to the rent board if needed. and, lastly, in anticipated amendments, if the tenant has given the express written consent for severance reduction or removal of housing service, planning department would now be able to approve the proposed adu application. the department has reviewed and discussed this forthcoming substitute ordinance and, of course, the changes that they will still align with the ordinance goal of protecting the existing tenant rights. but they would also allow us to review adus as efficiently as possible. after the packets were distributed, the department received eight letters of support, including seven from

members of the tenants' association. it emphasizes the importance of protecting the existing tenants' rights and housing services. you also received an email from the san francisco tenants' union which supported the ordinance but not the staff recommendation, which i will go over shortly. and the san francisco tenants' union is also awaiting the substitute ordinance. we recommend to approve the ordinance with modifications as it supports the housing element build on previousests to allow more adus and to have existing tenants' protections and rights the department recommended modifications are as follows: first, for adus under the local program where no housing services are removed, and there are no tenant appeals, the modification is to allow the applicant to submit proof of the

notification materials directly to planning. this is meant to help the department to review adus as expeditiously as possible and aligns with the substitute ordinance that supervisor mandelman will be making. the second recommended modification is to allow the planning department to approve adus for codes under the local program if the housing service proposed is a parking space. the goal here is to house people, not cars. this aligns with the city's transit first policy. and this also still protects existing tenants' rights to certain housing services. at this time i would now like to invite the rent board to give his presentation and, again, i and the rest of the members of the team, are available for any questions. thank you.

>> am i on? okay. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is joseph coumas and i'm with christina varna on behalf of the san francisco rent board we are here today to talk to you about tenant housing services and what that term means in the context of our rent control laws. so i'll try to keep this brief, but i do think that a background will help to give this legislation some context. so the rent board is a department of the city and county of san francisco. we have been around since 1979 after the san francisco board of supervisors passed the rent ordinance, also known as rent control. so the rent ordinance limits the amount that a landlord can increase a tenant's rent during the course of the tenancy and it restricts the eviction of

tenants to certain specified just cause reasons. like all rent control laws, san francisco's rent ordinance has one overriding purpose which is to limit rent increases and stabilize rents. and so to accomplish this purpose, the law regulates the amount by which rents may increase and the speed at which they may do so. but the law also recognizes that it's not only by collecting a higher dollar amount that a landlord can increase the tenant's rent. so in the same way that an airline might increase profits by keeping its prices the same while eliminating the meal service, or leg room, a landlord can increase profits at a tenant's expense by charging the same rent while reducing services or eliminating maintenance. for which in part of tenant pays via the rent. so to prevent this kind of a backdoor rent increase, our law

allows the tenant to file a petition at the rent board to request a rent reduction if the landlord substantially decreases or removes a housing service that is connected with the use of their actual rental unit. and so, you know, the term "housing service" is actually very broadly defined in our law it includes just basic habitability requirements that are required in agreements, things like heat, hot water, electricity, repairs and maintenance -- those are all housing services under our law. if also includes, you know, amenity use that may not be required by law but were either included in the tenant's rental agreement or verifiably promised by the landlord. like storage and parking and access to laundry facilities.

so sometimes they say it arose due to the passage of time and the deterioation of the conditions at the property. and other times a decrease in service may result because of direct action by the landlord to actually, you know, to remove a housing service. but by the way, the decrease in service are the most common type of petition filed at the rent board. historically we get anywhere from 30 to 120 such petitions every month. and this type of petition, like i said, allows a tenant to request a rent reduction for the period of time when the housing services were not being provided. and, you know, about two-thirds of the time our staff can resolve these disputes informally through mediation that's conducted by a rent board attorney. but if that process is not successful, then a tenant's petition is scheduled at our office a more formal arbitration

hearing, kind of like a bench trial. and in arbitration, both sides present evidence and they give testimony under oath to an administrative law judge, and they will give a written decision that could be appealed to our commission by either party. and, you know, the written decision includes a really detailed summary of the evidence that's presented, so we refer to as the administrative law judge's finding of fact. and then the decision analyzes those facts in light of the relevant law to come to a conclusion. but in order for a rent reduction to be granted, the tenant has to prove that the decrease in housing service was substantial under the circumstances of that particular case. and the term "substantial" means that the decrease, you know, would likely have some effect on the rental value of the tenancy so it might include something that is just a minor inconvenience, it wouldn't include that.

but if they can reap a burden of substantial recrease in service they determine the amount of rent reduction. there's no written guidelines on the value of decreased services, so it depends on the facts of each case. for example, a loss of a parking space might be valued based on the replacement cost of a comparable parking space in the neighborhood. or maybe based on what the landlord charges other tenants in the same building for a parking space. so we they have to make arguments and then the administrative law judge would decide the value. and providing the tenants with a right to seek a rent reduction which is there since 1979. the law was in 1976 to require the landlord to have a just cause reason to remove certain types of housing services from a tenant space. so specifically parking and storage spaces, laundry room, access to decks, patios for

gardens, and kitchen facilities or lobbies and sro hotels. so really these fall into a narrow category of housing services that you might really call housing facilities or amenities. and since we have tendency to name the law after the supervisor who sponsored the legislation we prefer to this as [indiscernible] but the 2006 amendments, they raised a number of questions that still have not been answered 15 years later. so most importantly, the law does not explain what constitutes "just cause" for the purpose of removing the housing services. they changed the law in 2014 specifically state a landlord can temporarily remove housing services while seismic work, for example, is being performed. but there's no guidance on what

circumstances have a just cause for a permanent removal. you know, in addition, it's unclear whether the requirement for just cause only applies to housing services provided at the beginning of a tenancy, or whether it also applies to services that were provided after the tenancy began, but for no additional rent. so, for example, you know, what happens if the landlord allows a tenant to temporarily to use a parking spot, free of charge, because the tenant is recovering from surgery? the rent board wouldn't -- permission to use that parking spot was later revoked. but it's unknown if the just cause requirement would still apply. we have long held that it's up to the court -- not rent board staff -- to interpret any ambiguity in these provisions. we do have kind of an informal process at the rent board where a tenant to complain that the removal of a housing service

violates the just cause requirement. but the existing law only allows us to determine whether a rent reduction is warranted if that happens. the tenant has to go to court and file a lawsuit if they believe that the landlord violated the rent ordinance by removing the housing service in the first place. so kind of now to the legislation at hand. the types of housing service protected by these 2006 amendments are ones that generally exist in the common areas of multiunit buildings which are also the areas that may be appropriate for the construction of the additional housing units or adus. so as a result, we've had this inconsistency in the law for some time, where in some cases the landlord may have the right to do an adu under the planning code or a state law, but, in fact, prohibited from doing so under the local rent ordinance, and they may face, you know, liability if they go forward with it. so the proposed legislation

before you attempts to harmonize that discord. and is it just cause for the purpose of removing housing services? and as jacob and veronica already mentioned the ordinance sets forth these procedures for tenants to object the construction of an adu that results in the loss of a housing service, and then task our office, the rent board, we have 10 administrative law judges that will be conducting at a hearing to resolve any factual disputes between a landlord and tenant about housing services before the adu permit is issued and as i understand it that these hearings would be conducted kind of in the same manner as our regular tenant decrease in services petition, just that our finds in this case would be limited to determining whether or not any tenant housing services exist in the

location of the proposed adu. we won't be deciding the value of the service in the event that it is later removed, or any other legal claims between the parties that would have to be resolved in court. so there may also be instances where the rent board can help the parties, you know, to facilitate some sort of a voluntary agreement before the decision issues through our kind of mediation process. in which case i presume that the tenant could withdraw their objection. but the rent board is a very small department with a kind of growing list of mandates, that if this legislation is enacted that we would certainly prioritize for resolution within the required time frame and we will be working with planning staff on implementation. so i hope that this information was helpful. we are here to answer any other questions that you have. and that's it, thank you very much.

>> clerk: okay, does that conclude staff presentation? >> yes, thank you, commission secretary. >> clerk: very good. members of the public we should take public comment. you need to press star, 3, to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been un-muted that is your indication to begin speaking. through the chair you will have two minutes. >> caller: hello [indiscernible] and i support the proposed legislation and do not support the modifications that planning proposes. residents in san francisco are busy living their own lives, and while i'm familiar with the rent board ordinance and i can still make mistakes there, and they're not lawyers. if we make this clear that the owner of the property will have to take active action to inform

tenants of their plans and showing exactly what would be removed, that is very important and it will save you some time in the long run. but give residents respect. people deserve the comfort of their own home without intrusion. and that this legislation will make it clear in this unfortunate loophole of what the different responsibilities of planning and the rent board are please support this legislation as written, and make sure that tenants' rights are respected. thank you. >> caller: commissioners, mr. ionin, can you clarify is it a two or three-minute speaking limit? >> clerk: two. >> caller: i'm richard mcgeery, 45-year resident of a

1920s classic building at 555 buena vista avenue west. and i'm here to express enthusiastic support and many of my buildings, over 60 neighbors, for this proposed legislation as submitted to you but not modified. it helps close a significant gap between planning rules and rent board rules so that you can reflect both in your decisions. our landlord currently is proposing to unilaterally to remove most tenant parking and many other housing and contract services in our building without our permission to build inappropriate adus. i will be significantly harmed by the taking of my garage parking for many years and other services for these adus. parking in our hilly neighborhood already is congested, often full day and night. and at age 80 and currently mobility compromised it will be

very difficult for me to remain proudly independent, and healthy and safe, while trying to find on-street parking and then to carry bags of groceries and other packages on these hills to my sixth floor apartment. in our area, on-street parking also has a high rate of auto burglaries and there are many assaults with weapons in the area, including around the nearby buena vista park. i'd be an 80-year-old, slow-walking target. other neighbors in my same building are even more mobility compromised. we should not have our long-time contracted parking grabbed by our landlord without just cause and without our permission in their bold quest for more money through inappropriate adus. please recommend this legislation back to the board of supervisors as originally

proposed, including parking, to close the gap between the rent board rules and planning commission rules. >> clerk: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> caller: i would just like to support the gentleman who just spoke. i'm a youngster at 70, i've been here for 43 years. i'm still working to keep things together and, you know, i am a computer repair guy. and if people have internet trouble, i run out at night and try to help them out. and my car would be a target out on the street as i would. and i just -- it's really been something that i have enjoyed for 43 years, and, you know, i really need it now. this whole mobility restrictive thing -- it sounds very familiar to me, and i think that is going to probably get worse here in a bit. so the gentleman who preceded me did such a lovely job that i'll

yield to others and say that i really support this thing and i feel pretty much betrayed by the idea that the parking thing that is proposed if that part of the deal. so please stick up for us old folks, please. thank you. >> caller: oh, hi, this is stephanie peak from the san francisco land-use coalition. i ask you to support this proposal to protect renters' storage spaces and places for cars and bikes. if not you, then who is going to protect them? certainly not the planning department. and the rent board says they have no jurisdiction. renters need space for everything as much as owners do renters make up the majority of san francisco residents. please protect our renters' rights. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is teresa flanrick, and i'm

calling in support of this legislation and i ask you to please reject the recommendations by planning. again, removal of storage area, i think of a 75-year-old disabled veteran here who -- who needs that space for his motorized scooter in order to continue aging in place. and enabling him to get to the grocery store, etc. again, there's not public transportation that is accessible throughout the city. and so these parking spaces are needed in order for people to actually live in their homes. some people chose apartments that had parking because they have, you know, young children and going out with young children to get groceries and schlepping everything in. again, these are housing services that are part of their rights. and, again, you know, if you say housing people -- not cars --

housing includes space that enables them to remain in their housing. so you cannot separate it. so, please support this legislation, reject the recommendations by the planning department. thank you so much. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i wanted to express our appreciation to supervisor mandelman and his staff for engaging on this as well as the planning department for all of their work. we obviously want to see as many adus built as possible. i know that there's an item last week where i emphasized that san francisco is not going as far as it could when incentivizing the construction of new accessory dwelling units. we also absolutely understand that when people agree to things that they want those agreements to be honored.

so the less i hear about this specific piece of legislation and more to the general state of housing in san francisco, we need to be doing everything that we can to incentivize, not just accessory dwelling units, but all types of housing -- multifamily, along the transit corridors in our city for the sake of our environment and the communities that are there today. thank you very much. >> caller: hi, my name is roger dawson and i live at 801 corbett on twin peaks where they filed for a massively large adu, the largest in the city. i ask for the reform of the current adu and stop the legislation that is precipitated. the adu has brought in unscrupulous out of town developers to profit at the

expense of san francisco renters. the adu as it stands now is instigating horrendous behavior by developers to push their plans through by any means. here at 801 corbett for months they tried to keep their adu plans a secret until they were outed. the things that we endured are mind blowing. we have been lied to, threatened with eviction and harassed late at night at our doorsteps, and including senior citizens with disabilities. the deliberate remove all of our garage security system and encouraging theft to drive us out of the garage. and an ongoing aggressive campaign to subpress all notifications to the tenants about planning reviews of the 801adu, including tearing down notices and stealing letter from individual doorsteps. to put it bluntly, the adu has put us at a living hell here at 801 corbett, that it's drawn the condition of the district attorney's office and the rent board. and supervisor mandelman's

reform is needed so we can remain in our rent-controlled building. the 801 adu will eliminate parking, senior citizens in our building like myself with disabilities who depend on parking here will be totally disrupted and forced to move out. our laundry will be shut down for three years. our storeroom will be eliminated. supervisor mandelman's reforms preserve our services that make it livable here in the city. there's nothing accessory about the dwelling unit proposal. it is a massive construction of an entirely new building underneath and around the existing one, and the demolition and construction will drive out the majority of the 30 tenants, just what the developer and the owner want, effectively defeating rent control. thank you for your time and thank you, supervisor mandelman for this reform and for stepping up to protect the residents of our city. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dave mason and i live

at 700 church street. i strongly support supervisor mandelman's proposed ordinance and i would greatly appreciate you sending it along to the board of supervisors as written we heard of the plan to build four large adu units in our building. taking out 12 of 17 parking spaces, all of our storage lockers and the laundry room that we also use as a community room. this was the first i had heard of accessory dwelling units inside of an existing building and i remember thinking, i feel sure that adu program designers did not intend to add housing by making life worse for people already living there. let's consider parking. in the real world, parking on the street as compared to inside at 700 church includes these issues and risks. time spent looking for a

space -- now with more cars for 700 church on the street. moving the car for street cleaning. the car is subject to weather, damage, break-in and theft. carrying items, maybe heavy ones, between the building and the car. walking to and from the car in bad weather or darkness. risk of robbery, assault, injury and death while parking -- walking to and from and maybe carrying items that could have been put in the car or removed from it while out of sight in the garage. personally, i am not that old, but younger tenants here do not want to also lose parking. would leaders take away their family members' park something we don't think so. please support this ordinance. thank you.

