disadvantaged communities really need that help. i personally love to see signs that i love to see who's filling in a business and what service or what bagel i can buy or what where i can get a haircut. i think that this makes our city more robust and more vibrant. not just now in the state of emergency but over the long run and i hope that we can all get behind this and support small businesses . >> good afternoon commissioners corey smith with the housing action coalition . just listening to the conversation today, i want to make two comments. number one, given the current world in a state of small businesses in san francisco, it makes a lot of sense to prioritize care means over the desires of people who do not

want their neighborhood to change at all. and the second point is that there's a level offunds that you will have to spend on this is really frustrating . i and item coming up later in the afternoon they're going to talk about how we need to accommodate 80,000 new homes. 10,000 homes per year over the next decade and you're spending a lot of timetalking about science. thank you . >> caller: my name is william hanna, i served as commissioner for office of small-business and on the commission i serve on the subcommission for equity but today i'm calling as a private citizen. mission native and a small business owner. i am in full support of this legislation . this legislation brings a little burden to equity. it would bring a lot of my businesses in the mission into

compliance so for those who don't understand, people of color always affected either san francisco bureaucracy because we do not speak english. we are not successive and we do not have the resources to hire. so i approve this legislation, thank you for your consideration. >> caller: good afternoon again commissioners, myname is diane wesley smith . i fully support the supervisors amendment. you know, i am calling on behalf of my business bayview real estate community services but more importantly bayview . the community engagement divisionwhich is a new real estate community services. it's time to get . i asked a native san franciscan 59 years old i was case all over the city when i was trying to poke time. i did not understand why.

that takes the personality away and we must fit. there's no way brick and mortar, we small businesses can compete withonline so let's level the playing field and let's just do the right thing . we don't have time for this. it's a no-brainer. thank you everyone that's in favor ofunderstanding that things must change . i love to keepsome things the same things must change as a small businesses are dying . and so many are dead. thank you so much. >> thank you. members of the lastcall for public comment on this matter . please press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional request to speak from members of the public public comment on this item is closed and it is now before you commissioners. >> thank you very much supervisor for showing up toda .

i couldn't havesaid it better myself . we definitely need to get our businesses the tools they need tosucceed andvisibility is very important especially during these times . commissioner chan .>> thank you and last i also want to thank the supervisor for being here and for sponsoring this legislation and his classwork drafting it. excellent last week. i also wantto thank our business commissioners and business owners who called in . who took time out of their days to run their businesses to talk to us about the policies if that makes sense for them as business owners and also staff, thank you for the great work on the research and rendering . i only caution that are only reward for good work is more work so we may be asking for more in the future but we will try to keep it to a reasonable amount. i think commissioners for me i don't think my thoughts have

changed much since last week but i think the images that were shown as well as some of the walking around the city. some of what i did and even i was asked last week at a differenttown to be able to look at other cities . it's kind of left me with the same conclusion as before. i don't think that the addition of awnings and projecting signs together with words on the awnings is a significant change for a significant increase in visual weather so businesses can have an awning as long as they don't have a projecting signs so in cases where i suppose there's no projecting signs and no awning today it's true of business has decided i'm going to get rid of my wall sign and have a projecting signs and an awning with lettering on it would be a change. i don't think that even if our worst-case scenario as miss

maloney showed in the renderings comes true that it really contributes significantly to a decline in the visual appeal of the street or of a block or certainly a business . i think some of the things you contribute to the degradation of visual appeal can become things we know about overhead wires which our purpose and our underground and a business is not going to be responsible for that but perhaps businesses might need more resources to spruce up theirstorefront and perhaps make it more attractive but it isn't an awning with a lettering or sign that is really the issue . so here and even more from the phone to call in today i just kind of continue to bolster my support to helpour small business community in a way that may make sense . doesn't really tangibly change the visual appeal of the street and again, think about what folks can do today.they can already do an awning as long as

there's lettering with a projecting sign it doesn't make sense to say you can have an awning and aprojecting sign but when you have a lettering then you're in trouble. i hope we can see .i hope that appeals to you to so that we can enhance this legislation. >> commissioner diamond. >> thank you supervisor. for calling and laying out the argument. and thank you to all the members of the board for testimony and most particularly thank you to staff. i feel like the additional presentation is incredibly important at helping us understand cumulative effects of the proposed changes. i found that the addition of signage on awnings with projected signs does not in my opinion create visual clutter. i also think it may increase

liveliness and it's important to the businesses if they're competingwith online retailers in a way that is not abstraction from our streetscapes . and so i am absolutely willing to submit this change and i would move to approve. >> i will second that motion andcall on commissioner morton . >> you to everybody for weighing in onthis important matter . thank you supervisors for describing the situation in your district that i fully support as being unreasonable and overreaching and i regret there was no sensitivitybrought to that particular incident . i do however believe and i'm not sure if you have the ability to follow my arguments of last week . the planned best approach to relieve small business from the field enforcement at this precarious time. for me it's more about protection and grandfathering

rules so with that i am at this moment very much in support of thelegislation as it is written . and we'll continue to have people reflect on the idea. >> commissioner. >> thank you and thank you again supervisor for coming here. i think it's the first time i seen a supervisor in a planning commission and i really appreciate that your reticence here and one thing that and also thank you for all the public comment today. and one thing that i keep thinking about is this legislation. it's something that i also mentioned from the last hearing is the issue of equity. in terms of the cultural

districtsas well . my only and this is something to consider for you supervisor stephanie when it comes to the culturaldistrict or to the equity . one thing that i saw in this legislation is that i did not see cultural districts making comments on this and i hope that your office will reach out to them as well. and i don't know why they're not making comments. this is something that horticultural districts should have participation and support on as well. so that's one thing that i am concerned about. another thing to is that i understand that in terms of the current planning for right now that there are some violations that become more of a barrier of current businesses and

that's why i also support grandfathering so that the burdens of these do not fall onto the businesses. however, again there is part of this legislation of codependence that is looking into the long term and just not looking intothe current crisis. and we always have crisis again , in terms of how it would look like in 10 years,20 . and there are some perhaps i always support if there's an update but i think there's something that needs to be critically looked into and i always encourage committee engagements on every time there is planning code amendments. there needs to be a suspicion of community engagement. sothat's something to look into . supervisor stefani and others as well is that if you are looking at a planning

condominium that there should be a potential community engagement on this especially if were trying to support people of color businesses, cultural districts . so for that, for this legislation i would like to present as part of your consideration supervisor and more on that. >> thank you commissioners. commission president poppel. you have a momentmember of the public requesting to speak . you have 2 minutes.you have one minute. >> thank you. it's a band-aid approach. grandfathering in is great in the short term but as the person speaking now is saying we must plan for the long term. that is why the band-aid, excuse me, the grandfathering

is inadequate and not acceptable.furthermore businesses that were established without a grandfather have nowhere to go but the grandfather can only exist if the rights were granted. initially and grandfathered in is very unfair, unacceptable . thank you, we can do better. >> commissioners, public comment is closed yet again. there is a motionthat has been seconded just for clarity , commissioner diamond was your motion inclusive of staff recommendation ? >> we didn't have any staff discussion on that matter. excuse me commission discussion on that matter so no, at this point unless the other commissioner would like to see it amended to include a broader area. >> okay. and commission president poppe

icu seconded commissioner diamond's motion . thank you. so there's no further deliberation commissioners, there is motionconsecutive to a group the proposedcode amendments on that motion . commissioner cannon . [roll call vote] . that motion passes 40 2. commissioners imperial and more voting against. commissioners that will place us on item 94 case number 2021 item 00736b. repealing article 12 regarding oil and gas facilities, this is a planning codeamendment . staff present your presentation. >> pretty good evening commissioners, i'd like to introduce kelly profit from supervisor cam'soffice . sponsor of this.

