good afternoon and thank you all so much for joining us. i want to begin by thanking our attorney general rob bonta for coming here to the visitation valley community. it's really great to have you here in san francisco, but especially in this particular community and thank you for cohosting this round table discussion that was so important to talk about the challenges that exist around hate crimes in this city and in this state. especially as we have seen an uptick in violent hate crimes against so many of our communities in san francisco and the bay area and across the state and nation. in just a few short months on the job, he's already taken action on a number of

initiatives related to criminal justice reform and racial justice which are issues that we all care about deeply in san francisco. thanks to the commitment of the community leaders that are joining us here today, so many folks who have been really on the ground addressing these issues for decades, our police chief bill scott who is with us as well. we just had a very productive discussion on how we can continue to combat hate crimes by working together. we know that there's no short cut to this work and finding the root cause and solutions will require a continuous work in these and continuous conversations of sharing of ideas not just when something happens, but also proactively when something isn't happening. to address hate crimes at their core, we need buy-in from local community support from law

enforcement and a commitment from all levels of government here in san francisco. we're steadfast in ensuring that every community is heard and protected. whether it is work around violence, prevention, and racial justice, our partners have experience and have worked tirelessly and collaboratively with 1 another to combat these issues. today, as i said, we are in visitation valley because we remember when grandma wang as she was brutally attacked almost two years just a block away from here at the visitation valley playground. grandma wang was doing her morning exercise when that tragic incident happened and sadly, she struggled for a year before passing away earlier this year. none of this should of happened and we want to send a clear

message, an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. we will continue to stand in solidarity and here in san francisco, we will do everything we can to bring perpetrators of crimes of this nature to justice. leaders here are taking action and banning together and partnering and we're doing so because we know how important this is. an example of this work can be found in our expansion of the street violence intervention program with community youth center and self-help for the elderly and members of the street violence intervention program and i want to thank sarah wang for really taking aggressive action and working with the community to make sure that people know that we're going to have eyes and ears on the streets, but we're also going to make sure that we support and look out for our seniors. part of this expansion,

includes patrolling neighborhoods in the city and responding to hate crimes against our asian community. another part of the program provides seniors with escorts to go with them while buying groceries and seeing doctors so they can feel safe when running their errands. our goals with these two programs are to build the trust of these diverse communities and increase public safety for everyone in san francisco. just over a month ago, i was tagging along with sarah wang and the members of the street violence prevention program as they were engaging with merchants and customers along this commercial corridor or leeland avenue. a lot of times merchants feel left out right here, but often times i had a chance to talk with merchants from the restaurants and coffee shops, they felt hopeful to see this effort and this partnership and they asked that we stay consistent, especially the

community engagement from c.y.c. and svip. it's offered the support to those members to use the restroom or have a place to relax and i'm sure many of these great places to eat along leeland avenue have been some of their favorites. it takes a village and we know how to do this in san francisco. this really gives me hope because we're making a difference and residents and merchants are feeling the difference. we're committed to addressing xenophobia and we're here to support the visitation valley community and all of our partners in san francisco. and, i look forward to continuing this great work with attorney general bonnta who knows how critical these issues are in san francisco. before i bring the attorney general up, i just want to recognize him and his efforts in listening to communities across the state. as leaders, it's easy for us to

sit in the offices and go about our work and the fact that attorney general bonta is committed to not only doing the round table here in san francisco, but throughout the state in all of the major cities is so key to turning things around and keeping people safe. he's not waiting for the attacks to occur, he is being here, being proactive so that we can make a difference. he's here to listen and to take action and we will be working together hand in hand on policy changes, on investments and on whatever needs to be done so no one has to be a victim of a crime in any part of our city or our state. and, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome attorney general rob bonta.

>> well, thank you all for being here today and thank you mayor breed for your very kind remarks. thank you for your leadership, for seeing and valuing and fighting for all of the beautifully diverse communities right here in san francisco as we talked about inside. san francisco has been a leader, a model, has often and so consistently demonstrated policies and approaches that lift people up and make our community stronger and has often been a place where the state of california has scaled up those policies that have started right here in san francisco. so i'm thankful and proudtor here in san francisco today with mayor breed, chief scott, and all of the great community leaders that you'll hear from today, that you'll hear from momentarily. and to talk about how we move forward and i was very inspired and i'm leaving very hopeful and optimistic about our shared

future, our common future and our common commitment to addressing the epidemic of hate crimes. that spike in hate incidents that have impacted so many communities. no community is immune as we know. we certainly are well aware of the huge increases in anti-api violence. our black community, our sikh community, our lgbtq community, our disability community have all suffered and our conversation today was a good reminder that we're all in this together, that we're going to move forward together or not at all and we can move forward when we have conversation when

we listen, when we communicate as we just did. today's very important because this is the launch of thir teen of these round tables i'll be doing across the state where we sit in community, where we join a common circle and talk about our challenges and how to move forward and it was very appropriate that we started in san francisco today. given san francisco's historical and consistent leadership. and how it has always demonstrated that we celebrate our diversity and our diversity is our strength and so i appreciate the opportunity to be here and over the next few weeks, i'll be in different places all over the state having similar conversations to uplift best practices to highlight and illuminate our solutions so that we can prevent and heal as we address this epidemic of hate throughout our state and throughout our nation. as california's attorney

general, i see myself as being the people's attorney and it's important for me to see and value and protect every community and for so many of our communities, for too many of our communities right now we are in a full on state of crisis. a full state of emergency when it comes to hate and, you know, the statistics are alarming and they're shocking. we know that across california, hate crime events increased 31% across the board last year. anti-asian hate crimes in particular increased an alarming 107% and right here in san francisco, home to the lgbtq rights movement, anti-gay hate crimes accounted for over 25% of all hate crimes in the last decade. and, of course, statistics can illuminate and they tell a story but they don't tell the full story and so i was very thankful and grateful for the opportunity to hear directly from community members and

impact from community members who shared their own stories. personal stories, painful stories about themselves. about the communities they fight for and they're trying to uplift and i appreciated that conversation today and, you know, it's going to take all of us to do this work. and, there's no you know there's no cure all, but there are many ways to make progress and we heard about many of those ways today being victim centered cross racial healing circles. the list went on and on for how we can make progress and when we can make progress, we should. when we can take a step forward together, we must and so we identify many pathways to improve our work going forward. and in a few weeks, i'll be in

my fifth month in office and since the day i swore in i've been addressing the epidemic of hate recognizing that too many of us for too long in this state have felt the sting of hate. tomb communities, you know, myself included. this is personal work for me as well. we got to work on day one taking on the forces of hate and that's why i've established the racial justice bureau to help tackle the rise of hate that's why i've issued new guidance to better understand hate crimes in california. it's why we've launched the office of community awareness and response to directly engage with and respond to the needs of communities and it's why i've pledged to keep working to do more, to lean in, and to continue this fight and doing that working with our local

communities like right here in san francisco. because we know that we must protect those hurt by the forces of hate and hold accountable those who perpetrate hate violence against our neighbors. and, you know, it didn't always seem like this, but it's like this now. for many of us, everyday life has come with an additional worry. whether it's going to the grocery store, picking up your children from school, riding a bus going for a morning walk. in these moments, too many of us right now are asking ourselves, could i be next? and the stakes are too high to sit back as mentioned by the mayor, we're only blocks away from where an 89-year-old grandmother was senselessly assaulted and left to die. and, hate and prejudice cannot and will not be tolerated, plain and simple. as your attorney general with the full weight of the law and

the california constitution behind me, let me say this, there is no place for hate in california or anywhere, any time period. full stop, end of story. and, across our different cultures and identities, today, we came together to affirm this fundamental truth. across our differences, we are united in making sure that our neighborhoods and our cities are safe and healthy and prosperous for all. nothing is most important. let me close by saying this. my parents are social justice champions. i grew up as a young child. i had the blessing and the privilege of growing up in la paz. from a young age, i've worked with my parents. while they worked alongside

iconic leaders and phillip veracruz that when you see injustice, you need to fight to correct it and injustice against one is injustice against all. today, we reaffirm the us, not the me that we're all in this together and that we will rise together or not at all and as i take on injustice in many forms, as the people's attorney, we are very laser focused on taking on hate incidents and hate crimes as the people's attorney, i thank you. next, we'll be hearing from sarah wong, the executive director of the community youth center. >> thank you, mayor breed. and thank you for all the brothers and sisters behind me.

today's round tame is truly inspiring, but it's also emotional to me. i think especially the asian communities are going through a lot of pain. even it runt one community doesn't feel safe or community doesn't feel safe and today when we have our own discussion, we talk about sharing a lot of similarities across different communities that we're dealing with anti-immigrant hate, anti-muslim hate. anti-lgbt hate, all kind of hates that we see right now is a crisis. at the same time, because of this round table that we're here across the board, but also how we're going to coordinate

together to really move forward to combat this kind of hate and violence. for everyone i really feel hopeful. we did talk about the challenge that we're facing including underreporting, language barriers. victim services. the lack of cultural competency services across the board. but we also talk about how important it is to really have violence prevention strategies. how will one make sure that we don't only respond when there is a crisis. so, that we don't always have to rely on gofundme and things like that when something happens, when tragedy happens. so i really feel very hopeful and i'm really looking forward to work together from the state and also the city level to ensure the safety of all communities.

thank you. >> i'm a member of the st. gregory arminian church of san francisco. after this meeting, we feel more secure knowing that the attorney general, the mayor, the chief of police, they've made it crystal clear that hate will not be tolerated at all on any level and that there are consequences to it. division is a source of -- it's a disease and it spreads through society and it's, we cannot have a civil functions society with hate and there will be consequences and 0 tolerance and san francisco's at the forefront of it and we need to set an example not just in our city, but in had our

state and for the entire country that hate be not be tolerated at all. thank you. >> thank you. happy to answer any questions if you have any. >> so in 2021, we've had 83 reported hate crimes. let me say this, that does not tell the whole story and 59% of those were against asian, people from the aapi community. and let me just point out one thing of those 59% which is 49 hate crimes, 30 of those was committed by one person who is now in custody and has been filed on by our district attorney. as was said repeatedly by all the speakers, we will not tolerate it. there's no place in our city

and there's no place for it in our state and we want to hold those accountable. >> can you talk more specifically about the arrests for hate crimes and that you understand the percentage of being prosecuted. >> like i said, 30 of the 83 is one person and so those 30 are cleared and we have solved other crimes. we have not solved others. we're still working on that case and we need the public's help on these things. these are very difficult situations because in addition to the reported hate crimes that meet the statutory evidence of what constitutes a hate crime, we know the incidents are happening day in and day out and i want to take this as an opportunity to encourage everybody to report these types of incidents.

report crime. there are no areas to report in crime. so we solve many of them. we don't solve all of them, but we need to work with our community members and the people standing behind me to support this effort to make sure we don't have those events in our city and if we do, people are held accountable swiftly with all the might of the world behind it. thank you. >> reporter: [inaudible] >> yeah. we did put out a press release. i do have that information. so we can get it to you. >> reporter: and then for an individual like that, [inaudible] ? >> like everybody else, he has the right to it a fair trial. he's in jail right now. so that's important as well. we'll see what the outcome in, but he is in jail right now. okay. thank you.

>> one last question. >> reporter: [inaudible] so i wanted to ask people usually meant a hate crime is usually closely in line from the [inaudible] but the hate [inaudible] what kind of behavior? >> thank you for your question, the question is about hate crimes versus hate incidents and what qualifies as a hate crime for something that might still be a hate incident which does not necessarily qualify as a hate crime. there are specific definitions under the law and the facts must meet the threshold of that law to qualify as a hate crime. i encourage us to use that hate crime statute. that's a tool that we have to do what chief scott and some of our speakers were talking about

earlier to make sure that people know that there is no room for hate, not here, not anywhere not know, not ever and so that's what they're there for. as far as hate incidents, i know there's debate, dialog, and discussion right now about maybe potentially changing some of those definitions, but might still be a hate based incident. and as tools, if they come online, they should be utilized as well. it's encumbent on all of us. and there's multiple dimensions to this. we need to make sure we're focusing on prevention as well from occurring in the first place and there's been some great work being done right

here in san francisco, having some of our seniors who might be vulnerable so that a hate crime can be supported as well. so critical and so important and even if they're a victim of a hate incident, they're support so i think that's an ongoing debate about what we can do to address nonhate crimes, but it's encumbent upon us to use every tool in the tool box and that hate is unacceptable. period. end of story. >> reporter: [inaudible] >> yes, they did.