>> commissioners, i'm a senior and disability action. to support the updated housing services legislation and reject the two modifications proposed by staff. [indiscernible] and the city made it easier to add adus to existing construction, it's been open season for landlords to grab up every square inch of a property, whether indoor or outside, or whether general tenants' rights or everyone's rights for light and space. adu laws that were supposed to enable grandparents to live close to family, instead, they have launched a stampede to crowd in as many units as they can fit. to create more cash cows for investors. and housing services are necessary and even critical

parts of [indiscernible] and we have often heard today that these housing services make a difference between a life that is livable and a life of unbearable hardship. the purpose of this legislation is to confirm and to protect tenants' rights to safety. for all of these services and not just certain ones that the government deems correct. in that case another [indiscernible] to break such contracts with tenants. and sanction the removal of a completely legal housing service. and the modification would remove the rent board from the process, thereby, taking adu construction a step backwards from the tenant protections and this law. we support the legislation, but we reject the modifications. thank you.

>> caller: my name is isabella marino. i have been a tenant at 240 stockton for 40 years. i support super mandelman's proposed legislation. on december 31, 2019, a building permit application was filed for adu construction in the basement of my building. the permit was issued on march 2, 2021. at no time during the intervening 14 months were tenants informed of the proposed work and, thus, able to request a discretionary review. our first notice was an email sent march 8th at 4:31 p.m. less than 72 hours before the construction started the following monday. the email stated that all basement housing services would be removed during construction and no compensation was initially offered. the loss of most concern to me was laundry. i asked about using machines in vacant units and were told that

there were no alternative options. small rent concessions were belatedly offered an construction started. this still resulted in major inconvenience as the closest laundromats are four blocks away and i had to leave my building during a pandemic. a temporary laundry area was set up in a vacant unit only after an appeal of the building permit was filed. this is not what might happen without the proposed legislation, this is what did happen to tenants at 530 stockton. the legislation would clarify and enforce laws already in place by requiring city agencies to work with each other rather than independently as the planning department and the rent board appear to do now. it would also ensure that the housing services, even if not physically located in your unit, could not be removed without just cause. this legislation is needed so that tenants in other buildings do not suffer the impacts that tenants at 530 stockton did.

thank you. >> caller: this is anastasia speaking in support of the adu housing services ordinance. the tenants' union welcomes the legislation that prohibits any removal, reduction or severance of their housing services without their permission. the tenant community is delighted that amendments to protect tenants' housing services will be in this ordinance, because the planning department has been telling tenants for far too long that it's just too bad that their garage, storage space or laundry facilities, etc., are going to be appropriated for an adu to be constructed. and their only recourse is to file a petition with the rent board to get their rent reduced an adu working group comprised of san francisco anti-displacement coalition members, including myself, have been working collaboratively and in earnest with jacob bisliff

from supervisor mandelman's office to clarify a tenant's right to keep their housing services, that includes this language. the department shall not approve an application to construct an adu if the applicant's declaration or rent board determination indicates the construction of the adu would result in the severance, substantial reduction or removal without just cause of any tenant housing service that is applied in the area of the property or the building where the adu would be constructed, unless the property owner demonstrates that the tenant supplied with that housing service has given their express written consent for the severance reduction or removal. okay, admirable features of this ordinance include a provision for the property owner to notify the tenants to construct an adu, a sworn declaration that no property services would be taken away for the purpose of the

construction, and the ability for the tenant to contest -- contest any discrepancy in the property owner's declaration at the rent board in advance of the department's approval of the adu permit application. commissioners, i ask you to support tenants' rights and the housing services ordinance, and to reject the department's recommended modifications. excluding -- >> clerk: thank you, your time is up. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm mitchell onenberg, the director of the affordable housing alliance and as our name suggests, in addition to fighting for tenants' right we support affordable housing, but not when it's done by cannibalizing the existing units. supervisor mandelman's proposal basically fortifies the existing law, the rent law, the

state-landlord tenant lawl law under most circumstances and just fairness and common decency. when a landlord rents a unit, it includes the housing services. and it's not really for you, the planning commission, to go into the unit and to tell the tenant which parts of their unit are expendable. there's lots of things that a landlord could do with their property, but once they have rented it to a tenant, that's what they're doing with it. renting -- trying to rent the same space to a second tenant, in effect, is what is going on here is basically a type of real estate fraud. and the planning commission really should not be the planning department -- the planning department should really not be enabling that kind of behavior. so we urge you to approve supervisor mandelman's proposal as it is without the department recommendations. thank you very much.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is brad fernd with the housing rights committee of san francisco. i want -- we strongly support supervisor mandelman's proposed legislation and disagree with the recommendations from the planning department. housing rights committee has filed a number of discretionary reviews on adu projects. all of which are projects being done by large real estate investment firms in the city in dense multifamily buildings. none of these cases are small property owners or homeowners. and in all of these cases supervisor mandelman's legislation presents a credible plan for tenants to avoid concerns and disagreement about the preservation of services that could be threatened by the

construction. and so really we're -- we applaud this legislation and we look forward to making sure that it passes at the full board, and are just really glad that, again, this sets up a way for tenants to have a credible way to avoid their concerns and disagreements about housing services. because as previous cases have shown, especially at 530 stockton, there is no -- there's very little to no way for tenants to do that right now, except through -- in some cases, a burdensome d.r. process. so thank you again, and i urge recommendation of the legislation. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with san francisco land-use coalition. i am calling in full support of this legislation as it was originally proposed. i want to thank supervisor mandelman and i'd like to thank

mr. bentlis for a very heartfelt testimony about this legislation. and i don't have the time to go through the cases, but i was involved personally in defending tenants against the encroachment of their landlords, but those of you that have been on this commission longer than three years covered a number of those i think this is a very important thing to be added to our law, because a contract is a contract. and every one of you that has struck a contract for living transactions such as buying, or purchasing homes, you should know how important it is on what is included in the contract, and at the contract, cannot be easily broken. to us tenants' rights advocates it's the same situation. a contract shall not be null and void just because the landlord wants to add more housing based

on the false premise that housing people is more important than housing cars. and that brings me to the second part of my testimony that i would like to relate how vehemently i'm opposed to the modifications proposed by the planning department. this department is parroting the same talking points from the usual suspects, and that is housing people is more important than housing cars. this is a false proposition. protecting the current residents of san francisco should take precedence over making room for future residents. for the elderly and the disabled, garages are a lifeline. housing people, potentially for the future, is not more important than protecting our vulnerable residents and our elderly and our disabled and sour single mothers with children whose mobility is tied to their cars. i am offended by the modification that the department

is -- has proposed. but, of course, i am not surprised. and i do realize -- >> clerk: your time is up. >> caller: this is jonathan randolph. i think this is a good proposal to give tenants notification to ensheriff that their housing -- ensure that their housing units are not removed. i have a question what counts as a housing service. for example, is parking that is rented separately and is not included in the rent considered a housing service? also, if a parking spot is offered for rent, but a particular tenant never chose to rent that parking spot, does the landlord have to get permission from that tenant? or do you have to -- or you have to get the tenants from only -- or you have to get permission from only the tenants who did actually rent that parking spot? and i'm curious to know whether you can phase out a housing

service by not offering it in new leases to new tenants until none of the older tenants have -- you know, until none of the older tenants use it anymore, and then remove that service eventually. i think that the ordinance is unclear because it mainly refers to code 37.2 and 37.9 that deals with existing leases but it also talks about any housing service that is supplied in the area of the property. so is there any way to phase out a housing service for new tenants in an apartment building or does this make the housing services perpetual beyond the tenants that are being protected? i hope that jacob will clarify these questions and it is my hope that the ordinance will be clarified that it is about protecting the existing tenants because i think that we should allow new adus as long as they don't hurt anybody in the future. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you, last

call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, 3, to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from the members of the public, public comment is closed. and it is now before you, commissioners. >> you can [indiscernible] the city attorney's office. i wanted emphasize one point that was raised at last week's commission meeting is that is that this proposed ordinance applies only to the city's local adu approval process. that is the discretionary process that the city has chosen to put in place but is not required to by state law. the state mandated pathways are not affected by the planning code amendment. thanks.

>> clerk: thank you. and just hearing all of the testimony today, i'm very in favor of moving this forward but i am okay with not carrying through the staff recommendations. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. for the planning department's recommendation, first the recommendation -- so as of now how does the planning -- how does the planning look into the housing service? because the recommendations allows for the applicants to submit frequent notification but at the same time, we have no -- it sounds like that the planning department has no way to find out how services are being removed. we have seen that during our hearings as well. so how is this the basis of the

first recommendation, you know, to make sure that the housing services are actually not being removed. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the planning department staff. currently housing services is not codified in the planning code. the department of building inspection requires a screening form for all accessory dwelling units. as part of that form, the property owner is required to sign under the perjury of law and it requires notification to tenants if there's an impact on the housing services and if there's affected tenants. this is required prior to the submittal of the permit application. so that's the only part of the permit process that entails housing services. >> so there's no way to verify. we're on the landlord's dbi screen -- okay? >> that's correct.

>> and my other question too, as of now the local adu program, we're all aware that it's rent controlled. but how do people know -- or especially the tenants, that their unit is actually rent controlled? do we have that process as well of notifying those future tenants that will be in the local adu program? >> when the local program adu is subject to rent control, it's the regulatory agreement that is a contract between the city and the property owner. that is then recorded against the deed of the property. and it's essentially a notice of special restrictions. and this is linked on our property information map, and so it is easily accessible. other than that, i believe that perhaps the rent board can chime in, but i believe that tenants can reach out to the rent board and confirm whether they are

subject to rent control. >> so it is a [indiscernible] that the units are rent controlled? >> yes, and it's recorded against the deed of the property. >> okay. thank you. so those are my initial questions. my comments are -- i do appreciate planning department's recommendations. again, the first recommendation is that i do feel like it contradicts the intent of the legislation, you know, making sure that the rights of the tenants are being protected. if there's, you know, if the planning department is only relying on the dbi form in order to build the adu expeditiously, there's no way to verify that

the housing service is removed. second, the recommendation, there's something that we are seeing in the hearings before where parking is being -- is being eliminated and i remember that there's one around oak street and the tenant needed the parking, but it ended up for us in the planning department or the planning department ended up settling something with the tenant. i, again, the -- i feel that the department statement about housing people, not cars -- i think that we need to look at it in a different way. it's really around the tenants' rights. this legislation is around tenants' rights and it's not about limiting the building of adus, especially if this is family buildings. so i am more leaning on the approval of the legislation -- of the legislation without the

planning department's recommendation. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: hi, everybody, the planning department, and mr. bentlis and the public to weigh in on this important issue. it's been chasing us for more than three, four years and i'm familiar with the majority of the cases that were mentioned. i have a question. as i understood you in your closing comments, you were saying that the department's recommendation is something that supervisors should consider, is that correct? >> thank you, commissioner moore. actually i wasn't referring to the planning department's recommendations. i was summarizing the proposed amendments that we'll move forward that will create that petition process that veronica and i described. >> commissioner moore: so that would not embrace what the department itself is recommending? >> that's right. i mean, we are certainly here to hear the recommendation of this

commission, you know, on that -- that piece. it does, you know, feel like the purpose of the ordinance is to ensure a greater level of collaboration between the rent board and planning than occurs currently. so the concern there is whether that recommendation would strengthen or weaken that -- that interchange between the two departments. >> commissioner moore: and i appreciate your clarification, because i first of all hold the position that it's the prerogative -- [indiscernible] and i personally do not feel -- i am not a legislator and i'm here to critically to listen to what is being presented. you are saying that there is not any consideration for even partial incorporating those suggestions, specifically on the support of the legislation and that is in what is in front of us. and i am in strong -- expressionly strong support in what the supervisor is suggesting.

thank you. >> clerk: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i have quite a few questions about the process, jut because i want to make sure that i understand what is happening, and as somebody who works in local government, i like to get in the weeds of exactly what's happening and the order that things are happening. so i want to apologize in advance to the length of my questions. i think that we'll go to the rent board but possibly to mr. bentlis and to ms. flores and perhaps before that i will say that i'm excited to have this legislation here. i cannot tell you the number of times on the board of appeals that you need to go to rent board. we can look if the permit was issued properly bought without legislation saying what proper is in this this case, can these things be severed. i think that it felt very tiring for the tenants who were spending money and hours to have their appeal to the board of appeals to have this other body

that is part of the city and being the one to see. and feeling like there's a big firewall between the agencies, right. it's not our job, it's their job. and this is to close that gap between the agencys and to create a pathway for the rent board and the dbi and for planning to work together more seamlessly. this is in the spirit of being in support of this less. i would say that there's a property owner what they're going to do to do adus, not the state program that we heard about earlier last week -- they're going to submit their building permit application. at the time of that application they're going to submit a declaration as if they had put a notice at their property for 15 days prior to submitting that application, is that correct? i'm not sure who is best to answer that. >> i'm happy to weigh in but i will defer to planning staff and report staff as well on the process. but i can say certainly

commissioner tanner, the intention from talking to staff is that there's a notice required 15 days prior to application. within that notice, there's a declaration form that was required to be filled out by the applicant. that's a form that the rent board would control the content of. and it's meant to say here are the housing services, here's how they can be impacted. so the declaration is not the declaration that the notice was served per se, it's a piece of what must be included within the notice and it's the kind of beginning of this ability for the tenants to see whether the information from the landlord is correct or not with respect to housing services. >> commissioner tanner: so the declaration could say that we would take this garage stalls one, two and three and they would become adus or there's no impact because we're taking an area that is not rented to tenants and not an amenity and declaring that there's no impact with these adus, is that right, ms. flores? i see you nodding. so the declaration is part of

the notice and i come in and i submit my building application and then in that intervening 15 days or at some point, i guess, i'm not sure it has to be 15 days or when -- a tenant of that property can say, hey, this declaration is wrong and it is severing services. and i want to get this corrected. and that goes to the rent board, is that correct, that petition goes to you, mr. cumas or your department? >> that is correct. they are requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge at the rent board to determine whether or not the landlord's declaration was correct, or whether or not -- any housing services have been removed due to the proposed adu >> commissioner tanner: okay, and likewise, even if no one files a petition, the rent board has 30 days to look at the application, the building permit application or reviewing the application to ascertain whether