kelly. >>thanks aaron and thank you hello commissioners. i'm kelly gross, legislative and for supervisor connie chan . provides chan is introduced this ordinance to strike article 12 from the planning code with the intent to prohibit any wealth and gas exploration to development extraction and processing on land owned by the city and county of san francisco . the visor chan aims not only to remove the city's ability to permit these activities but also explicitly states a prohibition on the use of publicly owned land for fossil fuel extraction and processing purposes. this past april governor newsom announced he would stop issuing fracking permits by january 2024 and requested the california air resources board analyze pathways to phase out oil extraction across the state by no later than 2045. however because extraction and

filter is still having we need to act now. just last week a major oil leak took place in huntington beach and estimated to say in the worst case 130,000gallons of oil spilled into the ocean . san francisco prides itself as an environmental leader in the face of catastrophic climate change we need to make this long neededcommitment to affirmatively prohibit any gas and oil business activities in san francisco and on our public lands . by removing this article our intent is to take another step to get san francisco ahead out of the fossil fuel business permanently. lastly supervisorchad accepts the planning staff recommendations which will clarify edits to the ordinance language . with that i'm happy to answer any questions if you have any . >> thank you very much kelly. as kelly mentioned the proposed ordinance would remove part of item 12 which regulates the

land-use activity structures andand/or facilities associated with oil, gas and processing. it overrides full control in the planning codes the rule was adopted in 1990 in response to a valid shipment of tv six , article 12 created tw overlays in the district categories into ogs and into gp . which would pass on to existing districts. while the gas facilitiesare allowed only within those two districts and allonly with conditional use . article 12's adoption will overlay those . removing this article will help control back under article 2 of the code which includes pvr which willallow oil and gas . the apartment is recommending approval of the exposed ordinance with qualifications because of the planning code and is important that environmental protection element of the plan will help the city environmental cities

commitment to racial and social equity and will refund the city's commitment to appeals. without this section the structures of equipment and facilities associated with oil and gas theoretically still be in the most vulnerable communities. to address this the planning department is proposing one modification to amend the definition of manufacturing to to exclude both the definition of , from the definition production or signing of petroleum products associated with oil and gas. thoseamendments will ensure these are not able to be located . that concludes mypresentation and i am here for any questions you may have . >> thank you mister starr, members of the public press star three tobe added to the queue . seeing no requests to speak, public comment on this matter isclosed . >> the supervisor's office will

make an appearance today and i'm curious. commissioner moore. >> i am in full support of this ordinance and thank you for doing this in a very timely manner.i wonder if we could comment on that speaking today about people having private oil wells in their backyard. is that anythingyou're familiar with ? i was very surprised that i never heard that before. >> yes commissioner. it's not in san francisco but it is a common occurrence in los angelescounty . >> so what do people do? do they have a small oil well? >> i'm not sure how they sell it but there's production in

los angeles and i know there's statewide legislation aimed at zoning codes to prevent oil extraction within thousand feet i believe of sensitive communities including schools and vulnerable communities. so i'm not too over about it because it's los angeles county i am familiar with. >> i'm in full support of it and i'm glad san francisco is a leader and moved to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners and for clarity that motion to approvewith modification .>> yes indeed. and so i'll mentionit . >> commissionerdiamond, do you have any comments .>> i'm going to ask the same question. >> very good. if there is no further deliberation commissioners there is a motion to havethis seconded toapprove this with staff modifications .

commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] >> that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and placing us on item 10 four case 2021 007365 requirement for laundromat andon-site services . this is planning code amendments. staffare you prepared to make your presentation ? >> iq commission secretary. the item before you is a laundromat's and on-site laundry facilities ordinance on supervisor peskin and today we have peskin i'll invite him to share a fewwords on the ordinance . >> great afternoon commissioners, thank you veronica. good afternoon commission president hope. and this legislation introduced by supervisor peskin really is a result of over a year now of

research by staff and actually interns in our office as well. around what is going on with laundromat closures in san francisco. that research in the draft memorandum that i hope can be included in the public file really shows what one might expect. laundromats tend to be concentrated in areas of the city with higher residential densities tend to serve lower income communities lesslikely to have the benefit of in-home washers and dryers . as we learned last september before this commission in fact went went laundromat called tons of bubbles was placing facing displacement by the landlord seeking to convert ground-floorcommercial space into an accessory dwelling unit , the availability of cleaning services and laundry service is without a doubt a social and racialequity issue . we heard at the time from

scores of seniors and people with disabilities and people who spoke to the fact that if this laundromat closed down, even the three blocks they would have to walk to the next laundromat would be prohibitive and would impair their ability to clean their clothes which was an issue more pronounced in the middle of the pandemic when ithink we all understood cleanliness the ability to keep one's closely and was an essential service . i was at that time as well i think commissioner chan refer to laundromats as akey piece of the city's social infrastructure and i think many of the commissioners agreed at that time as well . and we also have learned as part of that research and this is interesting to because i think for a while now we've been trying to think about how to better track thenumber of uses and concentration of uses across the city . some of the best data on this problem exists at the puc where we learned that since 2013 84

of the cities then 288 laundromats have closed down. that's close to all one in three ratio of laundromats closing down over the last eight years with very little intervention oranalysis of the cause or effect . in 2019 alone and this was the year before the pandemic 21 laundromats closed down in you alone and that's a net value so that's a net loss of 21 laundromats in the city . in speaking with operators of laundromats including the owner tons of bubbles which operates a few across the city this is not because of a lack in demand and it in speaking with users of laundromats including the sro collaborative which we worked with on this legislation that impacts are deeply felt when access to all laundromat moves by even a few blocks. it increases by $.50. the staff report gets it exactly right that this is a

that for the next three years will allow us to better scrutinize why laundromats are closing down and to the extent they are working thosehearings before the planning commission about subsequent uses . what we can do to better intervene. this is not a permanent solution and we put many ideas out there that include supporting these fundamental and essential community serving businesses in a more sustainable way and those are issues that we are eager to explore further. i also point out that as to the nature of this tool for the replacement of any laundromat that this was from the way we treat businesses and also more recently the planning commission i believe unanimously recommended or we view as a qualified recommendation misstating that but a similar tool that would require icu for the replacement of any nighttime entertainment

use and we would like to confirm that same scrutiny and same benefit on this critical community serving business . it is a piece of legislation that we've taken to calling love yourlocal laundromat . and resources as constrained as they are would like to continue pushing pushing that message out there and creating a moment of awareness of these community hops. i want to thank the city attorney audrey pearson for being a partner on this. again veronica florez did a wonderful staff report. i think we are amenable to both recommendations and their and i turned back to the commission. thank you very much. >> thank you mister hefner. missioners planning department staff at this time i'll go ahead and providean overview of all these commitments and the

ordinance .the first change would be to reestablish the land-use definition instead of being a subcategory in general. the second change is for a period of three years the general position of laundromats would require conditional use authorization. and the last change related to propose it's units for 80 use and the change relates to any such 80 use resulting in the reduction or removal of on-site laundry facilities services and these would not be approved unless the laundry service is replaced with at least the same number and capacity of washers and dryers in the same building and also that these are still just as accessible as to all