>> reporter: [inaudible] >> no it does not. >> reporter: [inaudible] >> yeah. i'm happy to respond to that. san francisco is a major city, it's a city that has challenges of a major city and what we have tried to do is to put policies in place to combat those challenges. that when they see the amazing golden gate bridge and they see this beautiful home and this library you feel good when you

walk through the door. there's a lot of beauty, but within that beauty, there's a lot of diversity and here in san francisco, what we do is we talk about that diversity as a strength of our city. how amazing it is that you could be in visitation valley and then you can just go right over the hill and be in the bayview hunter's point. you can go to chinatown. you can go to little italy. all these different neighborhoods and have a completely different experience. so i think that san francisco we should be celebrating and highlighting the beauty, the uniqueness although as one of the densest cities in the country but most importantly, that should not take away from the beauty of this city and how

amazing it is. thank you all so much for joining us. >> clerk:the remote hearing for thursday, september 23, 2021. on february 21,, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on may 29, 2020, the mayor authorized all commissions to reconvene remoatdly. it requires 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 and are available by calling 1-(415)-655-0001. and then entering access code 2494 709 5954. and when we reach your item, 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 will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating that your time is almost up. when you're allotted time is reached i will announce that your time is up and 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. at this time i'd like to take roll. [roll call] we are expecting

commissioner chan to be absent today. thank you, commissioners. the commission did receive an ada request related to general public comment. to accommodate this request through the chair we'll call general public comment out of order after the continuance calendar. note that 628 shotwell is pulled from your regular calendar and deferred to your continuance calendar. thank you. and commissioners, this now places this on your items proposed for continuance. items 1a and e. case number 2019-020611cua and v.a.r. at 511-5116 3rd street. this is a conditional use authorization and variance request for the proposed

continuous date to october 28, 2021. item 2 case number 2020-005729cua at 4 seacliff avenue. for a continuous to october 28, 2021. and item number 3, case number 2020-003971pca. the dwelling unit density exception for corner lots in residential districts of planning code amendment being proposed for continuance to october 28, 2021. and additionally commissioners from your regular calendar item 9, case number 2019-022661cua at 628 shotwell street, is being proposed for continuous to october 7, 2021 and all drs are withdrawn for items 16,

20202021-0000269drp-02, and no drs are heard on the calendar today. at this time i'd like to take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on matters of continuance. for all items being proposed for continuance, please press star 3 to get in the queue. through the chair you will have two minutes. >> caller: hello. are we speaking on the continuance of the item for section 319 now?

>> clerk: yes, for case number -- item number 3, the dwelling unit exception for corner lots, is that the item that you're referring to? >> caller: no, i'm sorry. i'm referring to the item on the am large home exception. >> clerk: that will be heard during the regular calendar. >> caller: i'm sorry. >> clerk: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioners do we have three minutes or two minutes? >> clerk: you have three minutes. >> caller: i'm just expressing concern about the creeping return of storefronts sign clutter in the early 1970s it was a period of great environmental progress. one of the important component

of that progress was the cleaning up of storefront sign clutter. cities all over the country, conservative and liberal, recognized it was a serious form of visual blight. >> clerk: i'm sorry, sir. i will have to stop you there, this is only on the matter of continuance. general public comment will be held later on in the calendar after we finish the continuance items. so i'm going to stop you there. thank you. and we are speaking on items that are proposed for continuance. >> caller: you know, i am trying to speak at a specific case and i don't know how to do that. >> clerk: the cases will be called later on in the calendar this is just on the items being proposed for continuance. >> caller: do i call back or do i put myself muted now? >> clerk: you can lower hand and either press star 3 when your item comes back up or call back in.

>> caller:i don't know how to lower your hand. >> clerk: i think that you can press star 3 again and it will lower your hand. i will clear the queue. thank you, commissioners. it looks like there are no other individuals wishing to speak on items proposed for continuance. so public comment is now closed and the items are before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there has been a motion has been seconded to continue all items as proposed on. that motion [roll call vote]

thank you very much, commissioners. that item passes unanimously, 6-0. and zoning administrator, did you want to make a comment on the variance? >> okay, continuing item 1b to the date specified. >> clerk: thank you very much. that will now take us to general public comment. as i mentioned earlier we are pulling this item out of the regular calendar order and we'll be hearing it now. at this time the members of the public you may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter and jurisdiction to the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded once your item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds the 15-minute eliminate, the public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public this is

your opportunity to get in the queue by pressing star, 3. through the chair you will have two minutes. >> caller: linda chapman. if i had three minutes for public comment as i should have last week, or last time that i was here, i would have addressed that larkin street public on the subject of parking. fortunately, commissioner moore was right there on target on that. i will come back to that subject another time. what is appropriate for knob hill. two, if i had three minutes i would be able to tell you what david shu who is a lawyer and the state assem bee housing and community development had to say about how your decisions are obviously illegal. of course he didn't put it that way. i raised issues to him about that thinking, and he assured me

that those things -- those kinds of things could never be approved. the state law would never allow it. he thought that i was having some kind of crazy fantasy. now i have been telling that you you need to consult the city attorney or say sue us when they threaten to sue, because you are waiving things that are not meant to be waived under the state law. the code requirements have exposure and the like are not waivable. what is supposed to be waived are things like the density limits that you have and certain other things that might make it impossible to build, you know, well. and why do they need a two-stor] except that the other things are not allowable. i would go on to the pay-to-play about the neighbors if i had three minutes. i'll have to talk about that later.

$450,000 for 1,200 for the town ever van ness. i think that you need to really know what you're dealing with here. in the board of supervisors the subject of the assessed payment came up and the commissioners had so lited them or otherwise promoted them, so i'll have to come back to this another time. but remember 1200 van ness, to lower [indiscernible] so they told the developer. [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you, ms. chapman, that concludes your time. >> caller: good afternoon. hi, it is georgia schutus. i sent in a video of this project that i have been talking about that is 2 1/2 minutes long so there's not enough time to show it here but i do hope that the commissioners and the staff will watch it. and the video was taken about a week ago. and the video and email sent with it on september 18th focuses on what is left of the

revival house and it highlights how a second unit could have been added to create two family-sized units without the astounding, expensive and long processes now underway in a house that has been occupied since 2017. but there are four photos of the excavation and i think that your staff may show them. this excavation is extreme and that can be seen in the loss of the natural rear yard, mid-block open space, this is reduced to nothing more than an outdoor bunker. there are two photos that i sent from december 2018d.r. hearing which is the abbreviated analysis. they were your photos -- the staff's photos, that show the yard as it was before the approval. and then there's a photo of the yard just as it was cleared out before the excavation began. and then the photo of the excavation itself, taken about a month ago by my neighbor which

was sent to you back on august 26th. the workers have done the excavation and they've installed a very long 12-foot ladder to climb down into the pit now. apparently later on they will build a temporary stairwell so they can safely do their work. an excavation like this is extract, even seeing in real life, it's just hard to fathom how amazing it is, even though it is now very real. so i encourage the commission and the staff to come and to visit and to take a look and to see that this is really a very bad template for denseification thank you very much. and i see the pictures are on the screen now and you can figure it out. take good care. talk to you later. bye-bye. >> caller: hi, david osgoode again. i was saying in the early 1970s was a great period of great environmental progress.

earth day was created, the clean air act passed, and the clean water act, etc. one very important component of that environmental progress was the cleaning up of storefront sign clutter. cities all over the country, conservative and liberal, recognized it was a serious form of visual blight and they all started regulating signs. unfortunately, san francisco seems to have forgotten and it's slowly loosening the worthwhile regulations that have been very effective for 50 years. a couple examples -- legislation will soon be before you that would allow merchants all over town to have projecting signs and awning signs. i believe that it also allows merchants to have wall signs as well. all three. the second example -- signs on historic buildings can now be

approved over-the-counter. that's reckless. 2, two 25-hoot high blade signs were installed on the historic streamlined annex at the foot of mission street. that's a double planning atrocity. a third example -- planning staff informs me that luxury condo buildings are allowed an unlimited number of marketing signs. the size is regulated somewhat, but not the number of signs. the new oversight condo building has four, 20-foot long marketing signs. this creeping piecemeal return to sign clutter needs to stop. presumably you would not vote to weaken the clean water act, so please don't loosen sign regulations. thank you.

>> caller: hi. i was wondering when on the agenda that the planning committee was planning to look at sb9 and add it to the city's building codes in terms of zoning? and maybe discussion of sb10. but we don't know if that's going to be approved locally yet. but i was also looking at item 10 and i was wondering if you would ask the -- ask the sponsor why they didn't -- >> clerk: excuse me. sorry, i'm going to stop you there. because we can't be talking about calendar items right now. so if you want to talk on item 10, you can call back then. >> caller: i didn't know that would have a call in. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: oh, okay.

do you wish to make public testimony, please begin speaking. all right, doesn't sound like anyone is there. last call for public comment, members of the public if you wish to make general public comment, this is your opportunity by pressing star 3. >> caller: commissioners, my name is francesco de costa and i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy. and i have been connected with a general -- to the planning department for the last 40 years.

which are not addressed by the planning department. we cannot be building high rises without paying attention to clean drinking water and our sewage. so $80,000 for a tent in san francisco and the quality of issues and compromised. what are y'all doing?

i know that some of y'all -- what are y'all doing? it's taking months now since we're dealing with the pandemic and all over the city and county of san francisco, the quality of life issues have been compromised. and not having clean drinking water. thank you very much. >> caller: hello, apologies, i was having technical difficulty earlier and there's a small overlap of the continuation calendar but it's mostly a general comment. as i prepared to tune into this meeting i was reviewing the

staff report and agendas and i was dismayed on what they didn't include. there was no analysis of multiple important critical state housing laws. there was no housing accountability analysis and it was barely a ceqa statement. and there was no streamline mechanism. i really think that these staff reports for every single item should include analysis of haa, and the streamlining act, and all of these housing laws because when you guys just approved all of these continuations and i look at item number 2 in particular and i asked, well, wait a minute, did you continue beyond the limits of the streamlining act? did you continue it beyond the limits of the sb330, and how many hearings did it have? when was the ceqa determination date and how long had it been and and the fact that you guys vote to continue a project without even a discussion of have you satisfied the state deadline is shocking to me.

there really should be a discussion [indiscernible] because it satisfies their zoning and it can only be denied on written findings of unmitigatable impacts and we determine ceqa exempts -- [buzzer] you are done, right? i mean, that's what state law requires. so how come we're not talking about state law in any of your staff reports and how can you make actions without that knowledge? thank you. thank you. seeing no additional general public comment i now close public comment and we can move on to item number 4, consideration and adoption of the minutes for july 22nd and september 9, 2021. commissioners, i would like to read into the record some clarifying record added to the

july 22nd minutes. for the condition addressing the parking attendant and informational hearing challenges the following language -- to have a parking attendant on site during the hours of operation to help to direct and monitor the cars and train... and pedestrian conflicts. after a period of six months from the date of the store opening provide a monitoring report to the planning department, and the report will be presented to the planning commission at a public information hearing within one year of this store opening. the other conditions added by the commission for 5 fultton remain as is with parking time limits, store parking will be limited to 90 minutes and the sponsor shall restrict the time limits. and to notify the patrons of the time limit as well as enforcement and restrictions. and directional signage that the

sponsors shall post at least one sign on the inside of the store's garage indicating that the vehicles departing the garage may only turn right on fulton. the sponsor shall work to limit the left turns into the parking garage if feasible. separately, the commission already discussed and clarified the 400 motion to make clear that the planning commission was not requiring this, and it reads as follows -- with findings amended by staff and to have interior recommendations and in addition to the permits for this project for consistency with the hpc's appropriateness and also improvements also subject to

review and approval by preservation staff. for compliance with the tenant improvement guidelines that are required as part of this approval. unless it triggers a new certificate of appropriateness under article 10. with that i will now open up the minutes to public comment. the members of the public, if you wish to make testimony on the minutes for july 22, 2021, september 2, 2021, or september 9, 2021, please do so by pressing star 3. once you hear that your line is un-muted that is your indication to speak. it looks like there are no individuals wishing to speak on the minutes. public comment is now closed and, commissioners, the item is now before you.

>> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: i move to adopt the minutes as amended >> president koppel: okay. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there has been a motion that has been seconded to adopt the minutes from july 22, 2021 as amended and the minutes for september 2nd and september 9, 2021. on that motion [roll call vote] that passes unanimously 6-0. this places us on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. thank you so much for filling in this afternoon and also for

jonas, you're doing a great job, and thank you for leading us through. i wanted to ask and you may go through this, but there's state laws that are signed by the governor and i'm wondering how you're planning to bring those to us and in particular which ones you think that will require legislation? and my read on sb9 is that there's latitude for design review and certain requirements that we can have and just how you're thinking of approaching that legislation in particular but there will be other pieces that we also need to address as well. that's my question. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. so we've got a hearing on the calendar for october 21st to talk about sb9 and 10. their implications and potentially talk about any -- any changes that we have to make to limit those. but when you get in the details

of analyzing them and how they intersect with our existing code and the existing state laws especially around adus, it gets complicated, especially with sb9 fairly quickly. so it may seem that's a bit far out but we wanted that time to make sure that we -- we can answer those questions and bring them to you and have a robust discussion. so that is scheduled for the 21st. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i wanted to briefly touch on some organizational shifts within the department, and i apologize. i think that they were mentioned last week during the public comment and for not bringing these to you earlier.

and hopefully the biggest impact will be increased collaboration and consistency within the department and to facilitate the job of our planners in this increasingly complicated regulatory environment, things like sb9 and 10 that we just mentioned. so two components, one merging zoning and compliance and for the role of the zoning administrator in this case that remain exactly the same. in their duties, including enforcement and short-term rentals and tdm. and it's already in the code and the charter to apply on variances and code interpretations and issue lrds

remains unchanged. and kate connor and her team who were formally under dan snyder's job at the office of executive programs also merge under current planning and you're obviously familiar with cases that work around the state density bonus, and other state laws like sb35 and 330, bmrs are liaison to the rent board, etc. so i know that you share the great respect and admiration that i have for both of those functions because they're playing an ever important and complicated role in our -- in our analysis of the projects. so that the notion is that they continue and actually be enhanced. but, again, the goal of this is to make the jobs of those who are managing project review easier with issues around zoning, state density, bonus,

and other state laws, historic design. i wanted to have the folks making decisions and looking at projects housed in one division i also think that it is an opportunity to expand the knowledge of these issues for planners and ultimately more opportunities for advancement within the department. so i just wanted to highlight this and as always kind of no change, no matter how minor i may think that it is. it doesn't go without some scrutiny and so supervisor peskin has asked for a hearing on these changes, which i'm happy to go and explain to them into the board and others about it. supervisor peskin, to my knowledge, didn't call me or liz to query about this change prior to calling for the hearing but happy to go talk to them at that -- at a hearing of the board. i also wanted to mention some staff promotions within current

planning. so natalia, who you have seen here and encountered, especially on issues of adus, becomes a flex team leader and she was in that acting role previous to this. and these new leader