the rent board sees that any housing services are severed. is that what happens as well? >> no -- >> commissioner tanner: or a petition? >> to give the tenant an opportunity to raise the objection. and we would forward it to planning based on this deadline. >> commissioner tanner: great. and 30 days happens and we didn't hear anything or get petitions, good to go. and in the case if there is a petition filed you'll do your investigation, which i think that you described, the investigation. there could be in a typical position, there could be mediation or even arbitration and appeals to the rent board, but for the purpose of the planning application you'll use that petition and investigation to determine, yes, indeed, the housing services are severed. or, no, they are not severed during to the adus, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> commissioner tanner: okay. in the event that housing services are severed and you send to planning, hey, the services are severed from these

adus, when planning receives that note, ms. flores, are we pausing the application to see if the proceedings continue and if that might include arbitration and appeal and we're not returning to this review of this application until that path has concluded or that it can't go forward at all because you're severing housing services and we'll just have to withdrawal the application? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. so this question has come up in our discussion with the supervisor's office and also with the rent board. and if there are housing services removed and the final determination is that they are removed we cannot move forward on said adu application. and to that, i also just want to highlight that based on the information from the rent board, we understand that some of these cases may take months, may take

years, i understand even, to even to be scheduled for a hearing. so that's where we're still looking for clearer information on the timeline impact and the viability. >> commissioner tanner: great. so that helps me. i think that, certainly, i understand the staff concerns around having applications that are sitting and kind of waiting and there's the workload but they're also kind of dormant. so it creates a challenge, should that staff person get more projects assigned because this thing could come back or it could stay dormant, we really don't know when. i totally understand and i want to respect that and acknowledge that i think this is very, very important protection legislation and i have confidence that they can navigate on the challenge of having these things kind of leading and not on the back burner. so continuing on that line of questioning i want to understand that the planning department's recommendation number one, to me it reads essentially that you're suggesting that if this

declaration is posted and notice and there's no petition and no housing services severed, that instead of the rent board -- the rent board -- i'm not sure why that is different than what is proposed because it seems that the notice is posted and there's a declaration, and there's a wait of 30 days for the petition, but if there's no petition than it goes to planning. i'm not -- i'm not clear on what is saved in that first recommendation? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. so this recommendation, or the intent of this recommendation, was to really remove that additional step that may have prolonged the adu review for our staff and having the permit on their desk. with the forthcoming substitute ordinance and having a clearer timeline for that appeal period, some of which can occur prior to the application submittal, some of this actually does remove some of the time concerns. so that's a little -- we're in a

little different place than where we were prior to the application -- or the distribution, rather. however, the idea is really if there are no concerns, if there's no issues with this proposed adu and if there's no tenants, then let planning move forward as quickly as possible on the adu application as we continue the site review. >> commissioner tanner: i'm just understand hearing how it's much different. maybe i'm being a little dense. but it seems that there's a waiting period and if there are no petitions filed you can go ahead with this. so there's a timing issue, certainly, for the applicant of the 15 days before and the 30 days waiting and i totally respect that. but, again, if no news is good news and it doesn't seem like a huge time imposition -- you know, notwithstanding that people like to see things go quicker. did you want to try to address

my lack of understanding this? >> veronica knows it much better than i do, so we're saving the 30 days. so it's the 15-day waiting period and if no housing services are removed and no one files a petition, they can send it directly to us and there's not a 30-day waiting period. >> commissioner tanner: okay, thank you. so i am somewhat supportive of that idea. certainly, open to hearing what other commissioners think. again, if no one is raising objections in that time, i think that 15 days does seem a little short, so that's kind of why i do like having the 30, and giving folks time to see what's happening. and i think that you already answered the question, which is the state adu program. folks could pivot to that. i know that the legislation that we looked at is not in place yet, but some version of that going forward, in that situation, you know, could a landlord -- let's say that they're planning 10 parking spot into 10 adus, and they are challenged by a petition and

this process plays out and planning says, no, you can't have these tenant parking spaces become adus, and could they pivot to the state program or the limitations that we discussed -- i think that there are some overall capacity limits of how many adus under the state programs are allowed for property. maybe it was one or two or something like that. is that where it would kick in? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. yes, applicants would be able to pivot towards the state program which is required to approve those adus if they meet the parameters outlined by state law. they are using a less number of adus, and it allows one in certain situations there are more adus available, but not as many as the local program. >> commissioner tanner: great, so that's kind of back-stop there. and then last thing that i will speak to the -- to the department's second recommendation on vehicles. i certainly understand the idea behind that, and, like, i do think though that this is really

about protecting the existing tenants and also building new housing. and i believe in protection and preservation and production and i think this is harming the preservation and production, so that it doesn't affect current tenants. parking spaces are very valuable. so if the landlord is severing parking spaces and he's not negotiating rent changes and not having the tenants being willing to do that, that is a big change. and certainly when i was renting and looking to where to rent, i would factor in, is there parking and these amenities available -- laundry and outdoor space. so to not have one of those suddenly is something that bears discussion and negotiation and certainly notice to the tenants that this is happening and that they want to take some action and if they have the ability to take that action. so, again, very grateful to see the legislation come forward. and i will pause my comments and i look forward to hearing from my fellow commissioners.

>> clerk: commissioner imperial >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i have one last question and my question is to mr. bentlif regarding the recommendation number 1 by the planning department. is that something that your office have also talked with the tenants' organizations as well regarding that -- >> yeah, thank you, commissioner imperial. we have heard clearly from the tenants' organizations that we have spoken with that they're not in favor of either of the recommendations. and on that first piece, as i mentioned to commissioner moore, i think that the concern is that i appreciate the intent to streamline it when there's not an issue but the concern is planning staff may not know what they don't know essentially. and if the rent board is the one to be receiving, you know, complaints or concerns from tenants, i would just be concerned about things getting missed in translation without the requirement that the rent board send the form over.

>> commissioner imperial: that's what i'm interpreting in your anticipated amendment as well with the process by the planning department and verifying the, you know, whether the housing services are being severed or reduced. another question is for the board -- the rent board. so when the petition is filed, in what way it will constitute -- i know that there will be petitions to declare services and it would be under those kind of circumstances when a tenant petition is filed? and it says here that it will be 90 days to transmit. can you talk about the process, what happens when a petition is filed. >> yeah, so under the legislation, the rent board would have 90 days to issue -- to issue a decision and transmit that to the planning department

from whenever the tenant objection was received. so during that time, the rent board would have to hold the petition with a hearing before an administrative judge law. so some of the scheduling delays that come up is that the parties have to be available. we don't know the party's availability, and we don't know if there are witnesses they want to bring with them to a hearing there could be postponements for good cause that we would have to grant. but eventually we'd schedule the case for a hearing and the parties present their evidence and then the administrative law act would try to issue the written decision as quickly as possible within that 90-day time frame. and there may be you know, circumstances where it's literally not possible because the parties asked for additional time after a hearing that has had evidence and they had to leave the record open. for due process reasons i think that we'll want to do that to avoid any potential appeal based

on, you know, we didn't give someone ample opportunity to present their case. but i think that in most cases, you know, we're going to do the best we can to get that decision to planning as quickly as possible. >> commissioner imperial: and i believe that there are two means, two petitions that tenants can file. is that part of the declaration or the notification in this first 15-day notice? >> so, i mean, we haven't created the declaration yet, the rent board staff would have to work on that. but, yeah, i think that it would be a good idea to include some language in the declaration that notifies the tenant that even if they're not contesting the application for an adu, they still reserve the right to petition the rent board for a decrease in services if the

housing services are removed in the future. that would be a separate process, a separate petition that the tenant would have to file for a rent reduction. >> commissioner imperial: i will leave it up to him to talk about the nuances of the declaration, but, thank you. >> clerk: commissioner. >> thank you to the commissioners for all of their very helpful questions. i have a few follow-up questions. i'll start with a question that was raised i think by commissioner tanner, which is, you know, what happens if somebody chooses not to pursue the local program that tries to do this via the state program. you know, what are they free to do and not free to do.

and i want to make sure that i understand this. if the tenant has a contractual right to parking, it's not like the landlord can still pursue the state program and allow the landlord to get rid of the parking, is that correct? [indiscernible] of the city attorney's office. >> i'm happy to take this one. i think that the answer is bound up in the relationship between our rent ordinance and the planning code. but the city's current practice is that the planning department would still be able to approve the permit to construct the unit. and the tenant that feels that they have been affected would have remedies through the rent board or superior court to challenge that. so if -- if an applicant was not

able to proceed through the local program here, and chose to take advantage of the state-mandated program, i think that it would look a lot like the current process that we in place in the city. but it would operate in the same way. >> which means that the planning department could issue the permit for the a -- to build the adu, but the tenant retains the right to either seek compensation for the reduction of housing services if the landlord should go forward from the rent board, or sue in court saying that there's a violation of the contract? >> yes, i believe that is correct. and i would ask if my colleague has anything to add there. >> no, i think that you got that right, peter. >> okay, thank you for that. and i guess that then i'm going to move back to the program as proposed by supervisor mandelman, which is not the state program, it is, you know, the new program, the local program, that has revised for

this. does the existing housing services depend upon the existence of a contractual right to parking or storage or laundry? if there's no contractual right to parking, can the tenant still make the argument that, you know, nobody said anything and they parked there and now that space is being eliminated, so it's still a severance of housing services? how does the existence or the non-existence of a contractual right for laundry or the storage affect the determination as to whether or not there are housing services that are being severed? >> veronica from the planning department staff. thank you, commissioner diamond, for this question. and this question has come up a lot even internally. so the answer to the question is that there needs to be some form of agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

and what form does that agreement look like? it's oftentimes the -- just the lease and rental agreement. i would have to defer to our colleagues at the rent board if there's just a verbal agreement, if that counts as well. but there has to be some form of agreement between the two parties. i think that mr. cumas has come on, so i will see if he has anything to add to this. thank you. >> so the housing service can be provided in a written rental agreement, it can be just something that was promised verbally by a landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. often that's the case. you know, in the context of a decrease in services, hearing that the rent board can sometimes show that a unit was advertised on craigslist to have access to garage storage and the tenant went to view the apartment and the manager said this is your parking spot,

parking spot a. based on all of the evidence, the judge, and the judge finds that is credible and there's sufficient evidence to support that at the inception, that is a housing service. it does not include to be included in a written lease. often tenants don't have written leases and they have verbal agreements before they moved in >> commissioner diamond: it's the rent board that would hold a hearing to determine whether or not there's a support for the claim that housing services -- whether the written contract or the oral promise or, you know, just pattern and practice. is that correct? >> under this legislation, that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you. next question is the last speaker -- i think that his name was jonathan randolph, i couldn't hear it exactly -- raised a number of detailed

implementation questions and i didn't write them all down, but it struck me that they -- as you have proceeded with this legislation, if we don't try to resolve them upfront, they'll come up. and so i'm curious about some of the questions, but i'm also curious about a procedure by which any other unresolved questions that may come up in the future are addressed. a couple that he raised that struck me is, you know, what if the service was offered to a particular tenant and they turned it down. like, you know, they could have had parking but they chose not to, is that -- and then the landlord wants to come in and put parking there, is that considered severance of housing services? and i don't know whether this is -- or who wants to resolve that question -- but i put it out as one example as an interesting question. >> i'm happy to respond to that

so the service has been offered to the tenant and they declined it, then it would not be a housing service that is provided to the tenant for their use. i think that the same caller also asked the question, can the landlord remove a parking space if it's not rented and it's rented to somebody who doesn't live in the building? and the answer is that is a commercial tenancy. so if a parking space is rented in conjunction with an apartment, it's that housing service under the rental ordinance that falls under all of these legislations. but if the landlord merely rents a parking space for non-residential occupancy to someone, that -- that agreement, you know, that is a commercial tenancy and it wouldn't fall under san francisco's rent-controlled ordinance at all. >> commissioner diamond: that include parking spaces rented to -- excuse me -- residential tenants of other buildings?

>> i think that you could have nuance there if you had a landlord that had two adjoining buildings and rented an apartment to a tenant in one building and the other building, arguably, that's a housing service. but clearly the easy answer is that a landlord that just rents a parking space to someone who is not their residential tenant, that doesn't fall under the rent ordinance. >> commissioner diamond: what if the parking and the and the unit are priced separately. and on separate contracts for them. (please stand by)

provided after the tenant paid extra rent for it, the landlord would have to basically fund that. >> for landlords to intentionally choose not to include otherwise available parking and, you know, storage space and leases as they come up going forward? >> i think if a landlord i

think one of the other questions was can they phase out providing housing services but if a tenant moves out and the landlord has a vacant unit, they can choose. >> right. okay. last question is really to staff. we heard some very compelling testimony about recommendation number two and how it's really a disservice particularly to people, older adults and people with movement limitations who really rely on parking and i'm

trying to understand in light of all that testimony how strongly the department feels about recommendation number two. it really does seem to fly in the face of & the needs of the large segment of our population and so i'm trying to understand what the policy. you know, i understand the issue of housing over parking, but given what we just heard, are there additional arguments that they haven't already articulated? >> commissioner: thank you, commissioner diamond. i'll provide some additional comments and then i'll pause there and see if director hillis or mr. star would like to elaborate further. but, again, the second recommendation really stems on our transit first policy and in

recent years, parking is not required. often times, a garage space or the parking space is the most appropriate area to expand habitable space, whether or not that's for an a.d.u., so this is what we're balancing with the second recommendation here and i will pause here and invite them i think star is available first so i'll pass it over to him. >> yeah. sure. thanks, veronica. people do rely on their parking. it kind of comes back to me that 42% of the city's green house gases comes from transportation and most of that comes from private automobiles. we have avoided putting off these tough decisions on how we move around the city for a long time now. we, you know, usually protect

parking and refer to the driver in a lot of our decisions and we've been doing that for quite a long time. so at the anniversary of the red, you know, sky day, which is today thinking about climate change and thinking about switching over to sustainable transportation, we think it is in line with that as well. so, this one choice won't end global warming but it is a step in the right direction and it's showing that the city's serious about dealing with this. >> commissioner, just to add to that, we struggle to assist with recommendation as well. clearly, you heard arguments against it, but there still is that contractual obligation to provide parking. i think you may get that in the future where a landlord doesn't rent parking to a perspective tenant, instead, tries to rent