building tenants as theywere before. 80 use that do not comply would not be approved . i also want to highlight for you this last amendment related to the program is already our practice today but the ordinance will simply be codifying what we already use suddenly overlap with the ordinance puts in front of you last month by supervisor mandelman related to adu services. we have not received any public comment and also the small business commission heard this item last week and recommended best ordinance. the department recommends the commission approved the proposed ordinance because it protects san franciscans access to on-site facilities and the proposed modification are as follows. the first recommendations

insured by the laundromat definition, the proposed definition typically uses the word or when describing types of services thus even dry cleaners that do not have washing services would also be required to seek conditional use authorization for a change of removal. staff recommends the laundromat definition be revised and have the option to haveother services such as dry-cleaning . the second recommended modification relates to more quantifiable findings and opposed language to replace the first two findings in the staff report for you. staff recommended language still achieves the same intent of the ordinance reviewing the proposal to ensure there are accessible laundromats within the immediate vicinity and this recommended modification to be

one quarter mile which would generally still be within walking distance for use of definition. they mentioned the supervisor's office would be amenable to both of these recommendations. this includes staff recommendation and i am available forany questions . >> president: thankyou veronica . if there are no immediate questions members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3. you eachhave two minutes . when you are unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon, this is pretty slender and i'm calling in full support and with much gratitude to supervisor peskin on this

legislation. i live in north beach which is dense with family units and we depend on our local or nearby laundromats. i do know a long threat that just closed injanuary 2020 . because the owner refused to renew her lease and this is affecting hundreds of people that have proven many years actually gone there. it is located close to so many buildings and now people are having to walk or seniors are taking the bus five blocks in 2 different directions to try to get their close washed. i am really appreciative ofthis legislation and i hope that you will also approve of this today . thank you. >> this is agnes, i'm a senior

tenant. i live indistrict 8 . where to laundromats in the course of the last 10 or so years have been removed from service . what he to walk further because the landlord puts a washer and dryer in our building to accommodate the high rent tenants that moved in. so i support this legislation and i do have a question as far as the edu goes. does this apply to state program adu's as well as the local program? >> linda chapman. speaking for the people of nobhill as a former community organizer, i can't emphasize

enough how important laundromats are. we have the same cuts allover because when i walk around i still see the ones i use the ones i didn't use . what we renters do?it's so important for a global city and if you want to live car free which most of us on nobhill are. only when i moved to a co-op did we have access within the building and even there it was a laundry room which is far preferable to having every condo or co-op unit have to have the washer and dryer taking up space in and you're not in use almost all the time, it's an opportunity for the laundromat for that matter that's something i think would be encouraging . a group laundry facilities as opposed to group kitchens in places like condos and co-ops

and so on. if you want to have a walkable car free city you have to have things where people can walk in the sunset district where i grew up, you have to go all the way to the neighborhood commercial district and in those days they would put the sheets and shirts and things and takethem to chinese laundries which you don't have any more . it's rather expensive or people to have to take them in to the wash and leave your stuff there and pick it up afterwards if you're a tenant so these are absolutely critical . grocery stores and laundry mats are what make it possible for people to of san francisco live dependent on muni and i own three flats on buena vista. she used the laundromat. to impact her folks lagging full of laundry and take it

from laundromats that's where i learned to do mylaundry and that concludes my remarks . >> president: lastfall for public comment on this item . please press star 3 torequest to speak . public comment onthis item is closed . >> commissioner more. >> i thought youwould say something for openers . >> thank youveronica and lee . it's great to see you come together for us today and i'm very supportive and now i will have it off to thecommissioner . >> thank you. thank you for everybody's contribution to this discussion. thank you mister chapman in particular, living in extreme density she describes really

what it takes to need a laundromat and it's quite difficult what she described it very well. there are people where you can daily see the need for laundromats to be not further away than one or two blocks of eachother . they are frequented all the time. and as people do more washing themselves , people are standingin line to get in . the production of which is particular legislation and i am in full support and moved to approve these modifications. >> i will second that and call on commissioner. . >> thank you for our legislative aide for being her . and i remembered this was a

night at the planning commission where the laundromat was changed from or is being changed from retail to our residential use and it was on the corner lot. so i recognize the need for the laundromats. i have my own laundromats in my own place and i rely on the use of thelaundromat . one question i do have about this legislation that there is mister or the planning staff can answer this question is that why conditional use for three years? >> i'm happy to answer that question . i think that this, i think we chose three years both because it is a time period set forth

both in prop h from last year and also in a more recent small business recovery act relative to the nighttime entertainment use detection control that i referenced earlier.specific cribs that year had a timeline for both of those and other bodies have lost and we thought better finite so that we can have a more holistic discussion of the longer-term illusion in the meantime. but that's why we chose three years. thank you commissioner . >> so let me just follow. right now many of the conditional use for three years is so that because there's no finite or there's no solution yet really to the protection for the laundromat. my other thing is we recognize

that there these kind of business actually is becoming sparse and i guess whether it's the board of supervisors or your office for maintenance of these kind ofbusinesses , i also i'm just going to be honest. i'm worried that after a few years it will spend again, there's still no protection for these businesses. but it puts you more in pressure to do something on this. i do, i would like the board to see this as more of a planning code where there is actually protection for community services but i understand what the issue is. i will support this kind of legislation but it's just something to consider for you and other supervisors who may take on this deliberation.

>> commissioner diamond. >> i think this is a fine short-term solution and it gives the supervisor's office and staff the opportunity to come up with a real long-term solution because what this does do is prevent laundromats from going out of business and that's what we are encouraged about you i have a question which is who is going to take the lead? is it your office in figuring out what is causing the obstacle in business, what potential solutions are. or at least the potential decrease in water rates. it might be a very good idea but if are going to have this figure, who's taking the lead

and making sure we get something brought to us by the end of the period. i share with commissioner in. how i guess we need to come up with a long-term solution unless we know who is responsible . >> thank youcommissioner diamond and i like to think that our office is well-positioned to do that follow-up work and we had some of those conversations . and under no impression that this is going to solve itself in the next three years i do think that we are in an interesting economic moment where the prevailing energy is to for lack of a better word the regulate aspects of our planning code and to the extent this is about laundromats not being able to compete for the same market rents as tourist uses and bars and restaurants we have their own struggles

certainly for chain stores which seem to be the topic du jour. i do think that some of that economic pressure might alleviate itself over the next three years as well so in some respects this is a way to stem the loss and create a short-term section for laundromats and create a little bit more risk for that property owner who isn't contemplating not renewing the lease for the laundromats because they will have to face thatmoment of public scrutiny if they changed the used online so for the next three years let's do that . i think office is well-positioned to explore different options for the sake of transparency. we talked about what it would mean to have laundromats on public sites that are owned and staffed and operated by the city and in some ways to municipal lies this kind of work critical serving use. that is a conversation that has not taken off quite yet but it's something we talked about in addition to the idea of having credits and water discount rates.

i'm working with poc on some of those and puc has been a partner so far. >> it makes me feel comfortable to know your office is onthis and agree it's an appropriate evolution . i also worry that there are other tools that really extend the loss of laundromats and to that end i'm wondering if we might consider two suggestions. in talking about this issue with others this week i was surprised to learn that we actually have the department of building codes don't require community rooms for laundry or in unit laundry facilities in the building. so do we need more developers to do that but it struck me that we need to at least make sure we're not exacerbating the problem by requiring a new

building and i would say every revelation with that building requires to either have a community laundry facility or a hotel, is that something you'd like to comeup with a longer-term solution. >> i think that's a great idea for the pool of ideas . thank you very much . i think that would be wonderful to see and frankly also being able to track how much of the loss inlaundromats hasalready been made up for within unit laundry . that would be a nice thing to study and track and have that data available so absolutely . >> then it's quite clear that the biggest story are our older buildings and neighborhoods where they built these rooms. it's sort of one is to the extent there doing any renovation or anything that's related , can this be part of the items that we would like to require or doing other

significantrenovations . and then the second thing is we have seismic retrofit of ordinances that whether or not somebody wants to renovate their building they are required to do some sort of understory renovation for safety over time and the question of whether or not we think it's so important for laundry facilities that this is something that should be required over a long period of time. just in the pool of ideas that we think about it strikes me i agree with all of the commentary on laundromats and facilities nearby as a critical infrastructure issue that we want to be considering the full range ofsolutions beyond just three-year solutions . thank you. >> thank you commissioner.