>> caller: and drug companies they do not mix qa andqc with the manufacturing ofdrugs and software production companies and high-tech companies . they do not mix the testers with the coders . the collaboration of director tillis used as a reasonfor this combination , there is no measurable goal in that. i appreciate it if director tillis would elaborate further how this collaboration is supposed to take place. these departments work together anyway so moving one department under the chain of command of another one and particularly the department of compliance responsible for the zoning

issues to be combined with the current planning is basically the wrong move. so i wanted to bring it to you attention . i appreciate commissioner imperial's comments on this and i just hope to hear more about the collaboration that director tillis referred to and give us examples. what kind ofcollaboration do you need to perform your job ? at this rate every department is going to be reporting to the same chain ofcommand . are we going to move the preservation under the same chain of command? basically just having great concern about this reorganization. thank you. >> clerk: thank you commissioner. this concludes your items that have been heard from hpcboard of supervisors and board of

appeals . we continue to regular calendar item 8 , item 00179 each. cpa review of large resident development with the planning code amendment, after hearing public comment we will continue this item to today after you are prepared to make a presentation. >> planning department staff, based on the commissioners comments the department has developed a new recommendation that i will be presenting today. before i get the department's new recommendedmodifications i believe jacob is here to give a brief update . >> thank you very much audrey for the introduction. this is jacob and supervisor

mandelman's office.as a refresher this is an ordinance to address an ongoing trend in our districts throughout the state but professionally different neighborhoods like england park. the trend is a constant stream of existing 12 to 1500 square foot older and relatively more affordable homes being converted into four, five or 6000 foot stamp single-family mansions flipped when full for six or $7000 more. these conversions which we see on a weekly basis the roads the city's existing housing cost without any addingany new supplies and it only exacerbates the affordability prices that were all well aware of .this large residence is intended to address that by making it harder to convert an

existing single-family home into a larger and more expensive one while encouraging the addition of new housing opportunities in residential areas when these extensions are proposed . as you know this would specifically the ordinance would require additional use in the following circumstances. when on a vacant lot there is a single-family unit proposed for more, on a lot where there is an existing home of 2500 square feet or less you see would be required for that home to expand by 50 percent or more. adding a bedroom,things like that . and where there is a unit greater than 2500 square feet of fee would be x required for expansion of greater than 10 percent. there are exceptions to the conditional use requirements which would be the cu not be required as long as the project includes at least one more unit

being added than what is there currently. so long as no unit and the billing above 2500 square feet as a result of the project and as long as the smallest unit of the project is at least a third of the size as thelongest one . this will be over the phenomenon of a single-family unit in a small three or 400 square foot add you that we've already seen here. these exceptions as i mentioned are really to provide a clear path to applicants as towhat kind of result the city is looking for when we have these expansion projects . that would be duplexes or small apartment buildings with moderately sized units that can add up in our neighborhoods for working-class and low income san franciscans and families . i want to remind you all by way of context this ordinance is only part of the supervisors approach or expanding housing opportunities in our neighborhoods.

supervisormandelman as introduced legislation to allow 4 plexus and an ordinance allowing that one corner lots would be before you next month . we see the fourlex effort to increase housing within existing requirements while the ordinance before you is to address the other end of this issue which is pushing back on these excessively large luxury single-family projects but unfortunately we believe will continue to be prevalent even if more units are allowed in these districts given how lucrative these projects can be . as i'm sure you all recall we had a lot of discussion and heard a lot of reactions to this last time . we talked about theconcern at 2500 square feet may not be the right number or whether sar would be a more appropriate way to more contextually based on deciding what thresholds to meet for a large home expansion . we talked about whether , and i

wanted to point outthe past recommendation regarding different square foot number in the report which we appreciate . we also talked about how do we make sure people are just going to go for these eu no matter what and i want to reiterate our goal is not to create process for no reason but to steer people to the outcome that we're looking for in the best interest of the city overall situation in terms of the housing issue that we see and in terms of seeing our neighborhoods turning into these kind of luxury ,islands of luxury homes that are accessible to such a small fraction of people in san francisco . we finally also talked about the proposal around size of the adu added to get out of the conditional use and i want to note staff has also proposed a different take on that with minimumsize for those units which we do appreciate . commissioners, i want to note that we know this is not a small deal. it is complicated. it is something that affects the way people live their lives

and the way our neighborhoods are developed so i want to let you know we do appreciate staff recommendations. all the conversations will have today we fully intend on taking all that into account as we consider revisions to the ordinance that do achieve this basic goal of expanding our housing opportunities and neighborhood context while discouraging the proliferation of luxury homes throughout the city where space is so precious . so in conclusion supervisors i just know this is again a full proposal that impacts peopleand i appreciate the reaction we've heard . i want to be sure that before you go into your deliberations you have a sense of a level of intensity of this issue especially in the neighborhoods thati work in in district 8 . over the summer i asked one of our interns to track 311 notices we received and in 2 months in june and july we had more than a dozen cases of modestly sized homes being significantly expanded and

almost no cases where any additional units were being added. we had a 3500 square foot home becoming a 5000 square foot home on cumberland and a 20,000 foot owing to 6000 square feet for one family on parkhill. 2500 square feet to 4700 square feet on lately a 1400 square foot home to a 37 hundred square home on 25th street. 1500 feet more than doubling to 2700 square feet on21st street . a 3000 square foot home fairly large coming to 4400 square feet on greystone terrace and a single-family lot on bosworth that was proposed to have a 4200 square foot single-family homebuilt on that lot .in fact on your agenda today you had adr which i noticed withdrawn on 21st street their proposal to demolish an 1100 square foot home reconstructing 6500 square foot single-family mentions in its face.

this is a proposal that does include a adu which we appreciate but it leaves the question as to why we should be accepting the finite space you have in the city should be used for one family as the 500 square feet ofliving space when we could have several families living there . while i'm glad there was a settlement this is exactly the kind of project we're talking about and seeking to address rationally through an existing policy with this ordinance rather than relying on dr so i appreciate inthat effort your thoughtfulness and guidance in coming to this . finally i want to thank audrey , erin on your staff has been great partners through the entire process and deputy attorney kristin jensen forher work in preparing the ordinance. i want to thank you for your consideration and i will return to any questions . >> jumping into the recommended modification, the first is that citywide we raise the conditional useauthorization

required under 317 and 319 . this project is proposing to demolish a single-family home in rh three or our hs districts would principally cover the density with new construction to bemaximized and if no unit would be less than 1000 square feet unless all units on the property proposed are less than 1000 square feet . citywide you would waive the conditional use authorization requiring 317 and 319 and for projects that propose to demolish a single-family home in rh 1d and rh one district if the project also provides a adu and no unit would be less than 1000 square feet once all units areproposed to be less than 1000 square feet . i want to point out further that currently the projects in rh one district which is a very very small number of parcels in the city, the zoning code

currently allows 2 units to be built but that secondunit may not be any larger than 600 square feet . so if this recommended modification is adopted for rh one s districts it would change the unit size allowance for the second unit in the rh one districts. it would be a change from 600 square feet maximum that second unit to at least 1000 square feet at minimum. our third and final recommended modification is to take the ordinance that was applied citywide and apply that same concept in an suv form forno eval he instead . we still recommend that many of our original modifications to the concept of what that suv would look like. including for that valley suv removing the continual use for 30 percent expansion,

increasing the square footage trigger from 2400 square feet to 3000 square feet, this is a newrecommendation . exempting all projects from the 3000 square-foot trigger per conditional use in the project would increase the density on the lot and no dwelling unit would be less than 1000 square feet. this is a change from our original recommendation. increase the marginal allowable increase over 10years from 10 percent to 20 percent for homes already over 3000 square feet . remove the subsection that prohibits historic properties from being extended from the conditional use requirements with all historic properties reviewed for compliance with the secretary ofthe interior standard. and lastly exempt conversion to have space , friendly square footage calculation and this again is a slight notification from our original recommended modifications fromthe july 22

hearing on the right is based on the feedback we heard from you commissioners at that hearing this concludes that presentation and i know there's a lot going on with it so i'm also or than happy to answer any questions . >> thank you very much, i'll now open public comment forthis item, members of the public now is your opportunity to speak . please press starthree when you hear your line has been a muted . through the charity will have one minute. >> my name is chris roach i'm an architect member of the aia tpc and i'm speaking here as a professional resident of san francisco for over20 years and an avid supporter of affordable housing . i absolutely support the intent of thislegislation to encourage density and production of more affordable housing . although on close analysis it is our conclusion it will do

nothing to achieve this purpose and in fact will do exactly th opposite . as the historic preservation committee stated this is a solutionin search of a problem . we've been given no clear definition of whata so-called monster home is . not evidence that there actually is a significant problem. if we look at the data from planning over the last three years before this legislation was introduced out of over 215 dining permits for alterations of residences over 2500 square feetthere were 116 were more than 10 percent expansion .in no eval, also there were only 17 that were over the 10 percent extension and absolutely none over the 50 percent extension does this problem in no eval he is instigating this legislation is almost specifically insignificant. it's inconceivable why those supervisors proposing this legislation thatwould affect projects citywide .>> clerk: that concludes your time.

>> ozzie with council and san francisco alliance coalition. we've been talking to supervisor mandelman with this legislation for a while and i believe close to a year and initially we were rather supportive at times neutral. but what we are seeing today is nothing like what we discussed earlier. and in fact this looks like a redo of ret, residential expansion threshold that we have our double times the commission actually director bill wanted to bring back. this would not do anything for redistricting those monster homes or future homes. if anything is going to be encouraging for developers to demolish. secondly what about the tenant ? single-family homes are not just homes to owners. lots of tenants are going to be subject to eviction because

this is an incentive so we are opposed to the legislation as proposed and we hope we can work with supervisor mandelman to bring it back to its original share. thank you. >> caller: this is mara abernathy i'm a resident of san francisco for 20 years . and i do believe that this legislation as the planning department clearly states as written will does incentivize the types of sensible expansions of homes that lower and middle income households need to grow and stay in the city. and it will not deter the obvious homeowners from jumping through the additional holds to build a large residences they want to the planning department

and commission withadditional conditional use hearings. in the meantime, slowing the approval of production of truly affordable housing . thank you . >> this is david kellogg and i'm as confused as to whywe are not doing item 8 but okay i do support the basic idea of this proposal . anti- is fine but this proposal is not designed to accomplish that in any reasonable way. the accountability act, the fact that you've required these concepts don't need to deny it so it doesn't change anything other than addprocesses and the only way to actually stop it is to reduce the building envelope for single-family homes . that's why it's not on but it's just more process. isliterally not going to stop it . thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners, i'm caroline kennedy. during the past seven years of 18 block neighborhood of single duplex and apartment buildings has been flooded with more than 45 different homes and more than 4000 square feet so we welcome thesupervisors legislation . however we are now concerned the evidence for the ordinance to control the onslaught of ever larger monster homes has gotten lost in the apartments recommendations have shifted from incentive on size to densification. this version is a misguided production by completing and we valley special used district. the area for this district is not well-defined and the proposed suv would allow even bigger homes in this area. isn't that what we were trying toprevent? this version looks lika trojan horse. it would encourage more demolition and larger buildings under the guise of controlling

unit size . please revisit this . thank you very much . >> caller: good afternoon, my name is karen jason and i'm a 30 year resident ofsan francisco and an architect with a small firm in the city . and also co-author of the letter regarding this legislation. i do support thestated intent to approve the supply of affordable housing but this really does nothing towards that goal .this legislation in still limitingthe size of the house , making it more expensive to ups size the permit on the minority and working-class families it claimsto protect . we continue to assert funded housing can be affordable if they're small butconstruction is extremely expensive . the only affordable unit at the cost of construction in today's dollarsthis is studio apartment . is going to support the family. without major public investment in housing and a change in the

entitlement process that permits higher density legislation like this one is a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the business and promote exclusionary zoning does nothing to increase the size of affordablehousing in sanfrancisco . thank you . >> caller: good afternoon commissioners, my name is ross levy, a member of the aia ppc committee and a five year resident of san francisco. i do appreciate the intentions of this legislation and i appreciate staff's efforts to modify it but in that process i do think as mycolleagues have said that some things have gotten lost and muddled . first i do believe this penalizes owners of small homes and properties who seek only to improve the one major asset that they have. i think it does not account for its' of the lot. i think it doesn't account for the 2500 square feet often times includes garage and attic

in the calculations so it's not a truecalculation of actual square footage . and i believe a course that this will backlog and over already overburdened system and represents a certain amount of redundancy with current processes , those being discretionary review design guidelines and current review. >> my name is julie and i'm a 27 year resident of san francisco. i raise my kids here and i'm also an architect and a small firm . i'm not sure why we are doing the samething , same legislation that we discussed last time. we had been told we were going to be hearing this along with the four plex legislation director phyllis recommended his feelings with the legislation which is not being