it to a tenant down the street or use it commercially or just don't use it because they don't want to get into this situation where, you know, they can't remove parking for housing. so i think we get it. we had a lot of discussion about this topic and kind of understand both sides, but for the reasons kind of articulated here and in other issues about what happens because it will have consequences to how landlords kind of rent out in the future, parking, you know, we landed on that recommendation. >> commissioner: thank you very much. obviously, a very tough policy choice that you are putting in front of us with respect to recommendation number two and i wanted to make sure we really understood what was driving the decision making there and, i

quite agree with you that the issue is different with respect to existing tenants and how landlords may in the future decide what to do with a space that, you know, once an existing tenant has moved out. i guess, sorry, i do have one more question and that has to do with recommendation number one and i want to follow up on commissioner tanner's question. nobody indicated that there's a housing service. what do we get by waiting the extra 30 days. i'm trying to understand. a lot of you very protective of the tenant's rights here. what are we gaining by adding the extra 30 days if the time frame to raise an issue within those 15 days and at the end of the 15 days, am i understanding

correctly that then, if we don't follow recommendation number one, we still have to wait another 30 days and recommendation number one would say no you don't have to wait the other 30 days. can somebody help me understand how recommendation number one would play out? >> thank you, commissioner diamond. so the way that the original ordnance is today's forecasted is the tenant only has 15 days total in order to file a petition with the rent board. all of this occurs to prior applications. in the fourth coming substitute ordinance, the tenant would then have 30 days, not just 15, it's now a full 30 days to file a petition with the rent board. the first 15 of those days would need to occur prior to the applications and then if the property owner submits the

application on day 16, then they can have tenants petition filing period occurs once the city already has the application on hand. and now moving on to the first recommendation from staff. what this does is on day -- i'll just call it day 31, but the day after that 30-day tenant petition filing period, the property owner or the applicant, the idea is that the applicant would be able to share that information directly with the planning department. in the coming substitute ordinance there would still be that wait time for the 30 days, for the next 30 days for the rent board to send and transmit the materials to the department. so it's that next set of 30 days that we are trying to combat and then try to move as

smoothly as possible and can i pause there. i know there's a lot of 15 and 30s. can i check in and see if that clarified for you, commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: so maybe this is a question then for mr. binsler how are tenants by any shape or form a recommendation. >> thank you, commissioner diamond and veronica for that summary. do i want to clarify and i apologize this language is not in your package and it does make it confusing and i recognize that. the proposed language, veronica was correct, the only thing i would differ with is that fient 30-day hold. so it's 15 days prior to the application. and then, the total of 30 days to petition. that time frame is exclusive prior to when the notice went out. 30 days. that was the opportunity to the rent board. the way that we have drafted this language with the deputy

city attorney is that upon day 31, if no petition has been filed, the rent board shall promptly convey this to the planning department. we had originally said they should send it within 30 days, that became redundant. at the end of which unless there was a petition filed. it should now go on to planning. so the way i understood the planning and spirit of recommendation is to say let's not put ourselves at risk of needing to wait on the rent board in the event that they have some lag timing looking that document over which i appreciate. as i said, my feeling is the risk would be you're essentially the recommendation, you would be allowing the applicant on day 31 to say, hey, we're all good. please sign off on my application without the rent board having to have said "yes." this is the document we got. the it's the same one the tenant saw and nobody filed a

petition. that's the only thing i would see with the issue that's listed in both of their per views. >> commissioner: right. i think it's a really good point which is your recommendation would have us rely on the developer or the applicant basically saying nobody filed anything, let's move forward as opposed to waiting for the red board. don't you think it's worthwhile to wait for the official body to make that determination? i mean, is there an argument not to wait for the official body? i know it might take -- it might cause a week or two or three of waiting, but then on the other hand, you've got no worry that you're not getting the official word. >> yes. thank you, commissioner diamond. so the intent is really to protect the existing tenants, so having the official

documentation from rent board would serve that and, again, part of this recommendation really came about prior to this board coming to substitute ordinance and i do see now that the latest draft of this ordinance does say it does promptly send the materials over to the planning department. promptly, hopefully within the first week or so that is going to optimist clooe assume that will be prior to the initial 30 days that the rent board had that there's no issues and they can send it over to the planning department. >> commissioner: it also strikes me that the rent board can planned department can execute that procedure. so i really appreciate the other commissioners' indulgence is and allowing me to ask all

of those questions and i am interested in hearing the rest of the comments, but i think in order to move this along, i'm going to at this point move that we recommend adoption at the legislation without either of the two planning department recommendations. >> commissioner: second. and let me also call on commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i wanted to make a quick comment in response to the idea of eliminating tenant parking and housing directing on transit first and climate change. i believe that way it's a serious issue of social equity as long as the planning department and the planning commission approve the large amounts of construction and large amounts of parking i

think is hypocrite cal and not equitable. if we are looking broadly at reducing parking no matter where it is if it's existing or proposed, as a policy to which we're not making any exceptions, i can accept that argument as a right. i think it's against the ideal social equity. my second point, workload. i'd like to ask the department mr. star, ms. flores, and mr. bentler that this will require a large amount of work. what exactly extend the location of tenants this far. what shape they are in etc., it will require extensive feels better which the department

does not make today anymore to regular basis. is that a correct statement? >> mr. bentler, mr. star, ms. royce. >> i think i would refer to the rent board to figure whether the premise of that will be complex and simply say, of course, to your overall point, we decide the city budget on an annual basis and that includes the requests from departments. so certainly we will be all ears to talk with the departments about the staffing they need as we do every year. >> commissioner: mr. star, do you have any observations well enough to know that certain cases with quite a few visits which these days are mostly done by looking at google maps, etc. when it comes to building on the outside? >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure i got your

question. could you repeat it for me. >> commissioner: i'm asking about an increase in staff hours dedicated to these particular type of cases requiring field visits and detailed investigation about the type and extense. >> you know, i don't know how much extra staff time would be required. perhaps someone from current planning would be a more appropriate person to talk about that, but i think it will be a delicate dance between the planning department and the rent board when deciding what is the housing service and what's being lost, but i'm not sure it would be a huge increase in staff time, it will just require a little more focus on their part. >> commissioner: second question to you, mr. star, does it require unanimous support when a petition is filed by

tenants? let's say we have a tenant building with tenant services by which 60% of the tenant services would be affected. sometimes tenants say okay i don't really care if this is lost or not. what is required to fuel a petition? >> just one. one the contract is an individual contract between the landlord and the tenant, so it's just that one person that needs to file a petition. >> commissioner: but does that mean that that person's filing only affects his space or his washing machine or does it affect the entire array of citizens? >> i think it would just be particular to that tenant, but then i would defer to the rent board to answer that question. that's out of my expertise.

>> yeah. it would be particular to that tenant since the housing service is connected to that particular tenancy. it could potentially affect other tenants if it was a common service such as laundry, but it would be particular to that tenant. >> commissioner: but if only one tenant files and the other six or eight don't care, what happens then? let's say you have two washing machine, one parking space is affected out of six, what is the extent by which one tenant can raise an issue and what does he get out of it it isn't only his parking space. it's ultimately a question of majority or proportional

support for petition? i'd really like to understand by way of which the petition can be effective. >> i think i'll refer to my colleague on that. >> if i can jump in, if the rent board determines that there's a housing service, like a laundry room as a housing service, we could move forward with that permit regarding the a.d.u. so i dongt think they'd look at it by washer. but if that's determined to be a housing service, we don't move forward with the adu application in that case regarding the adu, but regarding the loss of housing

service and you're having to kind of wait through that. with this legislation which is good the rent board would need to determine if housing service is being lost. if there is, we wouldn't move forward with that permit. we wouldn't. >> commissioner: he did not seem to be able to really fully answer that question. so i'm kind of wondering, where is the definition of that require. >> if it's one housing service, we don't move forward with the service. >> about storage cubicle on lone. washing machines are all one loan. like i live in the building

with 24 units, two washing machines, two driers, and two parking spaces. the 24 people use the two washing machines and the two driers, one tenant would be affected by i would say my other services are being affected. does that mean the other 23 don't have to say anything or can oppose it or what is it? >> this is jeff. if it's a shared housing service, then any tenant could have a petition and claim the adu results in the loss of the housing services any 1 of them if it's a shared service. if it's a service that's only used or provided to one tenant like a separate parking spot, right, then it's just a one for one. basically, that tenant has to raise objection to the loss of that parking spot. >> commissioner: you're just answering my question. most services like storage and

outdoor space garbage and recycling as well as laundry are shared services. they're all confined to a particular part of the building. the only thing which is scattered is parking. so i can understand that parking may be a different continuation than what is really shared and affects the other 23 people in a 24-unit building. so i think you just answered my question. you don't have to get unanimous support. one person can say it affects my services aside from the parking question and that will stop the thing from going forward. i think my question was answered. thank you. >> president: mr. star, did you have anything more or were you called upon? >> i was able to -- the parking issue is we're not taking the

tenant's ability to seek civil remedies through that with it. we would just be able to approve the adu. that was clarified previously. >> president: gotcha. thank you very much. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i just have one followup question about the comment that's on page six of this packet. it talks about an information gap because i think it's kind of saying that at least the rent forward is not looking at the plans and also that the housing services is not identified on plans, so the planning department may not be able to accuratery determine the housing services notified by the rent board. so i definitely can see that as an issue, but do i wonder could it not be remedieded by asking those to be identified on the plans or i want to make sure i'm understanding that problem correctly because it does seem like something through administrative changes and how this is administered within the department either that could be

required and that certainly seems like it could help the rent board when they're getting the information to see the plans and either where there are services. obviously, if there's no services, then that would show nothing. there are no services being severed or no services provided. so just want to understand that issue that was raised and if that's something the department can solve internally. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. planning department staff. i believe this concern is resolved by the forthcoming amendment that will require if a tenant does petition but the determination of the housing services distribution, what they are, where they're located, we will then be able to easily see on the plans and we will, of course, be working and collaborating with the

rental board. >> commissioner: hopefully as this rolls out. if you all have fees or your budget comes to be, hopefully, there can be some tracking to properly assess if there should be some type of fee that's associated or just a general increase or for landlord who is are pursuing this particular path with multiple adus that there could be a way to ensure that our staff time is covered and that this work is able to be carried out without impact on the other applicants and the other projects that are for the work that's being done. did you have something you wanted to add? saw that you popped on the screen. at least, you popped on my screen. >> no. just that we don't.

>> commissioner: okay. hopefully you're able to get more resources. thank you. >> president: and natalia. >> i wanted to address earlier. as a department policy, we do require that any outside laundry be retained part of the rash name for that is not to scourge the use of our and that would most of the time result with less number of adus and it

would limit our ability to build an adu. >> secretary: okay. commissioners. if that concludes your deliberation and staff, comments on the recommendation? there is a motion that has been seconded you on that motion, [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0.

please note that all written comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 p.m. on september 20th, 2021. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. thank you. can i have the ability to share my screen good afternoon

president koppel and staff. joining me today remotely are my colleagues debbie eugene, allison sanderslice and michelle taylor. members of the project sponsor team from the san francisco recks and parks department are also here today. the improvement project draft environmental draft report or draft e.i.r.. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the draft e.i.r. pursuant to the environmental act and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public review period for the proposed project draft

e.i.r. began on august 5th, 2021, and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on september 20th, 2021. i will now provide a brief overview of the proposed the square is an approximately two level park under the jurisdiction of the san francisco recreation and parks department, the project sponsor. existing park features include eugene children's playgrounds, bathrooms, elevators to the

portsmith garage and a 1,600 square foot clubhouse nestled underneath the landing of the pedestrian bridge. the park is founded by washington street to the north. kearny street to the south. and it is associated with various historic events dating back to 1848. beneath the park is the garage, a four level parking garage that was constructed in 1961. 750 kearny street is a 27-story tall building constructed in 1971. the second and third story of the building was wopped as a chinese cull cur center.

750 kearny street was built in the brutalist style. 7 when the property was developing. upon completion of the project, the chinese culture center was established in 1973. the pedestrian bridge is a 28' wide 210' long concrete ped bridge that extends from the upper square over kearny street that extends to the upper floor. the bridge provides access via an exterior central staircase

on the third floor of the hotel building. it was built in 1971 with current construction of the hotel building and designed in collaboration an architect from taiwan. the elevated pedestrian bridge above curry street is a stylistic extension of the brutalist hotel and incorporates many of the concrete forms. the organization that established the chinese culture center also secured an easement with the city's department of public works and worked with the recreation and parks department to construct an elevated pedestrian bridge that directly connected the chinese culture center to portmyth square. the bridge is associated with the growing political power of chinese american residents of chinatown and san francisco. the bridge established a physical and symbolic connection between the chinese culture center and the china

town community. all three components of the project sites are eligible for listing in the california register of historic resources. portmyth square is eligible under events. 750 kearny street, the hotel building and the chinese culture center is available under events and architecture and the bridge is eligible under events and architecture. based on all of this, each of the components of the project site, the park, the hotel building and chinese culture center and the pedestrian bridge are historic resources for the purposes of ceqa and were analyzed in the draft e.i.r.. as for the proposed project, the san francisco recreation and parks department proposes to renovate the existing park within a new children's playground, exercise equipment, structures, seating area, way

finding. signage. sidewalks, landscaping. terraces, ramps, and a new 8,300 square foot clubhouse. the proposed project would also demolish and remove the pedestrian bridge that connects port smith square to 750 kearny street. located in addition, the proposed project would replace curb cuts and a portion of the streets and sidewalks adjacent to the squares for utility connections. on the next slide.

the draft e.i.r. would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the significance of the historic resources of 750 kearny street and the pedestrian bridge. other impacts of the architectural resources for the proposed project. mitigation measures have been identifieded for the significant and unavoidable impact to historical architectural resources from the proepdzed project of the historic resources. the second measure requires the implementation of a salvage plan and the third measure requires the program and would result in a permanent display of interpreted materials concerning the history and

features of the resources. while these mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project at 750 kearny street and the pedestrian bridge over 750 kearny street, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. the impact resulting from the proposed project related to architectural resources, and human remains all other impacts were found to be less than significant or would result in no impact.

the full preservation alternative and preservation alternative. the preservation alternatives were developed and those numbers provide feedback during the 2016 hearing. overall, a reasonable range of alternatives and would avoid the reduced project and restore architectural resources. additionally, the h.p.c. represented that it could be made more successful if the existing ped bridge better correlated with the redesigned park. the project team took this suggestion under consideration and explored solutions to akey better compatibility.