>> commissioner tanner. >> i want to do thesupervisor for sponsoring legislation here . i didn't want to verify a few things in part just the section i remember the public i also added a question and i think staff can answer this which is the regarding 80 use. this prohibition of the moving laundry facility unless they are taking place in the facility of the building would apply to local programs but the state program or program that i reviewed in that place had two other paths this decide that path. but depending on the scenario that those facilities could be removed if aproposed project sponsor is following one of the same paths . there's a lot ofcaveats . they may only be able to add so many multi family buildings so that might be something to that would change based on the

context but if that could address the difference between the local and statethat would be helpful . >> thank you commissioner tanner. so there's a lot of comments that this ordinance and the municipal reduction of laundry facilities would only be related to those under the local program. >> it would still be the same one. >> it's the same thing but i just want to make sure the commission understands they will not necessarily and all of the facilities for a du production but can at least send a message that we value and to be clear in this local program is like the landlord didn't put in a washer or dryer that would be equivalent to providing the communal facilities . and then yes, thank you so

much. i think that just to give my support forthe legislation i know it's not a long-term solution . i think thank you mister hefner for explaining that rationale. it does fit and let's see how things go. i think it does send a message to landlords that we value that.hopefully they can have accommodation with that laundromat so that it can continue operating at that location and certainly unfortunately it doesn't mean the business will be solvent necessarily so we could still seesome closures of laundry facilities and laundromats . i know there areprobably a lot of ideas . i like mister diamond's idea as well but maybe we can think about things looking at can city facilities host laundry facilities that would be at spots to those who are watching their close their then as well

make more rebate programs through utilities and other things to try to get efficient washers and dryers into more units so morefolks could have that in unit access . i think as we do see more in units there need to be fewer customers for folds using the laundromat facilities and that maybe something we're coming up against in terms of a change in viability of the laundromats as a business so those are just a couple of ideas that can be explored so i'm happy to supportthe legislation and recommendations . >> commissioner fung. >> i had a question for staff. i had a similar question but it was atwo-part similar to what commissioner tanner just asked .and asked the question about the state-mandated programs with respect to standards for

adu's. what aboutbicycle parking with respect to that ? hello? >> can you clarify?>> in other words if the cu process for four laundromats applies locally but does not apply to adu projects that is under the two state businesses, can one then provide laundry facilities in lieu of of bicycle parking? >> thank you commissioner fung.

let's see if i'm following the question but parking is one of the amenities or things we do review for people in their plan check it would not be i think you said in luke four in place of the laundry facility. so i'm sorry, i'm not understanding your question. >> i'm not being there obviously. if the state, if one goes through the state process, certain local codes can be circumvented, isthat not correct ? and so my question then is if one chooses then to not put in bicycle parking but to put in laundromats , it would be allowed.

>> thank you commissioner fung. if i'm understanding correctly the question is whether or not bicycle parking would be required if proposing a adu under state law . if that's the correct question then sometimes parking would be triggered and sometimes it would not be so we would be receiving each of the adu proposals as we see it infront of us . >> while i give up until i can framethe question moreclearly . thank you . >> thank you. >> president: commissioner mor . >> briefly picking up on comments made by commissioner drummond and tanner and for mister kristof, in boulder

residential buildings installation of washer dryers in rental units is more discouraged because of noise and vibration in older structures and in addition to old minus that is not as easily adapted to multiple washer dryers. i just want to throw that in because there are people who struggle with that but mostly get to undone by all search condominiums and older buildings where the hla just as not run a deal with changes in traveling arrangements together with possible nuisance complaints thatcould arise . >> commissioner tanner. >> at the risk of elongating

the question a bit i think maybe what ms. commissioner fung was trying to ask is if there's a building and that had an adu added to you might have been trying to say the laundry facilities be located to where the pipe parking is. in that case. that what you're asking west and mark. >> similar, thank you though. i think for a clearer question than what i wastrying to offer . >> thank you commissioner tanner. we would review that relocation and if one of the amenities is to be relocated we would ensure that that was accommodated for in the plan. so essentially we are looking to retain whatever the existence of property again, i want to emphasize it would impact only those existing adu

programs. >> there is a motion with staff modifications. [roll call vote] >> that motion passes unanimouslyand will take this on item 11 for case 2021 . for the inclusionary housing program, these are also planning issues. >> good afternoon president

koppel. department of staff. before i get started i like to introduce supervisor ronan's office to introduce the amendment. >> thank you so much carly and thank you president koppel for the hearingtoday . elite minority here, unfortunately we were unable to attend today but the legislation before you is to close significant loopholes and gaps in our planning clone requirements for affordable housing for presidential development. as you all know san francisco's planning code section 415 regulates our inclusionary regulatory developers to mitigate the impact of new market rate units as has been shown in multiple studies including regularly updated local requirements and construction of new market rate housing consumption of goods

and services and many workers by those goods and services for each job and therefore need affordable housing. as a city address the need for affordable housingin several ways . we allocate public dollars, require the market developers options under the exclusionary housing program and they can either pay a fee or build houses on site. then create new units off-site, they can dedicate lands for affordable housing . on-site the local units the assumption has always been a mess the tenureof the . homeownership the price with the condo building to give you the benefit of the back story about what did this discussion, the drafting amendments early this year we became aware of several buildings developer wish to change from ownership

to rentals to maximize current iron revenue potential of rentals. one of these projects at 2100 michigan was an on-site bmr that is still pending on the developer's request. another building and 600 s. van ness was completed in 2017 but the bmr units remain. planning commission's approval in 2015 required project fulfill its inclusionary obligation with units on-site . projects have been approved to commission with ownership of affordable units and all other shipbuilding. after construction the developer insisted on renting the market unit butwas trying to retain the bmr as ownership . the reality is however having a small number of affordable units isn't feasible. banks won't finance their purchases so the planning

commission had no other option to bend to allow the manager in april of this year. despite the project having been approved in upland public hearing with the promise of affordable housing units on-site there was no option for planning commission to not take that action. >>. [please stand by]

>> i want to share my screen. can you see the slides? >> yes, we can see them. >> so the item before you is a planning code amendment to update the inclusionary affordable housing program. this amendment was introduced on

july 27 and reflects the views on october 5, 2021. today i will discuss three major components of the amendments and discuss the items included in the amendment. on the issue of tenure and that is whether an ownership unit is an ownership unit or a rental unit. they are seeking to build a unit with an affordable rental unit. there are four main problems in this tenure project. first and fundamentally, the inclusionary project is determined by the tenure of the project. there are different on-site and off-site rates for this.