discussed today . i i just wanted to reiterate a point i had made the last hearing which is that san francisco's housingstaff is 80 years old . we don't need morelimitations to improving it, making it safer, having seismic upgrades . and limitations to making projects so incrementally larger are going to make those things kind of fall off the project. and i think it's in addition to the other things mycolleagues havesaid i think this is also a safety issue . thank you very much . >> my name is luke with the act, an architect and member of a itc. i'm speaking bothas a professional and a 26 year resident of san francisco. i'm also the father of two children ages 10 and 13 . whilei'm in favor along with my colleagues of increasing density and affordable housing

in san francisco, this initiative does nothing to further those aims . instead it continues to privilege single people and childhood couples as the ideal residents of san francisco by increasing the cost, risk and time burden for expansions and effectively trying to mandate theright size of household this initiative does notrecognize large families extended families or collating situations as legitimate . on a personal level i'm concerned it will further alienate middle income families with children . >> it afternoon commissioners. corey smith onbehalf of the housing action coalition . one i want to reiterate the comments that chris roach and karen hasting said earlier. i don't want to restate our comments from the letter that we submitted . i'm very excited to the legislation coming forward as well as work with the housing elements and we can be doing a

lot of things to incentivize small family housing insan francisco and hope that we spendtime and energy on that . thank you very much . >> caller: good afternoon commissioners, my name is matt weiss lot, longtime san franciscoresident . close to 50 years a resident now grew up in millie valley and as everybody has said we're all in favor of reasonable controls and incentivizing affordable housingin san francisco . i think this ordinance will only be applied to millie valley. there needs to be a substantive process where the whole community is included in discussions about what is appropriate so i hope this version of it gets passed on with more consideration about how the committeewill be engaged . i feel like often times those

that yell the loudest are the ones that are heard and i know that there's many of my clients and my friends and colleagues who all would be greatly opposed to this who live in millie valley. if they have the time and to present their views so thank you very much. >> last call for public comment, if you wish to make testimony , you can pressáthree. >> it's georgia. the key point i think in this staff provision is as i outlined in my email that i sent on the 19th. would with the attachments is this. millie valley is the epicenter forde facto demolitions that's the staff's opinion . they should know, tantamount to demolition is thesame as de facto demolition .

what takes care of tenant demolition, section 317 demo. they need to be adjusted as your staff said in 2009. empowered to do that. it isnow 2021. the staff acknowledge the revision, they need to have more stringent demolition populations . because of the epicenter, that's their words not mine. i thinkthey're right. please read my email particularly attachment three. iq for the minute to speak on this revision . take care. >> caller: my name is sarah wilmer, an architect and a long time 30 year resident of the san francisco. i live in millie valley and like a small business of six women. as i support the aie a letter

of divisions to this proposal and i find it particularly anti-family. i have spent 20 years building homes, renovations small modest renovations in san francisco so families can stayhere if they choose to put their limited funds in their homes so that they can send their children to public schools . i did the same 20 years ago. both my children went to publi schools and i think this legislation is extremely misguided relative to single class families . thank you. >> i'm david guest, thank you for hearing me. i'm a resident of san francisco for half a century, current homeowner in glen park near the epicenter of discussion of the supposed problem of large homes i've raised three kids in san francisco and anarchitect at my own firm for 41 years and also

a member of the aia public policy committee and i support the statement given to you . i'm going to address one limited problem between stating overall that this is legislation in search of a problem and comes up with answers that is the problem were real are not significant and are misguided. one of those is the point grandfathering if you're going to grandfather it should not be the date of introduction of legislation . theregrandfathering legislation should be limited to the effective date of the legislation . anything else isunfair a lot . it's hard to meet standards that have been set. this legislation will be changed differently if it goes ahead and probably dropped entirelyand in the meantime in months since it was introduced nobody could go ahead with anything . thank you. >> caller: this is jonathan reynolds. i wanted to dispute a couple of the things joseph said.one is as you said we have limited

space, we want to keep people from building these large buildings but the number one problem is san francisco is the limited amount of building space and this is limiting the amount of building space a little bitbackwards to say we have so little space that we want to keep people from making more space .and another issue is that you said that let me think. that the i don't think that the number one issue is that the building density limits. and as you can said, we increase the density dwelling limit it's not going to make a difference whether you make

missed mcmansions anyway. that is the number one thing we should focus on is increasing blind the dwelling density limits so that people can build apartments that are more affordable. thank you. >> my name is robert troutman and i live in district 5. i think i want to talk about where we have our troubles. if you look at the mapin the packet , you could see seacrest has one of the highest average home sizes in sanfrancisco . which is no surprise because in seacrest it pretty much is just allowed to build single-family homes and allow each one zoning. i think zoning is probably highly correlated with home size if you look at the map of where we have our h1 zoning and where we don't. so i think if you really want to have smaller homes that the key is to allow for more apartments to be built to make

it more attractive to build smaller more compact homes.so that's my comments, thank you. >> clerk: thank you. seeing as noindividuals are willing to speak on this matter public comment is now closed . >> thank you supervisor and thanks mister benzo for shedding some light on the topic . there's a lot of things going on, alot of concerned neighbors and thank you all for your input . let me wait to see what the other commissioners might have

to say. but i'm generally in favorof staff recommendation . considering the input from the aia.the committee health of supervisors will eventually get to the best i think for us all. commissioner tanner. >> thank you. thank you to members of the public for your testimony and tostaff as well for their work on this . i did have a few questions. i wanted to understand a little bit about the thousand square foot kind of size that has been stressed as part of the way to not have a way to maximize density for incident see as long as it's a unit including a centrally dwelling unit is about this square feet. staff suggested this might encourage the unitto be rented

. i wonder if staff could expand on the concept because the unit size is a certain amount that is more likely to be rented versus used by that family or one resident. if you couldilluminate how you are drawing that conclusion . >> thank you for the question commissioner tanner. the idea is something jacob alluded to as well during his presentation which is that when sometimes when we have these ideas and adding a du to larger homes, we've run into problems where the a du is too small or the secondary unit is too small. it did not motivate the family to rent that unit out. it motivates the family of the main unit to convert it to a elaborate steam room for wine cellar. however, if it's picking up at

least 1000 square feet,hoping it becomes a more livable unit .in addition it's taking away some of the square footage that could be added to the main house. so hopefully by design it's also making the main unit available. >> i would offer and i'm open to seeing what other commissioners think. i think the intent is right which is to try to encourage renting it but i am failing to see in that use case if that thousand square feet if it's 300 square feet andi want to use it if i'm the homeowner use it as my own living space . i don't really see how that would be the prevention mechanism because it's a steam room when i have a game room and i have to bedrooms and the kitchen so i'm just not seeing the thousand square feet accomplishes that. i'm concerned it could create less stability and so then it's kind of how you appreciatethat . if both units are 1000 square

feet or more things are gettin larger or if it's a small home , the secondary unit doesn't need to be larger if it's the primary unit so i would be interested in seeing if they're open to five or 600 square feet. i agree one of the things we talked about in this commission is receiving small use for example that are just very tiny and not very livable and more a quality of life for those occupying unit with you my concerns of the commission has a smaller minimum size i'd be open to that. i'd also be interested to think about the adu square footage relating to state laws. the laws that we reviewed legislation about updating state law so i thought that if it's a one-bedroom it requires there to be 100 square feet or no larger than that might be the limit but i'd be concerned if there's some kind of restriction there but since

we're adding a adu if it's a one-bedroom and two-bedroom , we're basically saying you have to have a two-bedroom adu. i don't know if you're followingwhat i'm saying i might have it long but if you can comment on that in your actions . >> i might defer to mister starr about the adu laws since i know there are limits based on state adu programs and we also have our local programs so this made accomplished in multiple ways but i would defer to mister starr whowould have a better answer than mine . >> i think we're asking them to maximize the density of the zoning so we're not looking at that, it's more as an rh to to be there at least one unitneeds to be about 2000 square feet . so in the first two recommendations that's what we're focusing on. if we did apply it to, if we

did say in our h1 you have to do a adu you may run afoul of the state requirements. but given the complexity of that i'm not sure i can parse it out rightnow. we werethinking more of the base zoning unit , not the adu's . >> i guess it's number two, that would be for our h1. that no unit be less than 1000. but i again, it's a complex question and i don't know if it might be accurate. i wanted to put that just that my concern is the interaction with the rh 1000 units. that square foot requirement that the adu has to be that size and just see it compact many of our pieces of legislation so thank you for that.i'm interested in seeing

if these other commissioners want to change that size . if it's not 1000 square feet, maybe that would be a process . i also wanted to see, we've heard a lot of comments on various persons asking about really how this could affect them and i'm curious what the supervisor is thinking in regards to silly valley and the suv. are thereconcerns can be challenging for families , that they may not be significant enough and what your conversations have been in regards to family housing and the people buying something and trying to turn it into a home they maybe wish they could have had in that space. >> thank you commissioner. i think that again every family is different at 2500 now is sounds enormous and excessive tosome people and it sounds unimaginably small to other people . i think when you look at what's very helpful to see the

planning department's data where you sawsingle-family home expansions over the past several years , on average and he around 3000 square feet i think tells us a lot about where the midpoint is. if you will. but i also want to say if you have a homewith a adu in the same building that unit , there's no law that says that you cannot be provided to grandma. so there are many different ways that a family can be accommodated with different sizes. the important thing here is looking at making sure you are allowing certain points for some level ofreasonable expansion at home .you have 10 percent of the homes that were already over the threshold and staff proposed 20 percent. the important thing is to give people the outlets to do a kitchen, to do another bedroom, to do a nursery or whatever it may be. you need an expansion of 50, 75 100 percent of the home and an

additional floor, you have to start to wonder if that really just you out of bedroom or is it really dramatically changing what the property is that is available ? again the 2500 was the number that we started with looking at your kind of average size plot in san francisco. on average 2500 square foot is a lot and if you look at the rear yard requirements were talking about our extensions in our neighborhood, i think it looks very familiar with what that looks like and i think a lot ofsan franciscans grew up on that kind of development . >> there are comments also i think concerned about other protections and to you and then the supervisors have those protections in place overall in the city to be effective in helping single-family homes to be protected in the scenarios or is there anything thatwe can do better in regards to protections ? >> this is an ordinance that i don't think increases the development pressure on these lots. where responding to the very

visible and documented phenomenon of single-family homes owner occupied or returned by being equipped into these gigantic homes that are unlikely to be renter occupied orperhaps even occupied by anybody at all . so i think we do see the staff recommendations around 317 that's an area that we're not intending to go into with all of this because it's an important thing to look at when a project doestrigger the demolitionthreshold . that is not something that we're seeking to address with this ordinance . we are seeking to address what happens when the business structure expands by a certain amount which kind of asksthe question how many people should be able to live within that space .and what makes it so. we certainly need to continue to tighten and enhance all our tenant protections through the city and wecertainly would not be doing anything with this ordinance that would be going in the other direction .

>> thank you, i'm helping us understand that and i wonder we did hear some comments also from the public concerned about how the third floor area was being defined. we have different terrains, things like that and then if you want to come to that word miss merlone if you want to help everyoneunderstand what is included when were talking about the size limitations . . audrey, did you want to take that? >> i'm growing up so i can get the actual definition because it is not a one sentence definition unfortunately . >> president: like everyone else. >> generally the idea in relation to our changed recommendation on garage space is we heard i believe it was commissioner diamond as well as other commissioners that brought up this issue of how we calculate space, especially how we calculate parking and i

think that the issue is do we include parking as part of space when determining the existing size of your home whether you're going to wrestle or by adding a garage if you would then trigger anextension of a certain size . we heard the commission say that this is to essentially punish people for having garages and is anti-familyand we agree with that . that's their perspective so at least in terms of garages we have elected to make the recommendations they do not count either way . for that square footage maximu calculation . in terms of square foot area, let's see. so we have our allowable building envelope which is a

little bit different. which is how big of a box you can put on your lot. then we haveour height limitations . which generally i recommend is 40 feet and then we have a way of calculating the size of your house and how it's measured after that so third floor area is generally the amount of habitable space that exists within your home . so storage space, attic storage space. things that are dedicated to mechanical equipment operation. essentially any room you cannot sit in and enjoy based on dvi's definition of what would be a room to have itthey would not be included in the definition . >> i can clear up some of the concern from some of the colors i heard about what's habitable

and what's not and it seems to address that issue. one question i had is there's often homes that have the first floor where the garage is unfinished and the second level of the home is where it was built out as a finished area. ifthey're finishing that first floor level which may be parking but not all of it , was that counts as a percentage or how would that be looked at if it's aiken's existing area that hasn't been let's say finished to the degree you could inhabit it but maybe it has the right floor to ceiling height . [please stand by]