a summary of the solutions is provided in the draft e.i.r. and as required under ceqa, the no project alternative is described the project site would be retained and unaltered the project site would retain all character defining features including the pedestrian bridge about 6,650 square feet in size under the proposed project and it would eliminate the upper outdoor. would be implemented under this

alternative and the impact would be less than significant. except for the addition of a new overlook structure at the approximate former location of the bridge. the structural concrete columns and framing at the overlook would reference the brutalist materials and styles of the pedestrian bridge over kearny street. modifying the footprint or the new clubhouse of the proposed project. under this alternative, the new clubhouse, new upper plaza design and children's playground of the proposed project would be the same. these impacts are summarized in the tables shown here. of the alternatives that would

renovate parts of scares, alternative fees would avoid all of the proposed projects through retention of the existing pedestrian bridge. therefore, alternatives b. the full preservation is environmental the superior alternative. the comments on the draft e.i.r. was held on august 18th, 2021. you have received a copy. at the hearing, the h.p.c. found the analysis of historic resources in the draft eechlt i.r. was adequate and inaccurate and proposed that the findings would propose a significant and unavoidable impact to the kearny street pedestrian bridge. it determined the measures to

be adequate, but two commissioners did offer recommendations regarding the documentation and interpreted plan measures which will be taken into consideration in the responses to comments, documented. the h.p.c. agreed that the draft e.i.r. analyzed a reasonable and appropriate range to address the impacts. commissioners' comments in general about the proposed project and noted the particular importance of the project site as it relates to the china town community's needs and history. and the commissioners recognize the association with the

design. for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. we have a court order today to record your comments. when it is your turn, please state your name and spelling and with we will ask you to speak slowly and clearly so the court can make an accurate transcription of today's meeting. staff is not here to answer your comments today. comments will be tribed and responded to in writing in the comments and responses document which will respond to all relevant verbal and written comments received during the public comment period and make revisions to the draft e.i.r. as appropriate. those who are interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing, by mail, or e-mail may submit their comments to me megan calpin at 49 south van

ness avenue, suite 1400, san francisco, california 94103 or at cpc.portsmouthsquareeir@sfgov. org. we do anticipate comments for the document. followed by the hearing in early 2022. and, unless the commissioners have questions, i respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, megan. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your comment on this draft e.i.r. by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is jenny lung. you will hear from our board chair later about support for the staff environmental impact report, but i am here to spook on behalf of our collaborative and unprecedented collaboration of planning civil rights, arts and culture, community groups that include a chitown action, center for asian american media. angel island and cpc to voice our support of the project. cmac is a community driven. as new that's dedicated to celebrate and exforeclosure the creative session.

portsmouth is an open space for our residents, immigrants and families. and has few options for gathering, socializing and recreation. it's an important part of building healthy community eco systems and is critical for chinatown as it recovers from the pandemic. chinatown media art collaborators and its members support the project. i thank you for taking the time to listen to the community. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is allen lou speaking on behalf of the committee for better parks and recreation in chinatown. commissioners, this represents ten plus years of community planning and over $2 million in fees to get to this point.

planning department has previously engaged which identified chinatown as the densest neighborhood west of new york. many of the residents live in an overcrowded condition and portsmouth square is their only access to open space and in some cases, their only space for additional living space. it also identified chinatown as the poorest neighborhoods in san francisco and parks and open space are essential to the residents. in 2016, the partnership between swa and mei architects vested over 100 stakeholder meetings which including 100 people in attendance. what's before you is the community vision for portsmouth square. in 2018, this has been identified by the recreation park commission as a core project.

commissioners, this will increase the useful open space by up to 20,000 additional square feet and will create an expanded community space which will provide over 8,000 square feet to serve as a resilience center. commissioners, the pedestrian bridge is a private bridge. this is a community vision. it will increase our usable open space and bring sunlight to portsmouth square. that design will greatly approve the urban landscape and street scape and is appropriate in the contest of the brutalistic design of the hotel remaining in tact. we ask that you support this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tutina lee speaking here. i am the present chair of the

board of directors for the chinese culture foundation. the center supports the e.i.r. report for the portsmouth square improvement project at 733, kearny street. the c.c.c. continues to support its community which has for 56 years uplifted under served voices through programs and exhibitions in our third floor space in the hilton hotel 750 kearny across from portsmouth square. we also strive to present in our front yards projects like the chinatown music festival programs and projects like dancing on waverly, museum without walls and art activations on portsmouth

square as well as chinatown community store fronts and alleyways. i'm dedicated to my community service in the chinatown and san francisco bay area. what i have learned is that organizations and community spaces must remain reflective of community needs. it's dynamic. it does need to address new noises, new residents, and new economic issues that the community faces. whether the portsmouth square improvement will serve as a front yard, as a back yard, back garden, a family room, a living room, or a great room in the community, the portsmouth square improvement project will address the relevant need for open space and usable indoor space for chinatown of today.

i thank you for this opportunity to speak. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy stow. zhou. and i'm speaking for the planning center. we strongly support the improvement project and the removal of the private ped bridge. we've already heard from jenny, allen, and tutina and i want to echo many of the things they've said. portsmouth square is desperately needed. chinatown is one of the highest property rates in the city. many of the chinatown residents

are elderly and live in cramped living areas. these residents rely on the square and a few other parks for the opportunity to be outdoors. the project is created by, supported by, and designed for residents, park users, and the china town community and planning engagement, assessments and more. and it will provide over 20,000 usable outdoor space and over 8,000 square feet of indoor community space and will be refuge for residents in extreme weather events and be a place where they can breathe clean air and much more. it's crucial for chinatown and will be an integral community for residents and the revitalization of chinatown. thank you. >> hi there. my name is justin hoover. i am working as the executive

director of the chinese historical society of america. i'd like to thank the planning commissioners and thank you, the planning director mr. hillis. thank you so much and to everybody here for the opportunity here. the chinese historical society of america located at 965 kearny street protects and preserves the history in america. we create exhibitions and public programs. we reach a broad audience nationally, but also locally in san francisco. in 1963, there were fewer than 200,000 people of china living in the u.s. as we now know, the booming population of chinese in america hasn't reduced this density need at all. i'd like to state that supporting the environmental impact and the port square improvement project and the

removal of the pedestrian bridge. we find that, you know, personally, as someone who grew up in san francisco and someone who's worked in san francisco for almost two decades, i've been involved in chinatown specifically in many ways. as an artist creating murals and public there is nothing that can be most important than to give people a sense of hope and opportunity. the alleyways are a great space to see communities neuroish, but at the same time, these public spaces allow fresh air, room to run, room to grow and the needed space for refuge for community members who are pent in their homes or multiple families growing up in small spaces together. so we support this completely and i would like to just

reiterate this project with the indoor and outdoor space. this is justin hoover spelled h-o-o-v-e-r. thank you very much. >> linda chapman. i'm just going to comment on one thing which is the removal of that horrible bridge in order to turn that little park into what it unique. you know, having that bridge there and then saying oh, well, you know, the hotel needs that and they've mitigated the impacts by putting the cultural center inside the hotel is just the thing we have to avoid. nob hill and chinatown are dense neighborhoods without much open space. chinatown has more art space than we have.

but enough and, you know, it's just a blessing to remove that awful bridge and through the outdoor space. thank you, that concludes my remarks. >> secretary: okay. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on the environmental impact for portsmouth square. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, this matter is now before you for your review and comments. >> if you're not down in chinatown often, you might forget this park's there. it's one of my favorite part officer the city, so definitely in favor of this item today and i like the improvements in front of us.

commissioner moore. >> commissioner: it's four blocks from my home, i am delighted to see this transformation being proposed. the draft e.i.r. is excellently put together adequate and accurate. i am in support of the full program and i believe it will point chinatown with its heart right back into the spot of where it would be easy to recognize. it's a beautiful design and will add a much more useful and accessible open space in what is currently crammed and impacted by traffic that is not particularly well circulating around the park. i hope that we will find and continue to protect this park under prop k.

it is a priority park under the sunshine ordinance and the thank you. >> president: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: i find the draft e.i.r. to be comprehensive and i have no comments on the draft version of the e.i.r. >> president: okay, commissioners. if there's no other comment from members of the commission and as do members of the public, you may submit your comments in writing. that will conclude this hearing on the draft environmental impact report and we can move on. commissioners, to item 16a, b,

and c for case number 2020-005610enx, ofv, andvar. you will be considering the large project authorization and office development authorization while the zoning administrator will be considering a request for variants. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. thanks, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. zoning administrator. planning department staff. the item is a large project authorization pursuant to planning code requirements. the project is also seeking an authorized development authorization from the planning commission under the incentive reserve program which is part of the annual office development program that will advise up to 269,000.

the project is seeking a variance on zoning administrator to address the planning code requirements and ground floor height. identified as key numbers 6, in the central soma area plan the project site has an area of 36,000 square feet and a large parking lot. the project includes demolition of the existing building on the project site and new construction of a 12-story 185' tall mixed use office building with approximately 270,000 square feet of office. 7500 square feet of activities. 54 humidity and 60 class one

and 22 class two bicycle and part of the large project, the project makes exceptions and central soma boat controls. the requested exemptions as supported by the department and are necessary to provide all the amenities on site as well as to maximize development will provide significantly greater

air and light on the street. that would be compliant is a 200' tall tower building. it has a negative balance in the city. however, the planning commission may approve up to additional 1.7 square feet in total located in the central soma. 1.49 million square feet is available in the reserve. the project meets all the criteria to drop on the central soma reserve over the last foucht years, the project sponsor has conducted extensive neighborhood outreach. the meeting was held in march 2020, according to the project sponsor, they have met with residents of the condominium building located directly to the north of the

proposed project. additionally, the sponsor began discussions in summer 2020 to create space on a portion of the ground floor for. to date, the department has received several letters of support including some of san francisco building and construction at any rate council. san francisco bicycle correlation. local artists and some of the surviving property owners. the department also received a few letters of authorization from the residents nearby and the petition to deny the project with 21 signatures. the opposition to the project is centered on the potential disruption of the loading and parking and impacts for residents at the palms. oversupply of large scale in the downtown area. the scale of the proposed building being out of context and the constant disruption

from the surrounded construction. in summary, the project finds it's unbalanced and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. it's currently underutilized. the project including street scaping and posts. these elements will substantially improve the surrounding neighborhoods and improve the project streets. opportunities including office, child care, and retail jobs for city residents. it will maintain industrial and commercial activities and significant opportunities for job growth. the project will provide approximately 12,500 square

feet, at least 10,000 square feet of which will be provided at 60% of comparable market rent for no less than 30 years. the project sponsor has entered into an agreement. the project has and job housing this includes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. project sponsor. through the chair, have you eight minutes. >> great, thank you very much.

and i see we're opening up the presentation but i'll go ahead and get started. we're a san francisco bay development company. i have in the room here with me, key members of my team to the extent their questions, we can go to them, but i will be giving the presentation today. next slide. i wanted to orient you to the site itself as jinu said, it's a 36,000 square foot site directly adjacent to the new central subway stop at 4th and brandon. next slide. as you mentioned in a report, the site was identified early on as a key development site on the central soma plan. it's one of the smaller key sites that was called out and also because it's an under utilized property at a key intersection. it's a boarded up 6,000 square foot bank building.

our overall program is 355,000 square feet of growth. 2500 art space. 3,300' of retail and below grade parking spaces. i hope during the q&a, we'll be able to talk about the project. which provides four years of run room for further recovery in the market. next slide, please. here's a perspective of our proposed design as used in the southwest looking directly at the corner of 4th and brandon. as you can see from this image, the overall building is shaped by the sky plain controls which proceeds the individual maps of the building.

we maintain a street wall these consistent with the neighboring buildings and slightly below the predominant and central zoning in the area. then, as we travel up the building, it steps back to create multiple landscape terraces to create a sustainably designed landscape which would be a strong draw for tenants. in terms of the building's facade, their arctic dated we wanted to spend some time focuses on this aspect of the project. as can you see from this ground level plan, there are lots of amazing things happening on the

ground floor. we have an amazing 5600 square foot in the form of an art alley which is about 15% of the total sight area. our first proposal didn't include an alley, but planning staff pushed back and i will say the result is a much stronger project. it allowed us to deliver many for the neighborhood, activate an entire side of the building that wouldn't have been possible. if we'd gone up to the property line there and also to introduce more light and air to free lob and the condominium project. we've placed a really important facility and by situating it along the alley, we've provided

a nice open space dedicated for the kid owes we've introduced below market and two locations. the first is a signature space on the corner of brandon and the popos. both of these spaces are represented by the darker purples in this map. next slide, please. this shows the art space, the alleys and the palms. we have space to provide deeply affordable and very long term

lease and the api cultural center. the agreement which was facilitated will ensure turnkey space so these organizations can spend the resources on programming rather than paying sky high rent. one thing of note, is i am providing a generous 21 square feet floor. and provides a bit of drama to the space. this image shows a closer view of the ground level on 4th street. we provided a chorus and inviting cafe on the corner that will be a great space to grab a cup of coffee. you can see how the affordable spaces are delineated with the

material lease spaces on a long term and affordable basis. next slide, please the gives a good perspective. the adjacent palms condo building. i expect you'll be hearing from the folks in palms to discourage illegal sidewalks, parking. i know they would prefer to have a garage entrance, but we were concluded from doing so because of an outright probigs in the planning code. we're optimistic we can resolve

this through a series of traffic management and we look forward to discussing this with stakeholders. next slide. we've conducted dozens of individual and larger stakeholders building. since we first started working over four years ago and we remain working with them in a collaborative fashion going forward. and i'll close with the reminder the community partnerships we fashioned, we're very passionate about this part of the project and to take it to the next step and, with that, i'll conclude my remarks and thank you very much for the opportunity. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to address your comments. through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon president koppel, members of the planning commission. i'm a senior representative at carpenter's local 22 in san francisco. rerepresent 4,000 carpenters in san francisco and 40,000 in the surrounding bay area. i'm happy to be here today to support this project, long-time partners with stata development. they really understand what it means to use union labor. they're also the type of developer that builds the projects they propose. they have a project under construction right now in san francisco and they've built successful projects all over the bay area. it's important we support developers like this that partner with labor because we need to train the next generation to build these type of projects and when they make this type of commitment to use

a union general contractor, it provides living wages for the workers that build it and it trains the next generation. i also like the project because it's truly a mixed use project because it offers office space, possibly lab space, it offers below market opportunities for on the ground floor for other tenants and it also has a child care facility which i think is great. it's really important for facilities like this that are going to have long-time work forces to have child care facilities to take care of the kids while the workers are working in the building. so at the end of the day, we support this project fully and we hope the planning commission supports it as well. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john, president of the topco group. we support this project. we've made an agreement with strada two years ago that

required the ground floor retail space d.p.d.r. at the affordable rates and we're glad to see today that this is actually happening it's great to see they made an agreement. and as jessie reported, we have a conceptual plan of action throughout soma and the central city to provide shows and special events at no charge at all. our plan of action is not binding, but i believe we will be able to put it together and that will also include an option for us to provide a space to ensure its permanent community benefit use. and the child center course is also a very good addition. this is an exemplary project.

i say it captures the spirit of the central soma plan and how we wanted to make it an engine and we really hope that you'll move if it forward today, thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is hana lee. i'm director of cool arts serving the community since 1985. i'll be reading a statement in support of this project i'm the managing director we need the faces to create.

though our community has been very supportive of cool arts artistic endeavors, we offer the proper environment for movement and celebrate our community's narrative, history, and culture. as an arts administrator, i've learned in this time of the pandemic, artists have not felt a sense of community and institutions resulting in even more effort. and cool arts has been one of those beacons to give local artists and at the height of covid, an economic strain with some artists and some organizations have been to shutter their doors and programming. some are able to pivot and reimagine what they can do with

spaces like the 490 brannan street project and serve as a cultural anchor for the soma community. that closes jay's statement. in closing, i'm aware of the opposition is asking for a continuance on this item, but i urge the commission to pass this today and not continue. please support the filipinox community by supporting this project. thank you. >> yeah. good afternoon, commissioners. danny campbell, business representative for the sheet metal workers. through our union programs that are registered with the state of california.

we particularly appreciate the starts center as well as the child care center. that will be a huge benefit for families in the neighborhood. i could go on, but i will say that strata has a long track record of partnering with the sheet metal workers here in the city and, you know, this project will deliver important community benefits through well-paying, middle class union construction jobs. so we ask today for your support and in moving this project forward, thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael clock. i'm a homeowner and resident of the palms.