second, there are technical issues for the first-time home buyers. as amy described, continual generally /* -- generally this is 50% of those units sold as ownership units. first-time home buyers must be able to seek conventional mortgages at competitive rates. if the b.m.i. units are rental in an ownership unit, it could result in an imbalance of power. the planning code requires these to be comparable. this ordinance establishes clear definitions for rental projects

and ownership projects and requires the tenure of the affordable units to match the tenure of the market rate units. the second issue is planning. staff has encountered issues with changing from tenure or from on-site to c. most people change to tenure and the method of compliance has significant delays in the delivery of these units. the affordable units need to be sold or released at the same time as the market rate. the sponsors are looking to change from ownership to rental or rental to ownership will also seek these codes. changing tenure would effectively restart the seven-month process of pricing and marketing the affordable

units. the department is put in a [indiscernible] -- or to release the p.c.o. fully knowing that the project will not leave this inclusionary housing delivery. in a few instances there [indiscernible] -- once the project is completed, the zoning administrator is required to issue a letter of determination to determine the process to convert which depends on a variety of factors. affordable housing requirements can become increasingly complex from state laws and local

requirements. some laws may require a satisfaction [indiscernible] -- or to meet a transfer [indiscernible]. under the inclusionary program, the blow many of market rates are more deeply affordable than the rental ownership. this ranges between 55% a.m.i. and 110% a.m.i., while ownership is between 80% a.m.i. and 130% a.m.i. a rental project can qualify for this with more incentives and concessions than an ownership project. changes to the tenure or method of compliance can have major implications. there would be [indiscernible]

depending on if it's an ownership or a rental project. there could be 15 units of very low income, but the same project would need 24 units to qualify for the same process. this ordinance would require a commission hearing to modify the conditions of approval. projects that seek to change ordinance would not [indiscernible] switching from rental to ownership. also there is a frustration in seeing agenda items where the value has no discretion. this ordinance establishes a justice criteria for the [indiscernible] reviewing requests to modify the affordable housing component. this includes requests to change tenure and on-site fees.

[indiscernible] -- now i'll talk about planning and requirements for marketing. the third and final issue i would like to discuss is related to the marketing process. this requires that the contacts in the mayor's housing [indiscernible] but the code does not specify exactly when that has to happen. the sponsor is also required to record a notice of special restrictions or an n.f.r. that records the specifications. as i mentioned before, the marketing process usually takes seven months and this requires that the units be filled at the same time.

[indiscernible] -- there is a construction schedule to planning which will include pipeline monitoring and proactive communication sponsors. the ordinance also includes the ability to enforce planning code requirements so that units are ready at the same time as the market rate. what else? this ordinance also includes

several cleanup items. first the [indiscernible] bonus will be required to enter into a regulatory unit with the city to ensure on-site affordable. second, the ordinance also updates references currently in the planning code. most notably there is a clear definition of a rental project. it also identifies rental units and own units consistently, as they're already defined in sections 401 and 102 and then defined trends are capitalized throughout article 4.

[indiscernible] this concludes my presentation. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on this item. if you wish to do so, please press star 3 to be entered into the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, this is your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you will have

two minutes. >> [indiscernible] -- i want to thank the [indiscernible] -- non-compliance is running rampant in san francisco. what is going to change? are people going to be held accountable? how is the funding [indiscernible] -- >> the fee is good and the

on-site options are good. we've always been agnostic to which project a project makes. i think of it do we want less-affordable housing housing on site or more later, which is the fee because those dollars do get leveraged. we think that because both options are good, we should not be tipping the scale for any one option, but if we do, that is a policy decision that i guess we disagree with. i just want to say that we are actively making that choice. we want to do everything we can to make sure the project is

built. and delivering these units through this inclusionary program is absolutely an important policy point and if a project is ever giving these units, they should be absolutely [indiscernible]. >> i'm so glad i got to say what a disaster this is to put this in with the non-affordable units. people don't realize what this is going to lead to and home-owner associations either. i discussed this issue

previously and they that was what they were finding. the people that get the b.m.r. units would lose their homes. it happened in my building. we didn't have b.m.r. units, but people had different income levels. what happens when the special incomes come? do you know what those cost? mine was $77,000 and a build above me at $100,000 and i knew people who had big assessments on that order, new buildings, old and so forth. these things have to be done. what happens to those who are not part of this. they have to pay the special assessment. soon we go through a whole thing of that. my poor thing who was upstairs who was so proud, a working woman.

55 years she worked [indiscernible] before she retired [indiscernible] -- she's now a renter in reno because she couldn't afford to pay it. my dear friend, a brazilian woman divorcee, she had to sell and go to palm springs. there is a building right now that i know of where they had to pay a doorman full time that the b.m.o. has to pay for. this is insane. because the other people can afford this? only 1170 has that service on [indiscernible] -- >> [all talking at once] --

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is diane wesley smith. my primary concern is homeownership and retention. as the lady before me is stating, the h.o.a. has inherent problems when you are talking about below-market-rate properties. these covenants and restrictions are going to subject people to assessments unvoluntarily. how is that going to be handled? there are a lot of details that need to be worked out. but i do thank you very much for starting the work. there is much to be done if we're going to ensure inclusion in san francisco by people of color. i'm a native san franciscan and a homeowner and i'm also calling

on behalf of the bayview real estate professional and community engagement. thank you so much for your time. we look forward to the details because there is a lot more to be done. i also submitted a 500-signature petition with a certificate of preference back to the supervisor [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] -- the nexus

study does not prove this impact on housing because it largely begs the question rather than proves the question. it [indiscernible] -- this is a false assumption, particularly as developers started proposing smaller units that are more attractive to middle income individuals. this should be considered as attacks [indiscernible] -- which adds to the supply for people who don't win the lottery which is the construction of people who qualify to win the lottery. therefore, as a tax, we should treat it as other taxes. if we want to tax something, as long as we do a good thing with that what we're taxing. i think this proposal is a good change in clarifying the procedures, except i don't see a

need in modifying the restricted and non-restricted housing. the planning commission does not typically perform these [indiscernible] -- >> members of the public, please enter the queue. as no additional speakers are requesting to speak at this time, public comment is now closed and, commissioners, the item is now before you. >> thanks for all of the informative overview. we here at the department and the commission do take this very seriously and always are trying

[indiscernible] for the communities promoting on-site affordable housing when necessary. and we don't take it lightly when developers have to come back and ask for a different situation. >> thank you to supervisor ronen. thank you to the staff and everybody else. i have a question for ms. binart, if you don't mind. how did you become aware of the fact that building's b.m.r. had been standing for four years? is this an outstanding issue or a negligence on the part of the developer? how can that happen? >> that is a very good question. we became aware of it when planning notified us that there was going to have to be an action taken and that they were

looking into how to do that under code. we also know that there were people in the community who had rumors that these units weren't being occupied, that they weren't tracking specifically. >> thank you for answering it. same question to you. is there any sort of post-movement inspection? is there a time frame of verifying one by name and address what would be called [indiscernible] because we have many buildings in which we have small amounts of affordable units and no proof that they are occupied and people who live in those buildings don't know which units are about owners, second home owners or people on business trips, et cetera. what type of mechanisms do we have building by building, unit

by unit, to know that these units are occupied in a timely manner and is required by law? >> definitely. that's a great question. thank you. so there's a couple of different mechanisms that we have to put the affordability and occupancy things first. [indiscernible] they can jump in if there's anything i'm missing. certainly most of the part of the process will track the occupants of the b.m.r. units and whether or not enough are vacant. the planning code already requires that the b.m.r. units cannot be vacant for longer than 60 days. when one of those b.m.r. units is vacated or sold, the building owner will work to put that unit back on the city's lottery

system. i think the issue that was raised is really what happens between the planning commission and the building, the final occupancy. that's where we really wanted to tighten things up with this ordinance. there is a long period between the planning commission approval and the completion of the building. it was unclear when sponsorship comes to speak to us. and the issue we ran into with this specific example is it was unclear about the final component and when the building was occupied. we were working with the occupant to figure out if this was a viable component. we've since presented them a couple of different options for compliance. and there are several options.