>> commissioner: i know it's challenging. a car can't access it. how would we look at that or how do we currently look at those types of spaces that are just kind of unfinished? >> so just to make sure i'm understanding, i think what you're asking me is if you have a ground story garage, let's

say that does fit one and a half cars and -- >> commissioner: well, it's more like an additional area that a car can't access. so existing building that the car can't get to it, right, because it's too deep into the house, for example. what i'm really concerned is somebody having an existing building that this will limit them from expanding when the issue again we're trying to solve or the supervisor's trying to solve is these excessively large homes and here we're talking about someone's purchased a home. it only has one floor and i'm just concerned the parking area won't be counted. but the parking area is not counting, but this back area that leads from your garage to your back yard, we're not going to count that. i don't know if i'm making sense. >> yeah. absolutely. i think what you're saying is if there is space not part of

your gross floor area right now let's say unfinished storage space and within your existing building structure, within your existing building envelope, you would like to expand beyond the garage space which you won't have to count, but you'd like to finish that space and turn it into habitable space. >> commissioner: exactly. >> being careful about not getting too specific for scenarios, i think, yes, that would probably count towards your expansion even though it's in your existing building envelope, but, again, just keep in mind that right now our recommendation is to increase the allowable increase for modest expansion from 10% to 20%. i know this isn't what we care most about is what does it look

like on the outside and we're just making something that was uninhabitable habitable. but i think the second part of this is we're trying to control the actual size of the livable area as well and so hopefully a 20% expansion would still cover trying to convert storage space just within your existing building footprint. >> commissioner: great. thank you. i'll leave my questions there. i just want to make my last few comments and i think the concept of what we're trying to achieve i think is headed in the right direction which is trying to think about, you know, how do we want to with our housing staff over the long-term of the city. that's an important question and how do we encourage, you know, the perpetuation of more affordable and still when houses are so expensive, it's hard to talk about affordability. it feels a little bit like

we're up in space, honestly, but trying our best to support more ability through design and the housing staff. and i think we just incentivize folks in ways that make sense. i think those goals are right. i do agree that overall this is maybe an incremental step towards thinking about larger changes that would need to happen would just really incentivize more density and have more flexibility that leans that direction which is looking at things like our buildable area, looking at things like, you know, what are we allowing by code to build. but i do strongly believe as we've said, the code allows you to have a house this big and this tall and these dimensions, that's really a way to help address this and thinking about f.a.r. as a tool that helps to scale up and scale down across neighborhoods. that is still a complex task and all those pieces fit together and so i don't

anticipate we'll be able to take care of them all at once, but perhaps this legislation can be part of continuing to think about how to do that gradually even if we can't do it all at once with one piece of legislation. i look forward to hearing what other commissioners have to say on this topic. >> president: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: as one who spoke not in favor of this legislation, i note that the staff summary of commission comments did not include my comments, it did not include others in their entirety. doesn't matter because each of us will come to our own

conclusions and perhaps a different way. what i said at the previous hearing was that adding a citywide element with controls that perhaps have generated from a specific area is not equitable to all the other people the city probably never even heard of this particular change. the ones speaking today are those who regularly come and follow the planning commission and the department on small scale residential developments and those who have a vested interest. what about everybody else in the city who may have a slightly different opinion and

a particular one that's being posed by the author of this change? the interesting thing is that historically, san francisco has always had a qualitative approach to planning. in recent years, one has seen it's trying to change to a more qualitative approach which i'm not sure necessarily works. if you have a form based criteria for residential development, small-scale residential development in the city, which has its setbacks, height limits, etc., going to a

formula based doesn't always work. if you look at all the things that are under discussion in this particular proposal, we could easily disagree as the a.d.u. that commissioner tanner brought forth. if your intent is to have more affordable units, smaller units, usually you have a tendency to be more affordable. going to a formula-based approach which tries to tread the line in between allowance and disallowance of a size, you know, doesn't necessarily work in a qualitative criteria that

we have. why is it that people aren't pushing then for a reduction in the height limit? that was done in westwood park. what occurred there with a tremendous amount of discussion and input from the entire community. here we have no input from the city at large. the other communities that will be impacted. and we're creating something that has so many ins and outs that the process which everybody says they want to reduce gets increased with this particular approach. i can go on and on but i'm not intending to. i think it was clear from my discussions relatively shorter last time that i am not

supportive of this particular approach. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: commissioner fung, thank you for your concise summary of points. i do share many of your concerns particularly as this becomes a city wide proposition and i believe that we would only run into unworkable inability to manage process. what's concerning to me that what's in front of us is not based on any form of program or form and based on the form or program-based analysis. what is problem specific to three areas ben park, delores heights and knowy valley, the

problems that are described are not and as you look across all other residential areas across the city. i'm concerned that there is no discussion about demolition in this particular legislation. i think one of the bigger problems at the beginning point of the problems you're trying to prevent. i'm also concerned that there is no discussion about design standards. the design standards we have are far more generic while they help genere maneuver generic discussions about architecture, they are not at all resilient and strong enough to guide or be in parallel to the process you're trying to initiate here. and the legislation from what lacks a statement of appropriateness and preamble

and i appreciate the introduction, that particular kind of problem statement should lead up to what we're trying to resolve here. again, as i expressed my concerns in the initial discussion, at this particular point, i am not supportive. i see it to become a slightly more focused discussion, a pilot program for the areas in question, but i believe as a broader legislation that it's not quite what it needs to be particularly to aid a discussion about demolition needs to become center to what we're trying to do here. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. i'm also finding words to say about this legislation and i do appreciate supervisor mandelman's intent in terms of preventing a large residential

development, but just for context, what we see here in the planning commission is what we see is of demolition of a garage that as small as 600 square feet is 600 or 800 and then being reconstructed to 4,000, 5,000, 7,000 square feet. so that's what we're seeing here in the planning commission when it comes to a c.u.a. for demolition and i do um, share some of the, um, sentiments of commissioners fung and moore, i think this legislation lacks on the, you know, if you're focusing on the large residential developments, you cannot ignore the fact of demolition because it is happening in a lot smaller scale and at the same time, i'm open to appreciate what the planning department has mentioned in terms of defining

large or monster homes. are we comparing it from what is being demolished and then the square footage of what is being proposed? from what how we have -- how i have voted here, if it's a small large development -- if it's a small development being reconstructed 4,000 square feet, we have discussions here about the unit sizes. how are the unit sizes being built? so these are the concepts that we're seeing here at the planning commission. and another thing too that i think that this legislation lacks is, again, what commissioner tanner has kind of questions a little bit earlier is about the tenant's rights. we have especially today, we have one project where there is a tenant occupied, but, again, when you are talking about

reconstructing to a large development, those issues also arise. this approach of city wide, i think committee discussion should really be part of this. as what we're seeing this is more and perhaps there's going to be more discussion on at the board of supervisors and perhaps there will be more comment on that, but i hope that the planning depend and the supervisor mandelman's office will look into more community engagement particularly on this, but i do appreciate the intent of the legislation in terms of really starting having this conversation about the large -- the demolition and converting it to large homes. you cannot separate those. those two are inherent problems. those are my comments and actually right now i am more intent to support the planning department's recommendation,

but i know that there will be more discussion on this on the board of supervisors and perhaps they can fight it out in the board of supervisors, but in terms of the context of this legislation itself, i would like to see more committee engagement as well. >> president: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: thank you. i first want to thank all of the members of the community who wrote letters and showeded up again for their very thoughtful comments on a very complicated piece of legislation. i also want to thank staff for their attempt to take all of the commentary that they heard last time and come forward with recommendations that address some of the issues that were raised while still trying to improve the intent of

supervisor mandelman's legislation about how to we use our space and most efficient manner going forward. so i have a number of comments that i wanted to make and also wanted to align myself with many of the comments made by my fellow commissioners in the last few minutes. again, i would say i believe the intent behind the staff's two modifications is to encourage density and waive the 317 and the 319 requirements is the right approach that if we're trying to increase density we need to create incentives to do so and these modifications move in that direction. they provide carrots that are likely to be very attractive in

the community both to project sponsors and the architects and they will design towards meeting those requirements in order to avoid the c.u. process where the cost is enormous. i don't know that a 1,000 square feet is the right answer there. i think commissioner tanner raised a good point and i think the interplay with the adu rules about 100' need to be analyzed as well too. i don't know that we need all of our units to be a 1,000 squar feet. 500, 600 might be the right goal for single people. the larger units are clearly necessary for families, but it feels like more work necessary on those two provisions in order to strike the right balance for what the right

number is but i certainly endorse the modifications. one of the commentors raised an issue that i think is really important and i don't think the other commissioners have commented on it yet and that is that there's a life safety issue, but many of these houses have old foundations, ancient wirings, old plumbing, and windows that are single-paned and the cost to upgrade all of that is so suggest cannot including taking into account the high cost of construction that many people are unwilling to undertake those modifications which do address life safety issues unless they can add significant space to their house and increase the value. and if we need to be thinking about that in this context, i -- i also wanted to say that i

believe that this legislation even if it's only limited to knowy valley which is the right direction from my perspective we're painting with two sides of the brush to affect the entire city and we should start in the area that we think is the epicenter of this problem so limiting it to knowy valley is the right approach. whether we pick 2,000 square feet or 500 square feet, it's kind of a good number and it might be a good number to start with a basic lot. but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the right answer for larger lots or different terrains and that f.a.r. is a far better and more refined tool to get to those issues and so i am uncomfortable on this

on the lay-up approach, terminology used by commissioner fung in trying to solve this problem. i believe f.a.r. is a far more appropriate way in how planning thinks about these issues going forward. i thought that the comment about grandfathering which nobody has talked about so far other than the public is an important one. it is hard to say this legislation should apply to the only people who've grandfathered are those who submitted their applications earlier in the year which is really unclear on where this legislation is going to land or what form it's going to take and grandfathering should be effective data for legislation. i completely agree with commissioner tanner that we shouldn't be discouraging people from finishing the unfinished space in their houses. many of our houses are built with garages and unfinished

space behind it that leads into the yards and that's not building a monster house. the problem we're trying to solve is monster houses, we should do nothing to discourage people from improving the space behind their garages. it just seems like that issue about monster houses has nothing to do with finishing unfinished space in peoples' houses that exist right now and if we're -- if this legislation is written in a way that captures that, then we need to go back and rethink how we're grappling with the legislation so we're not advertently making life more complicated for people who want to do expansions of unfinished spaces in their houses. and then, lastly, i really want to pile on with the rest of the commissioners with their desire that we don't move forward until there is broad community knowledge about what we're trying to accomplish here.

you know, there are regular commission watchers who understand what's going on and the architect community who understand this, but the vast majorities of people affected by this are those who own the houses in the district and i can say for sure that most of them have no clue this is happening and it dramatically affects their biggest asset or assets they want to own if they're currently tenants and i think that we shouldn't be going any further without holding community wide meetings in knowy valley, all of the areas that are affected so that the supervisor and the planning department can hear from the people that are most dramatically affected by this as to their thoughts about this legislation going forward as

currently written, i too am not proposed to support it. with a better focus on the exact problem, we could get there, but it will take a lot more work i believe to get to the point where we're actually accomplishing the goal without too many questions. >> secretary: okay. might i entertain a motion from the commissioners? commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i don't have a motion, but at the risk of trying to see where we are, i

just was taking notes on all of what the commissioners were saying and trying to get a sense of where we are as a body and what we're thinking. i did hear, for example, commissioner diamond and imperial wants more staff recommendations with more notes to perhaps the board and to the author of the legislation to make some improvements. but just curious if i'm hearing folks right in had that regard to support the staff recommendation and the direction it's generally going or if there's any modification that the commissioners are wanting to make to the legislation as drafted. it's a question to everyone. >> secretary: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: i would move to reject the change to the planning code amendment. >> commissioner: i second

that. i have a question for the secretary, if there is no motion, can this be forwarded to the board of supervisors with comment? there were a lot of constructive comments by each commissioner. is there an ability if we can't find somebody making a motion that we can forward this comment? >> secretary: commissioner, you really do need to make a motion either to approve or disapprove the ordinance, otherwise the comments that you made at this commission hearing today are available to supervisor mandelman and the other supervisors for them to

review. but if you want an official document sent to the board of supervisors with your comments on them, there should be a motion passed. >> commissioner: thank you for clarifying that. >> president: commissioner diamond, do you have something else? >> commissioner: so if i understand correctly, we could modify the motion that was just made so that it was a ''no vote but that you could ask that that 'no vote' be sent together with a summary of all of the comments we just made? >> secretary: you've made a lot of comments, so we could just attach the transcript to this hearing to that. it's hard to like accurately summarize everything that you want them to have. i'm not sure. i recommend the disapproval,

there's just no modification to that. >> commissioner: i actually heard a lot of overlap and agreement among the commissioners on many of the issues. there was almost unanimity on the notion that community input is necessary as a prerequisite to coming up what the actual recommendation said. how many adus are treated, how demolition is treated, whether it's appropriate to size. it feels like we should send a summary because asking all the supervisors to listen to the transcript seems like a big ask whereas a summary of all the concerns raised seems like that would be more productive. the commissioners went to a great deal of trouble to look

at this and i think we need to forward this as a package that relays all of the thought that went into this. >> secretary: it's just highly unusual. we've never done anything like that and as commissioner fung pointed out, he didn't think his views were properly expressed in our summary of the support, so we run the risk of not fully capturing everything you said, but if you direct us to do that, we will do that to the best of our ability. >> commissioner: maybe i can add, commissioner diamond, i think if you were going to ask collectively, it's more powerful. so you either could reject, you know, you reject or you recommend disapproval for these reasons, you know, and collectively kind of opine on what those reasons are or

alternatively modify what you would want to see to be improved or modify our recommendations to say with these additional considerations within the planning department's recommendations, we would recommend approval. so i think you can go either way, but i think the commission kind of speaking collectively would be more powerful than kind of, you know, if we thought it was brought up today. >> commissioner: also, don't we have to honor the fact that the commissioner made his motion, do we still have to proceed with that? >> commissioner: we also have the option of indicating to staff that it seems like there's an inclination among the majority of the commissioners to vote 'no' but people want their concerns passed along. to continue this for a week to draft a summary of what we said so we can then look at that or