5554th street adjacent to the proposed project. i have plans for central soma. [inaudible] . just hearing from a number of speakers talking about the benefits here and they are certain arts, performing spaces, child centers, however, my main concern is the increased traffic that will result on this project. essentially narrow one lane residential l-lanes on three sides. these alleyways are already congested through traffic. cars, residential buildings, deliveries, trash, pick up and so on.

young families and pets are using the alleyways. garage entrance and loading base for the new as well as cars accessing residential buildings. with people back commuted to work more and more and with the opening up of the venues to events this year, which are welcome, it's a significant increase in traffic. traffic is like water. it will go where it can and release the least resistance. i request that the project be asked to move the exist and entry point for vehicles from

freemon to brannan street. and these lanes can already be seen in places -- >> secretary: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is steven brindall. we're a corporate council to the pond's owner association. the owner's association located at 554 4th street. when the board first learned of stata's plans. to discuss several issues with the plan project that has the potential to negatively impact the quality of life of palms residents including the proposed quality of life and air for residence and significant health and safety concerns something from traffic flow issues and the replacement of the garage entrance and the loading bays.

strata has made several changes that have considered the impact upon the resident's quality of life. the sole remaining issue is strata's proposal to locate the garage entrance on the south side of freelon street. the board has consistently requested that strata considered relocating. as the commission's already aware. freelon street is a narrow one-way alleyway. where as brannan is a three-lane, two-way thoroughfare that it was not designed for. the studies that strata conducted during the planning process were during covid when traffic was at historical lows

and do not address the impact the traffic will have. section 155 of the city's planning code which says it prohibits but fails to mention the board is not using curb cuts. the existing curb cuts that service the parking lot for the project and in addition, section 155 of the planning code says the final authority of the application rests with the planning commission, not with strata. so while the city has its hands tied, that's truly not the case. >> secretary: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> hi. my name is portia green. i'm the resident services coordinator at the palms located at 555 4th street. i'm in charge of onboarding residents and coordinated

deliveries. the residents often share with me that it can be quite difficult to navigate around the building, especially if there's giants games and warriors games. we are concerned that adding additional traffic will further complicate our residents' access to the loading dock and zone area. these are vital to our community. we've receive over 300 deliveries a day. we have about one to two moves per day, sometimes two deliveries, three deliveries per day. residents coming out of the building all hours of the day. so adding additional traffic to the freelon street could be detrimental to our residents. without access to our loading zone, residents will be forced to conduct drop offs and pick ups on 4th street in one-lane traffic which could be dangerous and cause traffic backups. there's also concerned for our disabled residents who heavily rely on the loading zones and

cannot be dropped off elsewhere due to their disability. thank you for your time and consideration. >> hello, my name is earnesto williams. i'm also a resident of the palms and thank you for the opportunity to have public comment. i just wanted to go over a couple of notes with respect to this project. with respect to the demolition of the current structure, there is going to be a ton of noise and it's going to increase just increase the amount of like co2 emissions that will be a result of this project. [please stand by]

. . . >> and certainly in that space for different businesses that are there, excuse me.

so as much as i would love to support this project, there is the environmental impact and also the die to the residents of the palms is huge. and it's hugely impactful. >> and and we know san francisco's and to speak in favor of the project at 490 brandon. strada has made the commitment to build this to build and to

support this project. and staff and membership. and we all know and commissioners, you know that strata gets it. and this developer does all the right things. they do it right. this project will create jobs, before, during and after the construction. and this is exactly what we need right now. we hope that you vote in favor of it. thank you very much.

>> caller: hello. i live at fourth and townsend. i wanted to voice my concern for this project. i think my issue with this project is definitely traffic and power outages, and everything that's related to construction that has happened in the area. we've already been living in this area for 10 years, and already with the central subway being built and the modernization of a new project going up there, there is lots of construction in the area and lots of traffic, lots of dirt. i just feel like it's going to make the environment not a great situation for the people who live here. also, as far as aesthetically t

building is so much taller than all the other buildings in the area. i am concerned it's going to stick out and not just be aesthetically pleasing. i would be supportive of more housing. that makes sense to me. just this project doesn't seem to be something that this community needs at this moment. again, it will just increase the traffic and create a lot of noise and disruption when most people are working from home during the pandemic. thank you for hearing my concerns. >> caller: hello. i am the artistic director of a studio, a black box theater dedicated to performing arts at sixth and howard. i am here to give my support for

the project. san francisco is home to many cultural and artistic institutions and the home to many latino americans and the bay area has the second largest concentration of filipino americans in the nation. when i was a young artist, cool arts was a source of inspiration for me. i have been to countless shows and played a vital role in my personal growth. and for 37 years, cool arts has done this for many other artists. and they have hosted performances in 2016 to 2019 and planning on hosting them again 2020, but of course, we were forced to close our doors. this project will stabilize two long-standing arts organizations that will serve as a corner stone for the community.

san francisco is a key destination for arts and culture for filipino americans. a dedicated space for the preservation and development for performing arts to look and be connected to the cultural routes and a critical contribution to the cultural latinx project. please consider granting approval for this project. thank you very much. >> caller: i amarudy gonzalez and i will associate myself with some of the union siblings that spoke. i am really proud of the type of development we're before you today and there is a community for benefits and that phrase and terminology is in

>> and it runs through the hiring halls. and even before people get into our journey rate positions we help them and bring them out of poverty and disenfranchised communities and put them in construction readiness training and trying to find their way. whether they are foster use and and place in the apprenticeship program and produces results. 7 # o% of the graduates are people of color. 23 wkt are women and it helps to

balance the scales for equity with dignity and safety on the job. aesthetics are important. i recognize that as a homeowner and also in the big city there is an empty parking lot that is encouraging more automobile use. and i believe deeply affordable housing and housing that can match the central soma plan is mixed use type of proposal. and it really fits. and strata has a track record of building affordable housing with union labor in other parts of the city. they were also key leader on the chase center and if you have been there, i think you can see what the architectural feat and also what a great build that turned out to be. and an economic boon. as a former co-chair of the economic recovery task force, every buck we spend in investing in construction work produces about $3.70 in economic stimulus and growth in our city.

strongly encourage your support of the project. thank you. >> caller: i am the general manager at 55 # a 4th street. we have heard some colleagues and residents give feedback. the major concern, as mentioned, is for the community is traffic. the build garage entrance is on the loading dock trash pick up and passenger loading are on the street as well. the new project will have entry points on free lawn as well. there will be more traffic and influx of vehicles in the crowded alleyways. the streets are already not capable of handling emergency vehicle, delivery vehicles and frequent wrong direction drivers without impacting those trying to enter or exit the alleyway

and will prevent prompt emergency services when necessary. we're also concerned that this will not be monitored that the important services are not impacted. we previously communicated our concerns regarding the traffic on fourth street as well as free lawn and welch street in relation to the project. this project might exasperate the issues. the traffic build is to be expected in san francisco, the project has the potential to create a complete lockdown. what may seem like a minor inconvenience to some has the potential to diminish quality of life for our residents. and just to mention we do have over 900 residents that currently reside at the palm.

thank you so much for your time and consideration. >> hello. i am the executive director of the asian pacific islander cultural center and here to support the 490 brannan street project. i have been producing arts events for over 20 years in san francisco and throughout my time in all their different locations, we have never had a space of our own to do our work and our presentations. and the staff work tirelessly to find spaces to show case the work and allow the community to express their culture. and the lack of space that the asian american community controls is a problem that we cannot ignore any longer. and this space is professional performing arts space and gallery space. that would be the heart of soma a place where many of the community live. i want to thank strata for working with us on this design

art space and is a generous offer to insure that the space can work for all and start the partnership from the beginning with the hop it will be one that will last for decades. i offer my support for this project and i ho ep that you can, too. thank you. >> caller: my name is ron and i am a resident at 55 # a fourth street. this will impact multiple residential buildings around ours as well. i appreciate the trades to voice support for the project. i am not opposed to the project in general, but just as it is prosed. it has proposals to get exemptions for south-facing light requirements no, environmental impact, quality of life for residents at the palm and several other residential building is being severely negatively impacted due to this project and at some point a building will be built on that lot, there has to be a line of

how much quality of life we are asking them to sacrifice for commercial interest. moving to brannan street to limit the curb cuts seems like the least we can do given all the other variances for code. and item 17b on the agenda today has a preliminary recommendation to approve curb cuts for another development. i am hoping this commission does not sentence me to a lifetime of 5:00 a.m. garbage pickup truck windows every day of the week forever. thank you. >> caller: i am max foster t assistant general manager at the palm at 5 # a # a fourth street. to -- to 555 fourth street. to add to what the general manager has said, all residents have expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. not only will there be loss of

warmth, but the residents will experience loss of natural light as well. some might compare it important to function and physical comfort so not only will they lose the light but increase an experience in wind. we ask there be consideration for noise. there are over 900 registered occupants at our building. many have been forced to work from home due to the ongoing pandemic. most will not be returning to the office needing peace and quiet at all times will be essential to the livelihood and quality of life. while is community is looking forward to the added food traffic, we ask that you consider commercial space access, etc. it does not create an attraction

for the vendors in the alleyways and ensuring that they are well lit and do not create welcoming environments for someone to be tuckedway and hidden. and keep the community safe when leaving and returning to their home. thank you for your time and consideration. >> go ahead, caller. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i am tomasita and i work with some of the filipinos in the community outreach along with

residents. i reach out to seniors in the pandemic to make sure they are not isolated. every week i help back and deliver groceries and also organize the outdoor locations as a community to be celebrate filipino independence day. i spend a lot of time at the community center and to make workshops, community meetings and town halls. and they rehearse late into the night because it is the only affordable space in the neighborhood. i am also excited that it would be a new area to come together and watch and put on performances and play music and celebrate our culture. and we are happy that this

development will have a child center and a performing arts center. and what is also important is hopefully more and will be affordable then. and we also ask you to support the project to build the community and build more open spaces and to display public art for core location services in the future. thank you very much. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i am a dance artist a founding director of arts inc. and more popularly known as kular a filipino arts organization with contemporary art since 1985.

societal inequities are also part and since our inception, we have not had our own space. in the past we had to rent theaters and venues for performances and presentations and exhibitions at high cost to our organization. it promises to build a multidisciplinary center. and i will read a leter from the artistic director of flyaway production. this is a treasure of the bay area and a proven leader in

community building and artistic excellence and create a stronger home for the pay areas and filipino arts community. and a brick and mortar led by one of the student leaders is exactly what the city needs to advance racial justice, artistic merit and cultural opportunity. in this diverse community to deepen the sense of hope for and thank you so much nor community and have a good day.

>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ant any and we stand in solidarity with the building trades that have spoken about the benefits to ensure that the money is spent locally. i understand the concerns and the short-term uses will be drowned out by long-term community benefits. san francisco isn't going to stop growing. there will always be another project that will cause more traffic and noise and the city congressmanings to overcome the obstacles so please move forward with strata on this project. thank you for your time.

>> caller: hello, commissioners. i am very excited to support the project which will be the future home of the child care centers serving the community. the performing arts theater with other places to present their work. and partnering in many productions and collaborating with the annual san francisco, filipino and cultural tradition in the 19th year. many of the rehearsals and workshops were selected as the

young person growing up in the city and beyond. i myself am a member of an immigrant family with the diverse opportunities to celebrate for my filipino culture to be shared further through this performance arts space. we hope you will support this project and building out of the filipino cultural heritage district for other visitor who is come to the city and only in san francisco cultural arts scene. thank you.