amy mentioned the impact fee. so i think we through this ordinance are providing a clear timeline about the initial occupancy of the unit is really critical. because once they're in the system, it's a little easier to keep track of them, and most can add color to that as well. >> thank you for introducing this legislation. it was really needed. just a clarification in terms of this legislation. this is going to apply for both ownership to rental and rental to ownership, right?

[indiscernible] -- and i know on current housing programs there are rental units that can convert to home ownership. the planning department may have that in terms of the [indiscernible] conversion of rentals and there will be the first opportunity to take it in. my other when it comes to ownership and rental is that in

terms of the ownership to rental, how are -- i guess this was questioned by commissioner moore in terms of tracking reliability of this. we are seeing different submissions in terms of the likely track [indiscernible] -- as we all know, we need money for building for affordable housing. i guess my question is around the h.o.h. so what happens when the ownership converts to rental and for us in the planning commission to look into the [indiscernible] -- how is that being played out? i guess trying to understand that -- having that discretion.

>> and i think you're touching on a really important nuance that we considered. if there is the pre- and post-occupancy tenure and i think you just described when a building is occupied, a rental building is occupied, and there are rental, affordable units, the inclusionary procedure which is a separate guiding document outside of the planning code does give up more detail on that process and we hit the highlights where the current tenants get the first right of refusal to purchase the unit at the income level that they're at or whatever is stipulated in their n.f.r. and they have about a year to submit that submission.

we've never seen this in post-occupancy. i think that's going to be a really rare scenario. again, i think one of the things that we would -- as m.o.h. is monitoring the affordability of these units, if the rest of the building is being rented, the hope is that we would be able to somehow kind of catch that and pursue the conversion process in the opposite direction. part of what you always consider is if the affordability is maintained and the procedures in the manual are followed -- so i know the manual is really much more specific about the rental to ownership than ownership to rental. [ please stand by ]

. . . >> it gets challenging quickly when you layer in all the requirements. that is one of the goals of the ordinance is to start to u identify tenure as an important part of the project. >> i just wanted to add to that -- thank you, commissioner.

i wanted to add to that explanation that something that was highlighted in the legislation that the planning would be considering and checking the boxes during a public hearing and one of the things we wanted to make sure that >> to consider that in light of the requirements and the standards and procedures that

are in the code and in the procedures manual. >> it's rare for ownership to rental and i guess we will cross that bridge when we see those type of changes, but something to think about is are the standards of findings that we need to consider. for me i would like to see more of the findings in terms of the preservation of the future occupants in terms of their affordability units or affordability level. and so something to think about along this line. but thank you very much on this legislation.

>> a commissioner tanner. thank you for being here and i did want to ask a coup of questions about the state density bonus and how that applies here. and the broad question would be the projects would fall under this process. and between rental and ownership, if it does change from one to the're, might there be physical changes to the product and other things that would be part of the commission's review? of that project? >> that is one of our primary concerns. and if you build a rental state density bonus project, the inclusionary that you are

providing and you can use your on site inclusion mare to qualify for a bonus. and so that affordable housing in a rental project already qualifies you for the maximum bonus or i guess it already qualifies for a 35% bonus and are really close to a 50% bonus and looking at ownership, the inclusionary and the affordability of the inclusionary units is a little bit that doesn't serve and they are at 80% ami instead of 50% and the state law doesn't provide the same bonus and a rental project may qualify for 30% off the bat complying with that project, and they may have to provide more affordability than what is required through

inclusionary in order to achieve that same density bonus and the same building envelope. so to that the changes are so in the with the develop and convert to condos and this is a really clear consequence of potentially changing your tenure. before it may not have been so

so this is related to when people and the developers have to make the e decision around what the final product is and i think the suggestion is to come here and to with the staff increase and if you can o pine on that. >> sure, definitely. right now it's just a completely inconsistent process. if you have the ownership project, the rate is higher. you get the benefit of a with

the changes that take a significant amount of staff time. this is with the same amount of time to take it to a hearing. and i think that the big concern we have is really related to making sure that we're reallied clear with the development community and the findings that we have established, we try to make them as objective as possible. so when you consider if that change has created a delay and qualifying for the same density bonus and considering if you are compliant with other parts of 415. those are -- i try to make this

as objective as possible and that the development development community has a clear understanding of what the guardrails are and especially with all the hearings where people have come back and you haven't had the authority over the project at all. so we want to make the process consistent and we want to create a better framework within that process, especially if things are going to get more complicated. >> i certainly do have some concern about adding additional process and additional time to housing development, although as you outlined, having consistency, i think, is important. and i think as we mentioned, that folks have a lot of investment often in projects and really work on the details of them and to have them change in a way that there isn't ability to have the public really weigh

in or to have the commission have any discretion, i think, is not great for anyone and the developers in that community as well. and having some clarity, having consistency has a value as well. and so i think we can hopefully continue to watch the legislation and look forward to hearing from director hillis in the future if this process is creating significant burdens and bringing housing to the market, we may need to look at how can the process whether it's on the implementation side be sped up or how can these be prioritized to come to the commission more quickly so that housing especially if it is at a point to get shovels in the ground or leasing or selling or what have you, that we're not the bottleneck on that housing gets to the market. and the last question i have, i think just to be clear is something that's come up a bit in public comment but i don't think this legislation addresses which is the cost of being a member of an h.o.a. in the

ownership buildings that the costs of the dues or a special assessment, those are part of bet bg an own ore and all owners in a below market rate or market rate unit are obligated to pay those assessments, correct, or those dues, whatever they may be. >> i am going to turn it over to mocd for this question. awe thank you. >> but yes, we did not tackle that in this legislation. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, we did not tackle that either. >> right. i want to make sure that folks know -- thank you. and i'm sorry. i didn't catch your name, ma'am. >> i think you just popped on the screen for me. >> aliyah gage. >> hi. did you want to suffer comment about the cost of assessment that is not in the legislation? that is what they are looking

into and i appreciate the question and work on that exclusively and the price of the mr ownership factors in hoa costs. and so we ensure the sales price and enables bmr households to pay no more than 1/3 of their income. and hoa costs do rise over time. and special assessments are introduced that is an ineventability. so one thing we do at mocd is require a homeowner, home buyer education training which is 10 hours of training that is required to be around eligible applicant and house holds understand that may happen. just like a market rate buyer, our lenders that participate in

our program will ensure that a household has a certain amount of reserves on hand at the time that the transaction takes place to be able to financially handle some situations that arise. however, if it were the case that a bmr homeowner was struggling to pay hoa or special assessment fees, mocd does have programs set up to i a cyst in those cases. my colleague is on the line and i think she's had some trouble getting off mute, but in general we have seen over more than 30 years of bmr home ownership opportunities dating back to many units developed with the redevelopment agency that they have been able to pay their h.o.a. dues and special

assessments over time. again, we seek to provide the support that is needed. >> thank you for being here to support. again, this is important to know and we can struggle with the costs and whether or not we are in a bmr unit and whether we get a multi-thousand dollar assessment for the fire safety and it can really hit folks really, really hard. there may be opportunities to think about banks and the loan for your security deposit because security deposits can be so important for renting an apartment. some of the things that may not be exactly just for the bmr folks but for folks who are regular san franciscans have a hard time meeting the costs. i want to thank those who called in and hopefully will can be work on that as well.