do we need to do it collectively write something right now? >> before we get out of hand, let me go down the line. i saw the city attorney, but i did see commissioner moore and commissioner imperial. city attorney, please chime in, but do you have a way to type in your name as well so we can stay in order here? go ahead, commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i see a broad number of peoples' concerns, some of them supporting the ideas. to me, it's a topic that many people are passionate about. i do not exactly see a thread that leads them to this large issue of uncertainty. i believe it is best addressed

to be site and location specific to use it as a pilot project to see if it works without creating what i fear with the a.i.a. could potentially be administrative cares. i do not believe that there is enough linked constructive thoughts to modify or expand on what's in front of us, but basically forward with comment and that is basically either in vote or in sentence form but also picking up the comments that the public made because many of them complement each other. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: this is a very unusual situation if i may for a second. we've hardly ever found ourselves at the edge of a cliff, but this really is, having seen in the last few months or a year as mr. bentley summarized, it's throwing all

of us for a loop except we have not quite found the right tools yet. i think they need to be expanded on, refined, and i think they need to be better tuned or tested as a pilot project. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: yeah. i just want to since we're trying to figure out how we're going to vote on this, i would vote for disapproval with recommendation. i would rather do that with the recommendations with what we have said in this because i do think that it is very important for us and for when it is -- it's important for us and for the board of supervisors as well to see our comments on this. so i will be more supportive of disapproval with recommendations or comment from the planning commission and i would advise for the planning department to be really expansive with our packets or

with our summary on this. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: thank you. i'm wondering, commissioner fung, if you'd be open to your motion that tried to capture some of what i believe could be points that we do have concerns as a commission so that, in addition to our individual comments, there can kind of be a collective voice from the commission. would you be open to that, commissioner fung? >> commissioner: yes. if the commissioners feel that that is possible. >> commissioner: okay. so at the risk of, you know, we'll shoot for the moon and see where we get, i want to offer this list of potential recommendations that might accompany our motion not withstanding i see that attorney ing may advise whether

or not we can continue it as commissioner diamond asked. these are some areas, apologies if i didn't capture everyones' ideas, one is that we would ask that the board conduct more extensive outreach broadly across the city as this would be legislation that would impact the entire city and it's important for that to be known. sounds like there's some idea or support for looking at that 1,000 square foot size to be decreased. i would say to maybe 500 square feet or the board do outreach to decide what that unit size is in regards to when a c.u.a. is not required. the effective date and grandfathering to be considered with the effective date of the legislation being the effective date, not a time in the past. that the gross floor area allow for the finishing of existing

square footage. again that kind of typology of that upper level that's finished and that ground level that is not finished not running a foul of this legislation across the city in any case. the review of tenant protections that could be included or may need to be addressed in the legislation and i couldn't tell if folks wanted to look at the minimum size overall or whether or not we thought that 2,500 or 3,000 was enough but certainly the board to do outreach to consider what the minimum size should be. and it did seem there was overall support with the direction the planning commission recommendation is going where there's kind of a carrot approach to increasing density and support for the idea that the s.u.d. would be limited in scope and not affect the entire city. i don't know if that's captured everyone's comments, but that's what i would like to offer and sorry, ms. lynch, for having to take all that down in some

manner. >> president: d.c.a.a. go ahead. >> sure. i was just chiming in to i guess expect the same sentiment that director harris did about, you know, a disapproval motion versus sort of a positive or motion to affirm with recommendations. there are in the event that the commission disapproves the proposed legislation, that gets forwarded on to the board and it would also be a disapproval in terms of general findings and the consequences would flow from that decision. so i just wanted to point that out and i do believe there was a motion that's been seconded. so before any other motions

that might get made including what's being proposed by commissioner tanner, we will have to sort out that first motion before we get to any second motion. >> commissioner: my proposal is to amend the motion on the floor with the support of the motion, the person who made the motion and the seconder. but, again, not withstanding what you just said about the potential consequences of the disapproval motion overall. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: commissioner moore, if you're talking, we can't hear you. >> commissioner: i'm sorry. i pushed the button and what i was asking was answered by a previous speaker, but i asked that the motion be called.

>> commissioner: and a subsequent motion in that case if the amendments that i requested are not okay with the seconder or the motion maker. >> clerk: so let me clarify that. commissioner fung, as the maker of the motion, are you wanting to modify the motion per commissioner tanner's recommendation? suggestion? and you're on mute, commissioner fung. >> commissioner: actually, i'm not. i'm thinking. [ laughter ]. >> commissioner: that's allowed. >> commissioner: commissioner tanner brought forth five items. the one item that i am not close to resolving in my own mind is whether there's any

size limitation that would be, you know, one that we could all agree upon. so with the elimination of that one, i would accept the other four items. >> commissioner: commissioner, fung, as i may, i'd like to see a slightly stronger definition that this would basically focus on the noe valley delores site and the hot spots where this is occurring. >> commissioner: i think there's no disagreement with that. you know, eventually, and i would just say this on the side is that at one time due to budget constraints, we were never able to do it in previous iter rations of this commission and that is to do a neighborhood by neighborhood plan that reflected more what each neighborhood needed to be. >> commissioner: you're

exactly saying what i'm trying to insinuate here. >> president: commissioner diamond, do you have anything extra? >> commissioner: yes. can commissioner include. >> commissioner: sue, can you turn up your volume. >> commissioner: i think i'm at full volume, but i'm speaking louder. is that clearer? >> commissioner: yes. >> commissioner: i'm wondering if commissioner moore and fung's in their motion can clarify that there's a suggestion to pursue an f.a.r. approach rather than a pure formula based on a number? >> commissioner: i wouldn't tend to agree with that for the following reason and that is that if you want to clamp down on size, then you reduce the

height limit. you know, are it's what was done in winston park. it went from 35' to 28' so you couldn't do three floors. >> commissioner: i -- could we say form-based or f.a.r. rather than 'formula'? i think what i wanted to convey is that the formula's a problem and that -- i don't care how we get there in other ways, but the actual formula of 2,500 or 3,000 seems too rough a cut for me to get there. that's what i've got a problem with. >> commissioner: i would be strong in support of form-based but not f.a.r. because typically f.a.r. is basically specifically used for office density rather than housing. so form-based would be fine, i

said that earlier that there was basically a program based analysis or form-based approach would be fine. >> commissioner: i have the tendency to stay with that. >> commissioner: to stay with what commissioner moore says? >> commissioner: yes. >> commissioner: can i restate what i think we all have said. input, more community outreach and input from the broader city and so i see some nodding. and please say something if it's not right. effective date -- >> commissioner: commissioner tanner, i'm interrupting because we need the whole city to focus on noe. >> commissioner: maybe i'll go backwards. so the overall recommendation is to focus the legislation on the area that needs it which is noe valley, i think we all agree on that, that a form-based approach it may not

be f.a.r., but a form-based approach may be a preferred way to get to the limitations that are appropriate. that tenant protections should be looked at in terms of are there any further protections for existing tenants that might be needed, ensuring that existing gross floor area, that first floor kind of unfinished area could be unfinished without running a foul of the legislation when it's in its final form. that the effective date of the legislation would be the effective date of the law and it wouldn't reach back into a past date. to look further at the adu size or the size of the unit that allows one to not have a c.u.a., perhaps 1,000 square feet is too large and maybe something closer to 500 as a minimum size might be more appropriate. if this sounds like we wanted more input even if it is a localized issue, i'm not sure

about that. i guess, overall, the commission does see the direction for the rest of the city having the carrot, if you will to encourage the city by not having a c.u.a. for demolition, do we want to have more input regarding that kind of idea that's from the staff? >> commissioner: i think if you want to make it more general to say that we would encourage greater density and leave out the comment on the adu, i think that would be acceptable. >> commissioner: yeah. that's great. that's perfect. >> commissioner: if i may, president koppel. >> president: go ahead, commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i would like to suggest that we as supervisor of district eight mr. mandelman should have the

ability to include plan park and delores heights. that's all district aged territories and i don't want to just focus this on noe valley. there's enough variety in this district, so i think it allows the larger. >> president: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: thank you, commissioner tanner, for reciting. i would suggest those community meetings happen in district eight. let's make it manageable and it feels like the community in glen park, delores heights and noe valley is where this should start to get a sense of the neighborhood most dramatically affected, that they have an opportunity to hear about this. >> commissioner: so perhaps that it would be outreach to

affected communities throughout district eight as the supervisor or the rest of the board deems necessary. >> commissioner: i recognize that the staff modification to waive under 317 and 319, the carrots, would probably be city wide i suppose just in noe, but i feel like we need to make this achievable and doable and therefore holding community meetings in district eight seems like the right place to at least start this process. >> commissioner: i would agree with that. the maker of the motion or the seconder would also agree with that. >> clerk: okay. i'm going to attempt this -- >> sorry, secretary. i'm going to -- can i just jump in for a minute. just on that last point about district eight and district wide zoning, i just want to number one provide that in

general, we tried to avoid that type of approach because as census year's kind of evolved, the lines get redrawn and redrawn and the zoning can change. so what i would propose is that, you know, staff works with affected n.c.d. and other sort of defined zoning areas that we have within that area of concern and sort of reach out to constituents in that way. >> commissioner: i think that's exactly what we said, isn't it? >> it's always tricky when we talk about district specific actions. i appreciate that. thank you. >> commissioner: i agree. thank you for that helpful comment. >> secretary: thank you. so i am going to clarify the modification to the maker of the motion and seconder to make sure they're in agreement and also to ensure that i wrote everything down correctly. so it's still a motion of

disapproval, but it would include recommendations for community outreach based on areas of concern affected by the legislation. form-based approach for the size limits. look at tenant protections ensuring that unfinished area could be converted to finished area without triggering the legislation. the legislation would be the start date of the law and there would be no grandfathering to a prior date and to explore the a.d.u. size recommendation. >> commissioner: can you repeat that last one. >> secretary: explore the a. d.u. size -- >> commissioner: i think we should leave that off. >> secretary: okay. all right. so commissioner fung and

commissioner moore, you're both in favor of those modifications? >> commissioner: i find it acceptable. >> commissioner: so do i. >> i just wanted to make sure i didn't miss, was there tenant protection language in there also? >> commissioner: yes, there was. >> so sorry. thanks. >> secretary: thank you all on that motion -- >> sorry, ms. lynch. overall, maybe it goes without saying but the proposal for the s.u.d., that is something that we're all supporting. i just want to make sure that that's known. maybe that goes without saying. >> secretary: so would that be an additional recommendation that we could add that the commission is in support -- >> i think it's the first one. sorry. if i may. i think it's the first one that you mentioned. >> commissioner: yes. that's correct. >> the legislation on noe valley. >> commissioner: correct. >> secretary: great. so on that motion of disapproval, [roll call]

on that motion, it's disapproved 6-0. and that will take us to your next item for the day. this is item number ten, case number 215-012577cua at 1200 van ness avenue. staff, are you prepared to it make your presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. mary woods of department staff. the applicant is seeking a

c.u., conditional use authorization to allow a planned unit development to demolish the existing building complex and parks and construction of a 13-story mixed use building containing 107 dwelling units, approximately 32,000 square feet of commercial and restaurant space. 270 parking spaces, four loading spaces and 155 bicycle spaces. the project requires conditional use for retail sales and services on the second floor and above. nonresident cal use size at 6,000 square feet or more. height above 50' in a r.c. district. and both exception. the project also requires planned unit development

modifications to co-provisions related to floor area for corner lots, rear yard, common open space, dwelling unit exposure, ground floor ceiling height and off street freight loading technical standards. since last week's commission packet, staff has received three letters in support of the project. the department's recommendation is to approve the project with conditions of approval and to also adopt the standard noise conditions recommended by the entertainment commission for its review of residential review projects. that's also included in your draft motion, exhibit a. and this concludes my summary of the project. i'm free to answer any

questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. i will now unmute the project sponsor. and their presentation. >> laura, can you let me share the screen? >> secretary: sure. one moment. let me just pull up the sponsor really quick. mr. abrams, are you able to -- >> yes. >> secretary: great. and let me give mary sharing rights for those slides and, through the chair, you will have five minutes. >> good afternoon commission. this is jim abrahams. i'm getting feedback.

what should i do here? i'm going to -- i suppose just speak out listening because i'm getting a feedback loop when i'm speaking. >> secretary: we're not hearing anything back on our end. >> okay. i'll just get going. so this is jim abrams. i'm land use council to the project sponsor 1200 van ness avenue. we're pleased to be here this afternoon. next slide, please. the site is located at the intersection of van ness and post street and also borders the site which is an alleyway. next slide, please. so the existing building is shown here. i think we've all seen it. it's on van ness avenue. it traditionally had a circuit

city store as well as a variety of health service offices and a 24 hour fitness in the building right now as well. there's also an above grade parking garage. next slide, please. so the building has above grade parking garage with about 192 spaces and just about 100,000 square feet of health service, retail, and gym space. next slide, please. as you can see here in the red box, this portion of the existing building is an above grade parking garage. next slide, please. so the proposed development would add 107 new dwelling units to the project site. none currently exist. it would add health services uses in the building podium. it would have a podium top restaurant space over van ness and it would have below grade accessory parking to the existing tenants, or the tenants and the residential uses. the project meets the 3-1

residential to nonresidential use requirement for the planning code for the van ness corridor. the project has been under consideration since about 2015. we started the process in 2014 of doing community outreach and we've put the project on hold in 2018 to resign the project on the basis of community feedback. what we've heard from the communities since 2016 is they'd like to see more housing at the site, less parking shifting the tower location, linking van ness with polk street and reducing on hemlock. we've added 23 more units than initially proposed including more units on hemlock. we've reduced the parking by about 64 spaces. we have a parking garage that has fewer spaces admitted by the planning code. there's four or five spaces for every car or apartment and one

space for every 500 square feet of health services where one space for every 300 square feet of space is allowed. next slide, please. and the pedestrian experience will be greatly improved by the project. we're revamping hemlock alley as opposed to pushing all automobile traffic down onto polk. be protected from cars. this is an important aspect of the project. i'd like to turn the presentation now over to valentino del real who will talk you through the project. thank you.