>> an i am a resident of the palms and live here for more than a decade. and i am concerned that the health and safety issues is overlooked and disregarded and these are long-term extended concerns. and they are not covered in the soma e.i.r. and the community planning exemption has not encouraged illegal and unsafe turns on the daily basis and from light real line and are already overloaded with traffic. this is three lanes and trucks are going up on the sidewalk as well as cars and working with

the office and shouldn't allow the traffic to make this worse. a lot of traffic too and from is diverted and recognized by sfmta and google and removing those will dump more traffic on and not remove it. a hook and ladder truck with not make a circle around the palms without coming through 490 brannan, so this is going to affect this with 15 people and with the children and pets. i used to work downtown and is unnavigable. the sidewalks are commently

blocked and we would love for a continuance so the developer cannot file an appeal and ap corporate counsel and strata has suggested that the city has tied its hands in location to 490 brannon garage and loading bays. the ultimate decision of whether this is in 490 loading bays and garage does not lie with strata but rat we are the department. the board is also concerned that the decision to locate 490 brannan garage entrance and loading bays will have negative impact on first responder vehicles to address the palms in the event of an emergency as well as the ability of garbage and freight truck using free

lawn to access the palms and 490 brannan to properly maneuver, park, load, and unload which is severely impacted be i the unprecedented amount of traffic. and strongly and with the preliminary determination that 490 brannan is due to further ceqa review. 490 brannan including but not limited to the decision to locate the garage entrance and loading bays is not comment with the zoning supplied by or addressed a significant effect in the central soma plan e.i.r. and that 490 brannon in the current design will have significant impacts peculiar to the parcel and project that cannot be substantially mitigated. consequently the board believed the department should not exempt 490 brannon as it is currently designed from the rierps of ceqa and the -- from the requirements of ceqa and should require a

full environmental report. and in the surrounding neighborhood and the board members are aware the community is located in a neighborhood undergoing exciting changes. the board doesn't want now nor has it thought to oppose brandon in the project. and the free flow of traffic and the negative impact that its design poses to the palm residents quality of life and the health and safety. for these reasons they state the opposition to 490 brannan. >> thank you. that is your time. >> -- -- to deny the application. >> hello, commissioners. david wu and we're here in support of the performing arts base and other community serving facilities that will be created as part of the project and we ask that the project is not

continued. more affordable and community accessible cultural facilities such as the community center and theater has long been a need in the south of market. and the need for performing arts space and was identified and came out of the soma filipino arts and cultural committee as rly as 2017. specifically the need for a larger arts space to scale up the performances and events that are too large for studio as well as the need for traditional filipino dents and space that requires the bigger stage. and laid out in central soma and in the soma community to build up the community's arts ecosystem that we are continuing to build. and the need for a larger performing arts space was identified as one of the needs and priorities for the planning department's greater soma community facilities needs

assessment with the report also stating that new arts and culture facilities should support and complement existing districts and to allow incentivized communities with other ground floor and to include new community space and developments taking into account long-term resiliency. we ask that planning dedicate to support in making this performing arts space and benefit and must go through the community planning process to ensure that the design for this space is an asset for the local community as well as an extension of the performing arts space. we ask the commission to direct planning staff to work actively with the community and the developer to make the space happen. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, president koppel and planning commissioners. this is director of soma

filipinos cultural heritage district. and i have been involved for two decades and to facilitate the on-time program and last year the commission passed an important resolution recognizing and committing racial justice. and this year i joined the department and social equity to support this effort and one of the things that we have been discussing is how the planning department is structured and once the rezoning is done and staff moves on and to implement the community benefits and promises made during the rezoning plan. and this has been the experience in eastern soma, western soma, and rincon hill. we hope this will not be the experience with the central soma plan. and we are thankful for the leadership for affordable space in the neighborhood. and we are very supportive of the community partnership involving strata with the community open space at 490

brannan. and with the long-term need and affordable rent to be a truly accessible community and artist studio and showplace studios. today we hope you will approve the authorization for 490 brannan and tomorrow we hope you will continue to support the partnership to make the community amenities a reality by dedicating staff to support is project and in kind agreements with the build up and operations in central soma facilities. and we look forward to right the wrongs of the past through active collaboration for community-based planning and development and racial equity. we ask you to approve this project today without delay. thank you. >> i live basically across the street at 310 housing.

and i just want to give the perspective of someone who actually lived here. and i lived in this media immediate area for about 25 years. and most of the comments you heard are from people who don't live in this immediate area and may have a commitment to creating more cultural space and i think is important and i support. i am all for smart growth, but it is worth questioning this particular project. i live in this area and i want this area to feel alive. and i actually love to see the group have a space, just not in one more office building. we have so many in this area and we don't have a lot of residential in this area. we just don't need more offices when there are two more under construction, massive projects less than a block away on brannan street. in addition to those if you walk down brannan street, there are huge office buildings that are policed. i don't see the need for one more office. why this can't go to the

community spaces inside of a residential building, i don't quite understand. this corner is completely dead at night and on weekends. granted, if we have performances that bring in people periodically, but once this office clears out at the end of the work day, that corner would be dead yet again. and if we spend the time to build something on this corner, make it so it meaningfully contributes to the neighborhood and not just performing arts but for people who actually live here and have a commit tonight the area. the tally that is being created i am very concerned about. i live directly across next to the one of interest and that is a very sad, lonely, desperate and wind spept spot for people who mostly go there to use drugs. and i don't want another one a block away from me to prevent that happening. this area is hammered for a decade. we don't need another office in this space and this doesn't need to has been right now.

thank you. >> caller: hello. this is conrad benedict. i am a teacher at balboa high school. and a diverse group of color and we have a large population of filipino immigrant students and i would like to voice my support for the cultural arts space. and in the 490 project i think that it would be a very important space for youth especially to gather and express themselves and learn their culture and develop their own artistic expression.

and i think that this place would be a vibrant and happening place not just during performances but every day and every night. it would be a community hub. and it would be a resource for artists and youth and community members and to go to and be a part of. and to revitalize and enliven that corner and that intersection. and i just wanted to reiterate what other people have said in terms of the long standing activity of cool arts and all the other filipino arts organizations that would be involved in this project. i think that constant activity

in this area would be a boon to the filipino american community of san francisco and also their residents of that place. i know that they wouldn't leave that place as dead. and it would be a very vital spark for everyone. >> thank you. that is your time. >> members of the public and last call for public comment on this item. press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> caller: hi. can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you just fine. >> caller: thank you. i am the director of a program based at carmichael and we serve the families in the south of

market area. and with the initiative of parents and community members to have an after school program that will support our young people to learn filipino languages, the history, culture and legacy of the filipinos in the u.s. and the diaspora. we have provided arts education and cultural art access for the students. and plays that teach folklore, dance, indigenous filipino musical instruments and create the large mural and education center playground. some cool arts helped raise a generation of filipino youth who are proud of their culture and history and inspired by the contributions and legacy of filipinos from the farm worker struggle to the role of nurses and health care providers. and we know this will continue the community-based artist who is can share a rich culture from the homeland and being part of

the multicultural community. and with the performance space at 490 brannan and being able to bring students to see indigenous dances and original plays and performances and they may see themselves as being able to be on stage and growing up and we have experienced as a community and we are here to stay and committed to work with developers in the city to build out the filipino heritage district. and we hope you will support this project and to build cultural infrastructure. not just for performances but education and after school program and overall community well being. and thank you so much and have a great afternoon, commissioners.

>> good evening, commissioners. this is michael, the owner of the management company that operates the palms at 555 fourth street and i am the codeveloper of 601 fourth street lofts and 652nd street lofts. and when i developed this area on fourth street a lot of time and effort went into what's the soma area would be like and grow into it and it exceeded expectations and most of the development has been extremely reasonable. today i ask that you continue this matter for another 30 days while we work with the developer of the project at strata to identify opportunities to mitigate the traffic and noise issues that the palms will experience. the vast majority of people who spoke in favor of the project

today i respect. and i think they make good points. they don't live there. and there is 600 people who live in the building who will be adversely impact and free lawn and build in businesses and san francisco and know what it's going to be like for them and to give us 30 days and to work with the developer on alternatives and that we expressed in writing over the last week. and the viable alternatives and we ask for the 30-day continuance on this matter. thank you very much. >> hello, commissioners. and on behalf of the whole organization, we are very with

the strata project and the performing arts theater and art galleries and community and the immigrant family that has been rooted in and living in pedestrian and for the last 50 years and i know that the accessibility and cultural site by transportation loads will enhance community and cultural proximity and will position it among the common landmarks for citizenry and visitors. as a san franciscan who engages wholeheartedly in the filipino american and cultural landscapes, my thoughts of family and filipino centric gathering and events at this site still need with loving pride and fierce advocacy. a new performing arts theater

would provide cool art, epic and other community-based artists an affordable place to present their work. working families and seniors will be able to enjoy cultural arts as asian and pacific islanders to be reflected. young filipinos born here or new immigrants will be able to see, learn, and know about our history and culture and can be inspired to share their own stories and develop their own talent. and it means a new corner stone for the filipino cultural her damage district and our community who have been working so hard to make this community a safe and welcoming home for young children, older adults and community artists for decades. please support this project. thank you. >> this is judy.

i live in the palms. and i don't oppose the strata project and i was worried about the traffic on free lawn. and just worried that used to seeing cars already going the wrong direction on free lawn from the parking lot and also with experience from the welsh street and from the palms also and we see cars all the time that are blocking access from the garage and people going the wrong direction. the streets are narrow. and i was worried about traffic issues if they consider that and

yeah. okay. thank you. >> okay, member of the public. final last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on this matter is closed and it is closed and is before you, commissioners. start off with a couple of comments. and this couldn't be any closer to the new subway station. and this will go really well if approved with the new transit stop. and i, too, in the past have shared concerns and whether office space will start filling up and become as popular as it was and honestly the fact that we are using our cell phones and apps are coming out faster than we can imagine and companies are

still becoming incredibly wealthy with i.p.o.s and whatnot. and i am a lot and feel a lot better about office space being more occupied in the future. and also the colors and i mentioned and the developer went above and beyond to make a big commitment to use local contractors and a local work force. right now each trade has hundreds which is more uncommon and many apprentices are out of work and something we rarely see and direct feeders and from the city build academy build and to work with solid careers. based on the points today and supporting the project and i do not support a continuance.

missioner moore? >> commissioner: just like president koppel, i am in strong support of the project. i think this project sets a strong marker for central soma for becoming a reality and went into the plan thing of central soma for so long and the environmental assessment of all projects within that e.i.r. are clearly pointed into a direction that this project with all the checks and balances to build and is feasible. and i do not see any need for continuance and find this project designed and extremely well responding to the special location on fourth street. i think the mapping on the building is exemplary and not simply extruding entitlement into some kind of mindless block, but it differentiates the side of the building to recognize it exactly within the skyline. i like the addition of the place

where it is. and i do not consider that the 24 cars that are being allocated for this project will be contributing towards congestion. i do believe that al alleys south of market require specific attention to people not short cutting through the alleys and avoiding the major thoroughfares and is an overall management corner and in the interest of this building. and also for the traffic of central soma and participate in anything they can to make that possible. i am in support of the project. move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i truly support the project but did have a couple of questions.

the first one is for the project sponsor. given how much and how much we are reading about the large amounts of available office space in the downtown area and very large amounts of available sublease space and return to work. and which may involve fewer than five days a week. there may be some possibility or significant possibility of increased remote work by tech workers and interested in your views on timing of your project like needs at surveying how it fits into the context of what is happening downtown. and you just talk about your views on that? >> sure. thank you for the question, commissioner. this is jesse from strata.

the first thing is this market and mid 2025. and this gives us four years with four years of runway. we have seen in past market corrections in san francisco whether it's the dot com bust or other times in the market and san francisco is a remarkable ability to reinvent itself on the fly and recover quickly from downturns. so we're very optimistic and in fact, even today in the market we are seeing green chutes and remarkable rents that have been printed lately on some of the premier buildings in the city. and we think our building will compete with those in terms of its offerings. and we think that there is a real opportunity with this building to go up and beyond what the current offerings are marketing and healthy building

and addressing the things that tenants are looking for now. and in the era of covid around building systems and address concerns and sustainability concerns and we will be able to drive interest from that perspective. and it's also a size of project that hits the market nicely and designed the project. and to subdivide the spaces nicely and there is a real sweet spot in the market. much has been made of the larger call it unicorns that have contracted in san francisco. many of the pre-ipo companies really have to be together because the creative process

requires face to face contact and innovation that can only really take place in person. while we also believe that we're in a new world in terms of hybrid work where people are working at home more and will be a structural change we see. we don't see in san francisco and corporate real estate executives and e-suite executives that we will be in00 home environment and people are dying to get back into the spaces and start working together. so i think i am probably going on to the more thoughts and i don't know if that answers your question. one more thing is the overhang of sublease space right now which is by nature the interim condition that will be burned off frankly by the time we are

in the market. >> the space is competing for the same tenants. and say that again. >> do you see your space as competing for the same tenants? in the central business district? >> i think there certainly we're competing with spaces throughout the city. i would say that there are certainly a category of buildings to look for the next round of discussions around what happens in san francisco with the office market. i think there's a number of buildings that you call it older bnc quality buildings that are going to remain challenged. and i think those are candidates as you distribute on your role for conversion and whether it's a hotel or residential, and we talked about in the context of other projects that we have had before you and this has caused a

lot of the older stock that isn't kind of ready for the next wave and company to revisit what those buildings want to be. so i think there is certainly a lot of smaller floor play buildings that could be converted easily to either residential or hotel uses. and that may be long term part of the solution. and thank you for sharing that. and my other question is for staff. and the comments we heard basically fell into two categories and large number of community groups and supportive of many benefits of this project. and many residents or representatives of the palm who are concerned about traffic and loading. could you describe whether or not the d law process is the

appropriate process resulting in the action with the adoption of the document for resolving the issues? if we have some other process for the implementation issues that are raised. >> sure. thank you, commissioner diamond. and so given the public comment and primarily from the residents of the palm it seems like they have concerns about the conflicts between driveway and loading operation. and this project is actually required by planning code section to provide a driveway and loading operation plan which is also known as d law. and the purpose of the plan specifically to reduce the potential conflict between the driveway and loading operations and passenger and loading activities and pedestrian, vehicles, bicycle, and to

maximize the on site loading space. and to accommodate you and with the the new building. with the other work and we are also there the process in the design and approval in the large project organization motion.

and too reach out from the palms to engage them as part of the d-law process. with the review process to the colleagues in the environmental review and observation and they are the one kind of managing that program. and is there somebody who can respond to that? >> i am in the environmental planning division and transportation review team. before i answer that specifically, i want to say prior to central soma and this code provision t code was mainly about the design of facilities. and given the constraints that are often happening on our city roadways, of numerous competing demands.