i am happy to support the legislation today. >> is that a motion? >> motion to approve. and i think were there recommendations for staff that we were incorporating? >> a lot for us today. >> i second the motion. >> thanks. >> thank you, commissioners. and if there is no more discussion, there has been a motion that has been seconded to approve this item. on that motion, commissioner diamond? >> commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> commissioner moore? >> thank you, commissioners.

that will take us to item 12. number 2019-0161230cwp. this is an informational item on informational presentation housing element. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes. >> you should have the ability to share your screen now. >> all right. thank you. good afternoon, president koppel, vice president moore, and commissioners. my name is kiara with the community equity division. i am honored to present that update on 2022 process on behalf

of our team. we start the presentation with a land acknowledgment. the san francisco planning department acknowledges we are on unceded homeland. as indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their tradition, they have never ceded, lost, or forgotten the responsibilities of the care takeers of the place and for all people who is reside in the territory. as guests, we recognize the benefit from living and working in the traditional homeland and wish to pay our respects for acknowledging the an sestors and relatives of their community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. today's presentation aims to

offer a look into the planning process and with the outreach and need for increased transparency and how public input and incorporate it into our draft. and also with what we heard during this space. and the values and the charge of the housing element. in the process to incur values for this housing plan as the framing principles for this major update. and next update embodies substantial change and our existing policies and programs, and this -- and that is because of first and foremost because

we're acknowledging with the problem at as the racial, social, and equity problem and not just a land use and economic problem. and commissioners, you passed the resolution over a year ago that for the first time listed the technology to prove the practices that the department led or supported until the past many decades. and in the resolution, we acknowledge and apologize that you recognize that that is not enough and called on this to center on racial and social equity and there is a charge for outreach for policies and that call for a major change and cities across california are required to respond and the

objective growth and the targets to require to permanently to create housing access and opportunities for knowing and to bring opportunities for integrated and we need to create a meaningful plan with the environmental justice as you have heard discussed last week. and next i would like to how we design the outreach process to realize the values and on equity and commitment to housing. and here is that project timeline and where we are right now. we have concluded a substantial portion of our outreach so far. for phase one we relied on this

policy group members and the interagency partners to release the first draft. and color and other groups and we launched the focus group pilot process for the first time with scale and 21 community-based organizations who are supported by the outreach consultants and led to 22 focus groups and in addition we held discussions and to talk a little bit more about in the next few slides, and here is the with the targeted communities for the focus groups. we are grateful for the hard work of our city of partners and the trust we put together and

fully with the defense and considered elevating their voices of the communities equally important. partnerships based on their capacity. and convene participants to design and listen to select questions and the discussions and that created that feeling of trust for participants to share genuine feedback. and participants were compensated with gift cards and also were compensated based on the level of partnership and we are able to hold some focus groups in person and around 7 of those focus groups were in their own language.

a significant majority of participants were low income and also able to elevate the voices of people with disabilities and reach with children. and 95% of our participants were nonand these are just numbers on a slide. and heard the lived experience and the 182 participants and much larger communities and the struggles and resilience and the trust they put in our team and the department to push for the change that the community deserves and have been waiting for. >> and with the support of our partners we were that this process to reach and elevate the

voices of communities with the low income housing units. in addition, and with many community conversations hosted by community group. we were also hosted by neighborhood associations in that discussion. with the housing policy group and focused on seven topics and seven immediateings on these topics that we needed in that discussion. and this group included 27 organizations and we made sure to expand and include voices that were missing. and we also received letters and comments in written format from various groups including a

detailed organizations and as a case of recollection, we shared initial reflections on the major themes of the comments. and extensive process that we are taking on to analyze all the inputs. we recorded all public input based on the topics and our voices. and analysis will highlight and the particular priorities and needs of various groups. analysis will shape how we modify and goals and action based on the principle of racial and social inequity and meeting the state law requirements and in partnership of the cities and community experts. and we have will have a report back and support those

expectations. and this is a quick snapshot to engage and and with the highlights and to share the upcoming and and the social equity in that analysis. and for the housing plan and this analysis and the racial and social disparities and experienced and from that security and to provide.

>> access to stable housing, cultural resources, transportation and health issues and space needed to prevent displacement and including metrics for evaluating progress. we will do this analysis looking at the geography of the project and the current geographies, areas, and environmental justice. >> and this announcement will be done with consultants and collaboration with community collaborators to interview the working groups and the public review process. and the environmental impact report underway and conceding

the e.i.r. to evaluate the environmental impacts of the outcome of the draft policies in 2015. and this map shows how to guide what type of housing could be built in the city. and the pipeline projects are just an example of how existing policies are and the e.i.r. will study that planning area and focus from the preservation alternative that will be discussed at the historic preservation commission next week. for the rest of today's presentation, i would like to invite director hillis for an overview of the preliminary themes and comments that could

lead to major policy shift and majority enforcement with the comprehensive analysis of the programs. and the small but powerful housing element team, thank you for being here today. and have done tremendous work elevating voices that have not participated in the development of the plans. we wanted to highlight the major themes that we heard during the last round about which was substantial and you will see throughout the remainder of the presentation direct quotes from participants and will link this presentation on our website. and i want to thank community members who have engaged and

given us with the lived experience. and as you are aware, the housing element update comes at a time that our country and our city are grappling with the reality and reparations in repairing the harms and communities of color. and we heard clearly that increased home ownership opportunities need to be part of the solution to reverse wealth disparities from the diskrim tear led news policies. and the communities of color were the direct targets of sex discrimination and were asked to be prioritized in accessing these opportunities. targeting these investments can serve as one form of reparations to support the communities on a path to building well.

we heard a need for with home ownership and land trust to shared equity to market-based home ownership models. next slide please. and while -- sorry, the one before. and while there wasn't always agreement amongst affordable housing advocates and home ownership and there are legal challenges as you know for prioritizing opportunities based on race. we heard explicitly of the importance of home ownership and wealth building directly to repair past harms. the following few slides have direct quotes and we have heard from participants here referencing that american indian relocation programs that promised help with housing and

weren't delivered. next slide. >> next slide. and the government actions took away what our black unity had built for san francisco as a city. p and how the japanese community was severely impacted by displacement affects of internment and followed by redevelopment. next slide and recognizing the right to housing was a policy that you saw and put forth in the draft of the housing element. and the community input and the question why and hadn't officially recognized the right to housing. at the same time, there was a lot of skepticism that we heard about how we achieved this promise. communities wanted assurance that the city will act

collectively to make this commitment a reality and not just the statement in the housing element. we heard that the right to housing means access to dignified housing. and where overcrowding or substandard conditions doesn't consume a family's health or well being. and it means that house holds can find housing to afford in neighbors they want to live. next slide please. >> to many communities, housing equity and affordability cannot be achieved without wealth building and cannot be achieved without investment and education, particularly education around financial literacy. and similarly, securing well paid jobs was often raised and at the crux of solving poverty and including investments and job training specifically for black and brown communities. next slide please.