>> secretary: mr. abrams, we are not hearing the architect right now. >> so there's no audio from the architect? >> secretary: no. let me see. >> what's strange is i can hear him. so there's some technical issue, unfortunately. i will try to attempt to do this portion of the presentation, just given the technical issues and the amount of time we have. so i think that the intent here is to show that the building is is intended to meet the predominant building heights along van ness. there's 130' height limit along van ness and this contributes to that wall. >> secretary: mr. abrams -- >> we've added a number of retail. >> secretary: mr. abrams,

sorry to interrupt you. i'm going to try to unmute your other line and that might be your architect. i have paused your time for now. >> okay. valentino, are you able to speak. >> hey, john. i'm still not sure if anyone's hearing me. >> yeah. i think we're having a technical issue. we can try to call back in to the hearing, but i think i'm able to finish. >> secretary: yeah. we can hear you now. so please continue and i'm continuing your time. thank you. >> okay. thanks very much. the echoing stopped. so whatever you just did was helpful. >> can you hear me? okay. >> sorry.

can the commission hear valentino when he speaks? >> yes. >> okay. well, hello again everybody. i'm going to take the presentation from here. thank you. so this -- our ground level of polk street includes multiple retail spaces as well as lobbies from residential and health services programs. we've also created a template setback with landscape elements and opportunities for seating. similarly, along van ness frontage, it includes a double height retail space along the length of the site. next. again, here is the plan illustrating the programs that i just mentioned, the retail, the residential lobbies as well as the retail on van ness. next. this is a slide again illustrating the two-story frontage, retail frontage along

van ness that runs the length of the van ness site. next. so next we'll be looking at our development for hemlock ally. our proposal for hemlock alley includes retail as well as the addition of eight residential units. four units with stoops and front doors on to hemlock and units that look out onto hemlock. next. here is an image again of those eight units described with the four walk-up units at the ground level and the four units above level two that look out onto the street. next. and, again, this is our close-up view of the same units. next. okay. so the project takes the tradition of the historical buildings along the van ness

corridor including and next, mary. sorry. next also. what we've found is there was a consistency of a two-story expression at the ground level. there was a consistency of a bay reading with infill facade as well as a variety of materials found within the facade. next. and next, mary. one more time, mary. thank you. i think we're looking at the proposed masking podium consistent with ground level retail, health services above. residential towers to the west and detached towers to the east. the facade consists of a ground level facade stepped back from the street edge and nears the slope of polk street revealing the two-story retail space on van ness. and the podium is further divided into bays in order to

reduce the mass of the project that better relates to the surrounding neighborhood context. next. next. the materiality of the facade is glass, teracata -- >> secretary: thank you. that concludes your time. the commission may reach out to you with further questions and clarifications during their deliberation, but thank you for now. at this time, i would like to open the item up to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on this item. to get into the queue, please press star three. once you hear that your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. through the chair you will have two minutes.

>> good afternoon commissioners. danny campbell, business representative with the sheet metal workers. i'm speaking before you today in support of the 1200 van ness project. we believe this project will be a benefit to the local community and the city of san francisco for the following reasons, it will create a vibrant mixed use project that includes ground floor retail, health services units, and approximately 700 units of housing that our city badly needs. it will stimulate the local economy by providing middle class union construction jobs with living wages, health and retirement benefits for san francisco residents. it will ensure sustainable career pathways into union construction apprenticeship and training programs for local youth. and, finally, the project sponsor was open to discuss our concerns and has committed to

partner with our local union construction community. we urge you to join us in support and approve this project as proposed. thank you very much. >> good afternoon president koppel, members of the san francisco planning commission. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my name is daniel grey at the carpenter's local union. we represent 40,000 surrounding bay area. i submitted a letter last week in support of this project. our members and the carpenters' union support it fully. we have a union contractor which is going to put local apprentices to work and journeymen to continue their work in san francisco. we like the project as well. it's not only going to create construction jobs on site but it's going to have permanent

jobs once the facility is completed. it's basically a win-win for the city of san francisco, the community, and labor as well. so we urge the planning commission to support this project and move it forward. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. my name is andrea carla michaels. i'm a 30-year resident of the south corridor. today i speak as a board member of the l.p.n., the lower polk neighborhood. my comments are reflecting letter of support. we've been very pleased how engaged the developers have been holding numerous productive meetings and responding to and addressing all the board's concerns especially with promises of improvements to hemlock alley and other polk alley district

upgrades as well as literally constructive neighborhood engagement especially about the public spaces. although there was some pushback on the affordable housing concerns, the board lower polk is overall supportive of the 1200 van ness project as it stands and looks forward to seeing it go forward. thank you. >> secretary: caller, you can begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john korso calling on behalf of the staff at local 38. we fully support this project as is. the union jobs it will create and the over 100 units of housing that the city desperately needs. local 38 supports this project and we hope you do too approve it today and we hope to see it

in the pipeline shortly. thank you very much for your time. >> this is linda chapman. i urge that you disapprove it as it is now or continue it for major revisions. i speak for the van ness plan and knob hill neighbors which was very involved with staff's brilliant consumption for the van ness plan. one it was to create a housing corridor and limit parking to avoid adding traffic to 101 for one thing and to the neighborhood. this does not meet those requirements as far as i see. does this actually have 3-1 ratio of housing? if so, that would be good. that's not what i heard at the lower polk neighbors meetings. by the way lower polk meetings are unknown to the neighborhood. is a group of permit expediters and canning for $45,000 in

return for this approval. there's too much parking by far. all these officers. they were trying to eliminate office space and this is even worse than an all-day use of offices because traffic will be coming in and out all day long. what about hemlock? will traffic being going off hemlock into polk street which gets very congested and that narrow area with buses and the bike lanes and so on or not? i don't understand how this meets the van ness plan at all. the podium hasn't been moved forward towards van ness on polk street. there should not be medical offices here. you know, i realize when they approved the hospital for that location, it was because people were going to be able to come by muni because of all the wonderful muni connections.

so why do we need all of this parking? definitely not. we need more housing, less parking, no problems on adding problems to polk street from the traffic. this needs to be revised and as for lower polk neighbors and i'm telling you they don't represent the community. >> good afternoon president koppel, commissioners and staff. my name is dan saurus. i want to speak in favor of the project of 1200 van ness. on behalf of the 1,250 members of sprinkler fitters 403 i urge you to approve this project.

>> [inaudible] >> secretary: caller, it is your turn to speak. please mute your television and begin your public testimony. >> are you speaking to me? >> secretary: yes. >> yes. my name is marlene morgan, i'm the president of the neighborhood association and we've been involved in monitoring this project for the last six years. in fact, it has not increased the amount of housing from what was originally proposed. it has decreased it by about 20, 25 units from 136 to 107. and it has maintained a huge parking garage and large medical office complex which is prohibited by the area plan which requires 3-1 housing to ground floor retail. in terms of the parking ratios required, i think it's very interesting that when c.p.n.c. hospitals came into van ness,

their three buildings were given 950 parking spaces which is a 1.5 ratio for all of their commercial square footage. a brand new office building in kaiser mission bay was given a 1.9 parking ratio for medical office building. this building is requesting a 1.9 almost 2 ratio for parking along the van ness corridor. just further commercial spaces. the building should be reserved for housing, for affordable housing on site. it should not be used for medical office spaces. the medical office surrounding this building is 40% vacancy rate up to two years after the hospitals opened. it needs to be reconsidered. it needs to go back for more consideration and we strongly urge the commission not to approve it as is today. thank you very much.

>> secretary: last call for public comment. members of the public press star three to raise your hand. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is now closed and, commissioners, this item is now before you. >> commissioner: i really like this project today. i'm extremely appreciative of the respective ground floor retail. i like how that interacts with van ness in the street. definitely need the 107 units of housing, so i will be supporting the project today. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: thank you. i too very much like this

project. my one area of concern has to do with the open space on the podium level for the project residents. you didn't get to address that in the presentation and i'm wondering if there is a slide that you could bring up so that i can talk through what my area of concern is. this is a request to ms. woods and the project sponsor. if not, i'll describe the area, but hopefully you might have a diagram. >> yeah, commissioner diamond. there's not a slide in the sponsor's presentation, but let me see if i can't, um, bring up the commission packet and go to a slide.

>> commissioner: yeah. that would be great. >> okay. i think i can go to slide -- it would be page 65 of the 355-page document. so i'm going to be scrolling, if you don't mind. >> commissioner: sure. >> okay. there. and that's the proposed site plan. it shows the aerial view of the building layout. it's sheet 82.01 if you're looking at the hard copy of the plan. >> commissioner: great. is mr. abrams, is he available to come back on the line? >> secretary: let me unmute his line one more time. mr. abrams, you should be able

to respond to commission questions now. >> hi. if i can interrupt, there's a rendered version of that root plan, podium plan, mary. >> yes. let me see. i can show you go to another sheet which is pdf 81, it's more of a floor plan. perhaps that would be a little bit better. is this better? this shows the open space. this is level six, the restaurant open space and the proposed little inner court, courtyard. this is the residential tower. this is the townhome.

>> commissioner: okay. so, mr. abrams, are you there? >> i'm here. >> commissioner: okay. so what i'm concerned about is if i understand you're seeking exception in a number of areas. two as follows one is the open space needs some kind of exception because it doesn't meet our sunlight angles and the second thing is that there are several units that don't face on to a street that they face onto either a courtyard or the i don't know what you call it, it's like the alley between the large building and the townhome buildings. that is correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner: okay. so it looks to me -- it feels to me like much of this open space is going to be in the shade for most of the day, in

particular the alleyway between the two buildings. the courtyard that's on hemlock on the sixth floor will likely get afternoon sunshine. you didn't include shadow diagrams, so i'm just guessing here, but it feels like that will get late afternoon sunshine and the part of the open space that will get most of the sunshine is devoted exclusively to the restaurant. and so i'm concerned about that because i feel like as we increase density in our residential projects that the open space becomes even more important. and i'm wondering, it seems to me there are a few alternatives to consider here. one would be potentially moving the townhomes a little farther, maybe even a few feet farther to the east so that the width of the alleyway is opened.

maybe adding more balconies. maybe adding open space on the roof as opposed to down at the sixth floor. i don't have a particular solution in mind, but it feels to me you've got a wonderful project in mind with open space that doesn't quite meet the standards and i think we care very much about the quality of open space. so i'm wondering if this is an area that you could work on with staff during the design refinement process and if you might be open to a condition that requested that? >> we would be pleased to have a condition that requires us to work with staff. i think that the primary ideas that we are looking at as well is whether it's feasible to shift what we call the townhome portion of the project where the six units on the right-hand

side of the site plan farther to the east which would make the sort of linear space between the town homes and the tower portion of the building larger. we were also happy to explore having common open space on the roof of the building if it's feasible. there is a lot of mechanical equipment up there, but we may be able to con solve it and make usable space up there. we're also willing to consider the addition of balconies. so these are all ideas we're happy to explore with staff. and apologies, during all the technical issues it was hard for me to hear and i got a little flustered, but we have a condition that i've drafted and mailed to mary woods that we can use for this purpose. >> commissioner: mary, do you have that language and do you want to read it so we can make sure everyone's hearing it and ensuring that's acceptable? >> yes. i do have that condition written down and i'll read it.

the proposed condition says, the project sponsor shall continue to work with the planning department on the quality, size, and design of the project common open space. the project sponsor and the department shall study potential modifications to the common open space to maximize sunlight access and increase usable area of the common open space, such as shifting the podium townhouse building closer to the eastern edge of the property line thereby enlarging the area between the residential tower and the townhouse building. adding common space to the roof top of the tower and/or adding balconies to the project. >> commissioner: thank you. so i would like to hear what the other commissioners have to

say, but at this point, i would be in favor of approving the project subject to the addition of that condition. >> president: before i call on commissioner moore, let me just also note that if i'm not mistaken, i think an earlier iteration had an open space but the developer was prioritizing housing and able to implement another 20 or so units so i think that did kind of bite into the open space, but i am supportive of your requesting that the further look at the open space, commissioner diamond. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i have a question for mr. abrams. are you there? >> yes. i'm here. >> commissioner: good. it has come to my attention that there's about a 40% vacancy rate of medical office spaces in the corridor. the reason for that is partially covid, but it's also

partially medical offices being replaced by telemedical advice and that's become a very popular model. i followed this project since cpmc and could you comment for a moment on your knowledge of vacancy in the corridor? >> certainly. so the project sponsor is a family that owns and operates buildings in san francisco and other locations. they have been -- have other commercial properties in san francisco. they are not folks who entitle properties and then sell them to developers. so they intend to build this project and to own and operate it and their expertise is in

renting commercial space and they feel that the future of health services offices in this corridor is a strong -- there's a strong future for that use in this corridor in particular the buildings that are modernized and are brought up to current building code standards for purposes of having modern doctors offices essentially. so this is something that they feel strong about in terms of the future demand for this type of use and they also plan to own and operate the building. so at the end of the day, it's their business model that they are, you know, seeking entitlement for. >> commissioner: thank you for explaining that. i understand that that is the viewpoint that obviously had a lot of pull when cpmc was built and it didn't bring other medical office buildings into

the corridor which slowly started to erode the van ness area plan to indeed primary focus on residential and compatible arrangement with buildings along the corridor. i'm concerned this project has a significant amount of parking. it's indirectly built to support cpmc and overflow needed for that particular building. there are very few buildings in san francisco which have five levels below with parking which obviously drives up the cost for the residential above and indeed we have unfortunately heard that in this particular part of town that below market rate sousing is being deferred by fee to location to be determined. there was always a desire to

have b.m.r. units on site and affordable housing as an extension of the lower polk street corridor with serious need for housing with a strong obligation pusheded under cpmc. i have a difficult time with the project that asks for eleven exceptions. i've got to be very frank about that. i seem to build a code compliant building or something that's close to code compliant is something that should be possible and i also don't quite believe that the expression of the building is in full support of what i personally envisioned or what we all envisioned the van ness area plan to be delivered to us. i'm curious what other commissioners will have to say and that concludes my comments.