more specifically, we have guidelines about how to prepare plans in coordination with the sponsor and other city agencies and they don't talk about coordination with neighboring buildings and given the circumstances surrounding this project and i am definitely open to doing that here. >> that is just a recommendation of approval and to make sure their input is not just at this hearing but that in the actual -- would be sought in the

development of the plan. so i don't have any other comments or questions. i, too, am in support of approving this project. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. and i appreciate the public comments on this particular project. just to remind -- i remember when the central soma plan was being vetted around -- vetting around the community and it was vetted around in the office allocation plus the community benefits, plus the impact fees that it will generate to the city and community in soma inside of market. and to the heritage district. it was very intense discussions around that time. and i believe the environmental

impact report and discussed and embedded and so i am actually to discuss around the alleyways. so around the alleyways and i am confident that through the engagement process that has happened during the central soma plan that is something that we can cover and i appreciate mr. whitgraph looking into the deal process and continuing having conversation with the nearby building. and i have a question, though, regarding this -- if there is a lot of fees that are involved in here. and to have the benefits an i greement that seems like in partnership with cool art, and in general how do we make sure that this community benefits are actually implemented? what are -- what is our

monitoring process on that? >> commissioner, richard mccray. and so one of the components we do reviewing and is to look at the motions that the commission has adopted and planned set and the timing that is outlined within all that. and in most cases the fees and the monies that we have to collect are input at that time. we kick off that process to make sure and rec and park and making

sure standards and the city standards, for example, during that and the permit process. to the end of the process and we kind of have good assurances that any kind of benefits that sponsors and add to the project. and everything has to happen specifically from that area. and yes, director? and i think it's a great question. and touched on in implementing our racial and social equity.

with how we do this project by project. and we remain and plan and it and adopt it and work with the community especially in priority geography to enshoo you are that the public benefits are being realized in a plan. and so we will talk a lot more about this, but there are recommendations coming from those efforts to try to enhance in our resources to continue to work with the community that makes sure those community benefits are realized and not just realized project by project. so with the community and 2020 and where we worked closely with the community to try to realize those community benefits that were promised in the plan and we want to expand that work and enhance the work we're doing

elsewhere in other neighborhoods in soma is a key one. >> my understanding, too s the impact fees for central soma and that is my understanding they will remain in central soma. the eastern neighborhood and trying to understand in terms of the impact fees. and how they really make sure it is reason this -- i don't want to get into specifics, but obviously different impact fees with different processes to go through to allocate them. but rich k you add? >> in those cases and the code and we adopt the area plans that identify certain buckets of money for the impact fees. when someone pays the eastern

neighborhood fee, there is a percentage that goes towards affordable housing and child care and so on and so forth. the c.d.c. is usually helping to direct where that money is going that are contained within that plan. particularly for things in central soma, one of the things that the plan area did and focused and the central soma area and boundaries and identify the series of priority projects that impact funding. >> it looks like through the cac and can the planning commission and the planning department determine which projects, let's say, a future project of an arts space? is that something that the planning department does?

>> i think it's something we can continue to work with the community on to see what impact fees may be able to be utilized in the performing arts space. with the potential fees that could be utilized to make sure that the community benefits specifically in this project are realized and we are happy to continue to do that as well. >> one last question because with all big projects and the requirement of 11% fee. was the fee or project through the arts commission. how is that also -- how do we as in the planning department and in the arts commission? is that automatically also like

when we identify art spaces? and that is something that the art commission will take into this consideration with the planning department has identified. >> i think from what i understand it is definitely something they at to work with appropriate sponsors and arts opportunities and something that a sponsor pay and direct a fee towards something they are allowed to be directing the fee towards if that makes sense. >> it is only the arts commission and again, i think we can work with the community to kind of connect with the arts commission in talk about some of the process that's happened and some of the desires for the community to fund specific projects with the fees. >> thank you, director. >> commissioner tanner.

>> commissioner diamond asked questions which were related to the loading zone and everyone that i am support of the project and the issues can be resolved to limit the -- for those who live at the palms, i would offer -- i would be cautious about having loading zones on other streets that brannan is very busy and i believe that the bike lane is separated by parking and to have parents using that street for their pickup and drop off of young children seems not ideal and they have to cross the bike lane to cross the sidewalk to get to the child care and i can certainly understand the challenge of having a lot of competing interests on free lawn street, i think in some ways it is a perfect place to have the loading and so can more easily accommodate the uses that are slower. there is one question that i

have for the project sponsor to outline what you majt will be the demands for the loading zone. i think we have heard a lot of concern around lots of trucks coming and lots of deliveries and associated with the businesses that are there. and the ground floor and up thor levels or what do you anticipate to be the flow is? outside of the day care used for pickup and drop off used in the loading zones? >> this is jesse. and i think we are -- that is part of the next step of the community and m.t.a. and environmental planning to go through what are are the right operational requirements to address the conflicts between ourselves and the palm. we're very open to do that. we have already committed, for example, to stagger the pickup trash pickup to not coincide with the palms. that is one small example. we are looking forward to doing

more of that and making sure that deliveries that are necessary function of a building like this just as they are to the palms and those time frames and processes are coordinated as best as we can with our neighbor. we want to be good neighbors. it doesn't serve either of our purposes to have backups in the alley. and whether it's from the cars and slated for parking and which is only with the loads of the building and and the interest and to best manage the good experience. and maybe improve them.

the drivers being confused and not knowing where they are going or how they could drive the wrong way on a one-way street and there may be additional and m.t.a. may have help resolve the issues and that is challenging and circulation there. >> do you have anything to add? are you good? >> sure. thank you. very quickly addressing the variances. one of the ceiling height variance that is due to kind of a quirk mezzanine and the ceiling spaces well above what is required. the other variants with the width of the vehicular and unloading entrances is kind of discussed prior. the code actually specifically prohibits curb cuts in this

location. the location of the curb cuts where it permits it. and the specific policy in the central soma area plan and essentially spaced those streets and not be used for curb cuts and the narrow streets and allies. and the primary access and it is a narrow street and radius issues and other challenges that justify. the need for that variance as well. i am supportive of both of the variances of the project. >> clerk: okay, if there is nothing further. i did hear a motion to i a prove with conditions. and commission president koppel, did you second that motion? >> president: i did. >> clerk: in that case, commissioner, there is a motion to accept this motion with conditions. on that matter? [roll call vote]

so moved. >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and attend the grant with standard conditions. >> very good. thank you. commissioner, item 17a, b, and c for 1750 van ness avenue have been continued to september 30 to place us on item 18 for 2020-006422cua at 1728 larken street. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. thank you, jonas. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to allow a building more than 50 meet in height in an rm project.

tem ligs of a one-car garage and construction of the 61'1" residential building with six and six below grade off street parking spaces and six class one bicycle parking spaces. the project includes a dwelling unit consisting of one one-bedroom unit, three two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. the top two floors of the building are set back 15 feet from the building's wall, front wall, to minimize the appearance from the street. to date the department has received 21 letters in support of the project and four letters in opposition expressing concern about height of the proposed building, loss of light, private views, and potential shadow impacts to the adjacent school. south line of the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will provide six new residential dwelling units

including family sized units and unutilized site where no dwelling units currently exist. and the the department find the project to be necessary, desirable and come patable with surrounding neighborhoods and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff presentation and i am available for any questions. i would like to introduce the project sponsor who has also prepared a presentation for the commission. >> thank you. project sponsor, are you with us? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am eric with architects and can i get slide -- perfect. maximizes the permitted dwelling unit property and six new dwelling units in total and one new dwelling unit per floor with

five of the six and the existing one story, one car. with the conditional use authorization is required for the project for any project over 50 feet in height within the rm district and proposed project is 61 feet tall in a permitted 65-feet tall height zone. and the proposed project is code compliant and the variances are being solved. slide two please. and considerable neighborhood outreach is proactively conducted throughout the design process. and we received 21 neighbor letters of support to date and with occupants on both sides of the subject property and three neighbors directly across the street.

next slide please. and this is the view of the existing lot condition and one-story structure to be demolished. next slide please. and the proposed project is a bit taller than the immediate context it is 4 foot shorter than the maximum permitted by code and one dwelling unit per floor and with modest ceiling heights of 8'6" and 9 fot 0 typically. and they have been carefully sculpted and set back to mitigate shade and shadow impacts. and two at the height scale and mass of the proposed building is visually consistent with the block face and the streetscape. next slide please. this is a view looking down larkin street to the north. next slide please?

and this is a view looking down with larkin street to the south. next slide please. the architectural expression is modernist in nature and modest and humble and the architectural facade elements, appropriately sized window openings and materials, textures and include the off-white brick veneer, and wooden metal architectural detailing and accent elements and the window expression incorporated into the front facade and exterior entry and walkway. excavation risk was an important consideration to both project team and adjacent neighbors and the extent of excavation at the basement level to the necessary base building and spaces. and incorporating setback from the adjacent neighboring foundation with a compact or

lodge area and all residential areas located above grade taking advantage of natural light and air. next slide please. while a detailed shadow study is not required by the planning department, we did receive questions to shade and shadow impact specific to the adjacent spring valley school to the east. we then proactively engaged a consultant to provide a detailed shadow analysis. the shadow study indicates only a minor shadow on a school's private drive area between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. during summer solstice and only very minor sliver of shadow on the school's private recreation area at 7:36 p.m. during the summer solstice, all times that are late in the day. a full shadow analysis is provided as an exhibit in your packet and also in the drawings.

in closing, the proposed project will provide six new reasonably sized equitably scaled dwelling units with the housing stock and we respectfully ask you approve the project. thank you and we are available for any questions. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should open up public comment. this is the opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is the indication to begin speaking to the chair. you will have two minutes. >> caller: linda chapman. and on the hole this looks like a project and especially with the fact that in the format is rather like and i can't imagine why the planning department requires three bedroom units in the mix of buildings like 1567

california, for example. i have said that this is a dense neighborhood and three bedroom units are common in platts and that is what families grew up in and that is what my family's relatives and everybody grew up in or owned and rented to people and so on. children grow up in platts with a backyard. a whole floor and so forth. children do not live in three bedroom apartments in buildings like 1567 california or that area, for example, and i lived on knob hill and i don't know anybody who knows the high-rises and elevator buildings. and even the co-op where i lived another couple bought an apartment like mine and 1500 square feet and two bedrooms and they had a child and worked to the time they were a toddler. they need a backyard and so forth. this is a much more positive use for three bedrooms to reconsider for that for the others.

and the one thing that i would find that is not very attractive about this is the facade design which doesn't fit in very well with the rest of the fabric of the neighborhood. the setback is a good thing. the height is within the height limit and not disruptive. having this sort of all glass wall of windows is typical of 1960s buildings like the comstock and 1200 california. and there may be one small building like that in the area that i have seen that was built around them. and the reason i mention this is our neighborhood found to be worthy of being an historic district when it is studied sometime because of the fact it is post-1906 earthquake rebuilding and even the new buildings that have been built then have not been particularly disruptive of the fabric and so on. when you get something that is

not really compatible with that, it is not desirable to have that kind of design. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is waynan fong and my family and i have lived around the corner from this property not too far away. we have been in our current home and this neighborhood since 1943 when my grandparents bought this home just after the chinese exclusion act and they pretty much grew up in this neighborhood. and today three generations of the family live in my family home and the neighborhood, including my children who attend sling valley elementary school. and i personally do not have any objection to the development of the site. and i do have an objection of

the overall height of this project within the height limit and notice the buildings around this block or neighborhood and are all four-story buildings and submitted under 201.805 and 4017. and that would submit for a five-story development. and then suddenly last year this project came in at a six-story development and at six stories and this building is significantly out of character and the neighborhood scale. we love our neighborhood. and we have been here for a long time and my grandparents have been here and born here before the 1906 earthquake and all the areas with the four-story

buildings and with the other buildings. sent the commissioner and adjacent buildings and all around four story tall. i respectfully ask the commissioner if you can please review the project and eliminate the six-floor height. and at least keep the building within the character of the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. thank you, sir. >> hi. i am adrian and live adjacent to the property being discussed as the closest possible neighbor to the development site. i wanted to say i strongly support the proposed project.

this is one of the most materially affected and i don't have any concerns to enhance that ability to to become homeowners in the area. i don't have any concerns about the proposed height of the building. yes, it is taller than any overall diversity and urban density we need here. and for example, in the back lot and i don't have any concerns about the impact of the shade and overall there is a balance here and this is a significant improvement to the overall neighborhood. as a homeowner in the building right proposal to full support. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. my name is robin tucker.

i am the co-chair of the pacific avenue neighborhood association. and i wanted to just add on to what my neighbor communicated about this particular project. in addition to it being out of scale with the neighborhood, it is also mid block. a six-story mid block building among four and three story adjacent buildings and buildings within the neighborhood. i would respectfully request that the commission consider requesting of the architect, the bay t developers remove the top story. it's true perhaps that you do not see the fifth and sixth story in front of the building and go across the street and anywhere else along the streetscape and you are going to

see the six stories. and it is not 65 feet and add the penthouse and any other deck and other item, it is even more still oppressive to the adjacent neighborhood. we rezoned a segment of this neighborhood back in 2009 and the idea was to keep it open to have a sense of openness and greenery in the neighborhood. we ask that there be rear yards that were suitable for particular project and also to keep the building height at an appropriate level consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. i respectfully ask that you please consider removing the top floor. thank you so much. >> members of the public, last call for comment on this item.

you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> i will be supporting staff's recommendation on this one. >> commissioner tanner? >> commissioner: certainly open to hearing from other commissioners, but i don't have any questions about this project, so i would move to approve the project as recommended by staff. >> second. >> commissioner? >> i have a few questions. most and foremost, i would like to observe this project is not

affordable by design. while i appreciate the ability to densify on the lot and build on an underutilized site with an increased amount of dwelling units, i believe that the additional six parking spaces is a give away for who this particular building intend for. and while the staff report talks about proximity and transit and walkability and all those things with the presence of six cars seem to be denying that this is affordability by design. that said, somehow this project seems to be alien in the context. i am not commenting on this being a contemporary building making an emphasis of modern design, and i believe this project is not going to carefully look at residential design guidelines which we have spent a lot on in the last few

years. and to talk about designing and context and which put this is building in a meaningful way into the context of where it is. ms. chapman rightfully observed the over predominance of glass on the west facing facade. and if there would be some kind of recall on related demonstration or what brings it more into the overall massing and patterns of the building and that would greatly help. i would also kind of question that the addition of the sixth floor together with the roof deck fully built out and looks like the seventh floor is appropriate for the location. so those are some of the comments and curious to hear what other people have to say. >> commissioner fung?

>> and i don't have an issue with the design and initially i did have an issue with massing. and this is an element of the context. and for it to go two floors above many of the other and three floors in some instances above many of the other buildings and initially created some thought of my mind that perhaps the massing was too great. the fact that it's floor to floor heights are lesser than probably than the older building adjacent to it and allows it to hide its height a little bit. and upon second thought, prepared to support the project.