>> president: commissioner fung. >> commissioner: this project has been a long time coming. in fact, i remember when mayor finestein talked about her vision for the van ness corridor as a broad residential avenue and i'm supportive of this project. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i have a question to the project sponsor. is the parking for the health services or for the units? for the residential units? >> this is jim abrams. the parking, there's parking both for the residential units and for the health services use. in both instances, we're asking for parking that's principally permitted. for the residential unit, we're asking for one space for every two units. so every other unit would have

a parking space and for the health services use, we're asking for one space for every -- sorry. we're asking for 217 parking spaces or 344 spaces would be permitted. so it's just to correct one statement, this is three-level parking, not five levels of parking and we are asking for the health services use less than what's permitted by code. and i think the reason for that is the code anticipates the health services uses would require parking because the medical offices maybe used by people who are elderly or disabled, all take transit or walk and many don't. so i think the code anticipates that a certain level of parks is necessary desirable for health services uses. [please stand by]

>> i can get back to you another time with that info if you like. >> commissioner imperial: okay. it's not today, though, right? okay. i was looking at -- okay.

the parking space is something that i am concerned about, especially -- i remember the discussion around that, as well, and as to how particular project is different or similar to the other building where this particular area is heavy with transportation, as well. so for me, it does not meet the van ness s.u.d. guidelines. as i struggle sometimes with the transit first needs policy, where is an appropriate garage or parking spaces in our city and be more invested when there

are more transit corridors in those areas than the others, so those are my comments. >> president koppel: do i hear a motion from any of the commissioners? commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes, i would move to approve the item pursuant to the conditions set forth. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to approve the conditions including the modified conditions read into the record -- [roll call]

>> clerk: that motions passes 4-2, with commissioner moore and commissioner imperial against. that takes us onto item number 11, case 2017-000663-ofa-02, at 610-698 brannan street. this is a request for an office development authorization. staff ready to make their presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. ellen samonsky, planning

development staff [inaudible] to authorize up to 676,801 gross square feet of office space for phases 1-d and 1-c of the project known as san francisco flower mart project. the commission previously reviewed the project on july 8, 2019 for phase 1-a of the project and for a project variant which did not include an on-site wholesale flower market. for the purposes of ceqa, the approval action for the project was the planning commission's approval of the project authorization. since then, the city has exercised the option in the

d.a. for the vendors to be moved to a new flower mart at an off-site location. in addition, there has been some design changes. the blocks building, the mass has been separated into two distinct towers. the holding building was shortened by 40 feet, and the width of the project was increased. there's been overall increase and reduction in the total retail space of the space of approximately 40,000 square feet for the reasons stated. the project would include the demolition of all the buildings on the project site and the construction of three new mixed use buildings which would include 2,061,380 square feet of office use, 37,580 square

feet of retail use, 20,690 feet of child care facility use and 950 square foot community facility. in addition, the project would provide 49,220 fair feet of privately owned public faces, nine freight loading spaces and 575 bicycle spaces. the request is for approximately 676,000 gross square feet of the total office. currently, the large cap office annual limit has a negative balance in the city, however, the planning commission may approve up to an additional 1.7 million office space in the central soma s.u.d. through the central soma development reserve. today, a balance of

approximately 1.2 million square feet is still available in the reserve. the project meets all the criteria to draw from the reserve. to date, the department has received four letters in support of the project. the letters express support for the public benefits associated with this project, potential for job growth in the city, and in clinetion the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the central soma plans and objectives and in the policies of the general plan, and that approval of the development authorization will allow for phase 1-b and 1-c of the project and facilitate the delivery of the substantial

public benefit. a red line was provided to the planning department [inaudible] into the preamble and reflects the [inaudible] on the september 9 hearing. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a presentation. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, project sponsor. your line should be unmuted, and through the chair, you will have seven minutes. >> thank you, and will i be sharing the presentation?

thank you. good afternoon, president koppel, vice president moore, [inaudible] representing the flower mart, l.l.c. thank you so much for having us in [inaudible] the only action before you is the existing development authorization [inaudible] since march 2020, kilroy has been working diligently with the city in developing the [inaudible] we anticipate it will be completed by the second quarter of 2023. additionally, mohcd has accepted the formal dedication

of a rehabilitation site [inaudible] and we're in the process of finalizing the transfer agreement. with regard to building office space in a post covid world, we want to remain you that san francisco remains at the epicenter of the creative economy. we know from talking to our tenants that employers are looking to bring employees back to the city. we at kilroy are partners in san francisco's recovery and believe in the recovery of our city, and with that, i'll pass it onto our colleagues who are also available for questions after the presentation. thank you. >> thank you, alexandra. good afternoon, commissioners. i'll be walking you through the architectural updates. next page, please. the project has been updated to provide more generous public space as well as more light and

air throughout. if you look at the northside of the project side, the blocks building is in the two distinction areas. next slide. in addition, the retail spaces along the northside of the market alley as well as the market hall building on the southside have been redesigned to have more vertical relief space. next slide. all of this has been done while trying to keep the previously approved character of the design -- next slide -- while providing more generous spaces. seen here is the brennan plaza as well as the market alley now featuring more daylight and air brought down to the ground

plane. next slide. and now i'll hand it off to richard [indiscernible] to talk more. >> thank you, commissioners. excited to bring you a refresh of the ground plane of the san francisco flower mart. you can see how the design is consistent in many ways with all prior approvals and plans, but making sure that it's great, beautiful, and as welcoming to the public realm as possible. while the flower mart itself is relocating, we believe that the project can evoke the beauty and quality of a sense of gardens themselves, and we do that in two different design languages: what we call organic, which is where the flower mart meets its edges, and origami.

next slide. [indiscernible] to provide a great oasis within soma. next slide. this plan depicts the ground floor, the major public realm ground spaces with brannan street on the bottom of the page, a series of plazas running left to right on the page, brannan plaza now on the left-hand side, and market alley which is a continuous retail line pedestrian promenade that runs the entire length as well as a space for greenery. next slide, please. the primary east-west connector with market alley runs to

morris. next slide. a series of secondary routes to various entryways of the various market buildings as well as a series of tertiary spaces in and around the various garden elements. next slide. and overall depicting the project's open space with an emphasis on the greenery, particularly along the edges. next slide, please. the frontage along fifth street with gardens down stairs creating a simultaneous green frontage but allows a coarse edge that allows the public to step [inaudible] and a pedestrian walk. next slide, please. [inaudible] depicting plazas

with shallow walkways and walkways into interior spaces. the gardens cascading down to sidewalk level, providing greenery, shade, color, and at the same time, offering entryways and portals into the site. next slide. the site plan of the [inaudible] club, this is the center of the project in between the two buildings, franking brannan street and market alley. next slide. it's welcoming, green, and lush. also, the oculus at the very center of the market building. brannan street plaza, which is the wide, generous, and now

increased side at the west side of the project. it's meant to be a flexible project space. flexible vending and market type uses as well as on the right-hand side, the idea of arts, performances, and culture that can be used to fill. market alley, the retail across the project. next slide. it's flanked by the market on the right-hand side, a series of micro or small retile-type spaces, giving a sense of flower market feelings. >> clerk: thank you, that concludes your time. the commission may have additional questions for you during their deliberation. at this time, i would like to open the item up to public comment. members of the public, please,

if you would like to speak on this ice, please press star, three to enter the queue. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> hello? >> clerk: you may want to mute your television, caller, and begin your public testimony. >> hello? >> clerk: hello. >> yes, i've got a question for you. how many people on this are from san francisco on this board, and also, how many did each one of you guys get paid that are on that board from this development company? because i know how much you got paid, and i'm coming after you.

>> hello. this is rodney fung from the san francisco chamber of commerce, and i am supportive of this project. i've followed it for quite a while. i think it's going to bring jobs, construction jobs and housing and office space for san francisco, which we all need right now, so please support this project. >> clerk: last call for public comment. members of the public, press star, three if you wish to speak. seeing none, public comment is now closed, and commissioners, the item is now before you. >> president koppel: very interesting public comment today. thank you, mr. fung, for calling in with your support. i think this project speaks for

itself. i like the office space, and the project definitely speaks for itself. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: we've spent an extraordinary amount of time on this project in the past. i'm in support of the prop m allocation. this project has gone through thorough review challenges and has met all of them. i'm in full support. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm also very supportive of the project, but i asked this question last week and feel like i should ask it of you today, which is given the state of the market downtown and particularly the sublease market, give us context for the state of your leasing, whether you think this space competes with downtown, what kind of tenants you're attracting, when you think construction would

start, just let us in on your thinking. >> clerk: project sponsor, you should be unmuted now. >> thank you. yeah, i can take a stab at that. we obviously know there's a lot of sublease space on the market right now has things have been changing and companies are trying to figure out what the future of office space looks like for them, but as we have

heard from a lot of our tenants and larger tenants in san francisco, they are ready to bring people back to the office as soon as possible, and there's already a lot of interest in new construction, modern spaces that they want their tenants to be in, so obviously [inaudible] is a little different than what central soma is going to be, things that people are really interested in now, especially that we're able to offer that especially with so much open space and a new neighborhood. so i don't necessarily think that side eye and central soma are going to be really competing for the same tenants there, and they're going to be bringing people back to the office as soon as we can get that started up and start the recovery of the economy that way.

>> clerk: commissioner diamond, you're muted. >> commissioner diamond: could you address the question about timing? i know that you need to relocate the flower market, but walk us through when you think you would be breaking ground on this project. >> yes, i can, and i unmuted? >> clerk: yes, you are unmuted. >> great. thank you. yes. as far as timing, we are planning on [inaudible] at 901 16 street and so at that time, we'll be able to breakdown at the flower market at sixth and brannan street. >> commissioner diamond: and what's the state of occupancy? >> the state of occupancy will

be at the end of 2025. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you very much. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: along the same lines as commissioner diamond, have you gotten your site permit? >> the site permit right now is currently underway for the 916 project and the farmers market project. >> president koppel: i would entertain a motion. commissioner moore?

>> vice president moore: move to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there has been a motion to approve with conditions. on that motion -- or that has been seconded. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and will place you on item number 12, case 2020-007565-cua-02 at 1336 chestnut street. this is a request for a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. good afternoon, commission president koppel and

commissioner. chris may, planning department staff. you have before you a request for conditional use authorization to demolish the existing 2,287 square foot single-family dwelling and the construction of a new four story 8,700 square foot residential building containing three dwelling units within an rh-3 zoning district. due to building code constraints that the project sponsor will explain in more detail [inaudible] resulting in a four bedroom unit measuring approximately 2,858 square feet. the remaining two floors and overall massing of the building are largely unchanged, although

the previously approved project contained a three-bedroom flat with no direct access to project open space. with the combining of the ground floor and second floor units, this unit now has direct access to what will now be private useful open space in the rear yard.

[inaudible] -- parking space would be [inaudible] next slide, please. before we go further into the parking issue, i'd love to briefly refamiliarize the commission with the project and the size of this four story three-unit building in keeping with the massing of the

neighborhood buildings. next slide. it is still organized with an upper unit at the fourth floor, a middle unit at the third floor, and a lower unit at the second floor. this shows the layout that we're currently proposing [inaudible] for each of the family size units. next slide, please. this floor plan shows the garage with an acceptable van parking space. as you can see the width of the van parking space with an accommodating access space leaves no space for an

additional car parking spot [inaudible] there's a conflict between the planning code allowance and 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the california building code in this case. chapter 11 of the california building code requires that all units with four or more units comply with code requirements [inaudible] we requested [inaudible] from d.b.i. in the previous [inaudible] unreasonable to accommodation such van parking requirements

far more reasonable within a larger building site and can accommodate [inaudible] housing units. [inaudible] without eliminating the other parking spaces or eliminating the parking garage

altogether. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, at this time, you this is your opportunity to make public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with the san