and input for many communities and also highlighting specific challenges and accessing affordable rental housing. and within the latino community and eligibility challenges due to seasonal jobs or credit history and a lack of credit history that have led to disappointments and disillusionment with our current system. and many african-american black and latino households and seniors with disabilities find themselves below the income minimums and in have asked for increases in deeply affordable homes and targeted rental assistance. and the communities found improved access to financial readiness and assistance with the application process to be needed and influencial. and at the same time many conversations and called for the priorities and have been

applying for a long time and not received housing and those whoven and resided in pedestrian for a long time. housing stability and the commission we heard a lot about the outreach. and communities highlighted the unique needs they have. lgbtq plus communities reflected on the need for the proximity of housing for their communities. they discuss continued discrimination and have a welcoming community and safety and belonging and traditional aged youth spoke about how the permanent and affordable housing and safer neighborhoods in the way for concentrations of drug use and seniors and express need for assisted living and nontraditional living and form of housing and and in many

conversations, communities expressed the ongoing importance of s.b.o.s and resource hubs and found community centers to be a lifeline. next slide please. we got into more details in the discussions around the type of housing and the type of housing that communities wanted to see and cultural and racial groups feel more comfortable in their own neighborhood or communities and this often came from past experiences of nol not feeling welcome. and at the same time we heard that some of the communities express the desire to live in quote, unquote, safer neighborhoods with more resources such as transit or frequency of transit service in parks in open space. and in this open sentiment, and

the state law to affirmatively further fair housing and options in resources with higher resources in other neighborhoods. >> this openness and desire for equitable distribution of new housing and means more housing in more areas where we haven't seen housing being built at the rate in other communities. where voices of concern were present, they convinced themselves of the need for more affordable housing especially given access in the neighborhoods to quality resources. housing challenges for middle income households were discussed in-depth and particularly in conversations in the richmond and sunset where participants supported both market based and affordable solutions targeted to

middle mechanic houses. and to highlight the topic of accountability in action which also came up often in conversations across communities and particularly low income communities of color showed significant distrust and disappointment and in the city and programs in plan. residents we spoke to demand increased accountability and particularly for a housing plan and with the advancing racial and social equity. communities of color in vulnerable groups and for the sharing of power. and to invent this accountability, we have convened focused conversations already within our policy group experts in these conversations are the start of our effort to identify the right forum, frequency, and

metrics to measure success in keeping us accountable. next slide. and i just want to thank you commissioners for your time. and we believe this plan gives us the opportunity to reverse existing social and racial disparities and deliver the housing our communities deserve. and with the outreach to redouble efforts around the housing stability and bringing back displaced communities. we need to build housing of different varieties of neighborhoods into work with our partner and city agencies to deliver real change. i want to particularly thank the residents who have given us the time and the lived experience ultimately with the policy ideas. we look forward to the continued engagement and shaping the housing plans.

with that, i will turn it back to you for public comment. >> thank you. at this time, members of the public, for this item we are having interpreters in both cantonese and spanish which will be present during the public comment for this item. members of the public who wish to submit their public comment on this item will need to call in to 415-655-0001, use the access code and press star 3 to be entered into the queue. when you hear the line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. if you are in need of translation services, please submit your testimony in short intervals to allow the interpreters to translate your

testimony. and all interpreters will have their mics unmuted through the share and you will have two minutes. and i will ask that what i just said be translated into cantonese and then spanish. [interpreters speaking]

>> public comment is now open. you have two minutes. >> awe good afternoon, commissioners. the coalition invision envisions

a housing element that the alarming trends and the mismatch and currently the draft housing element reflects an overemphasis on party geographies and opportunity areas and with the center of inequity and most importantly filled with vulnerable communities and the analyses are used and the allocations and housing and draft areas and overreliance on market-based solutions and to

with the benefit of the higher population that were priced out of the housing system. and the housing element that plans for and prioritizes the need of those who have suffered most and with the disenfranchise the housing communities and to go to community equity solutions and thank you very much. i cede my time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeffrey wait and we appreciate the hard work and planning community has been doing to engage the communities and all

the member organizations and engagement and transparency do not add up to equities and with the trickle-down approach and foes ku and policy and action and affordable action from the up iffeding sources and the low communities and resources and capacity and owning and developing the housing that everyone can afford and creating strategies that further enable the residents to live on the land and for whom? and for hiding the evidence and who don't have enough room and

bunk beds and group housing and the mastermind of companies that operate commercial rentals. this is the housing element to increase the power to market. and struggling desperately to survive. >> and to reverse the homes and to prioritize the control of the land and control of the housing and rebelding for the prioritized growth and affordable, stable, dignified housing for a sustainable

future. >> hello. i commend the atoefrpt qualify the city for various events of federal and state government. and if it wasn't for the authors of the general plan code, and i must state that what is proposed does not meet the mandates regarding the analysis and mitigation. you are bidding against a market that is the most unaffordable city in the nation. for example, you have not int kated how the other elements of the general plan support that housing element and all of which are part and required by law and

usually supportive. it does not do this and proposed is inflationary and issed overly inflated anyway. and the minority needs at the hire i high priority and there are 80,000 of the citizens that cannot afford market rate. and thank you for your attention. by the way, many of us have put our bodies on the line with regard to enable the organization and thank you for that. >> i am a housing organizer and

the community-based organizations and the focus groups participate in different phases and discussions and has been fundamentally and instrument tally great for our members who were able to participate, log on to the housing elements and some with the past issues and policies and that have been willing to go for this process and try this process in terms of having a seat at the table and knowing that their voices are heard. i am encouraging this to me to get different and has been a very satisfying and important

part of the process and in speaking truth to power and change and to the people that make the recommendations and decisions in terms of what we need and what is needed and 30% of the income to be affordable. and if you are at 15% or less than that, we need more and the ami and the affordability should be based from the bottom up and not the top-down. we have gotten good response and the team is great and listening and accommodating to the community needs. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the director of magic and a

community commuter and the bayview hunters point community working with organizations and we were one of the 21 programs that were involved in the feedback session and we were able to work with the housing development team and i actually got and was contacted after the session and from a young person who it was her first time being involved in any community classes like this and she provided really great feedback of how she felt listened to and heard and really happy to be in the space for other young people

from the community and wanted to be involved in other opportunities to provide feedback and this speaks well to the young people who are engaged and with a positive experience for your young people to be active citizens of the city. >> thank you. >> hello. i am the district manager of the thats force and long-time member and parent in this community. we are so thankful for the housing elements 2022 and the efforts centered around racial and social equality and appreciate this will identify

parties for the decision makeers and the housing programs and services. japan town has appreciated the effort and to put into the process for the many listening sessions and the focus groups and the innovative policy for change. and the discussions and cultural district has identified and is hopeful, really hopeful for new policy directives in the following areas. and back to japan town to help the cultural district not only survive but to thrive. families to return and the children of elders and who have been displaced from world war ii and redevelopment and live and raise the next generations in the culture development and live with the senior parents and

grandparents and access to affordable housing from the income level community members and families who live, work, and contribute to the japanese communities and educators, artists, volunteer, leaders and are all part of the foundation to have the communities in the future. we are so happy with the commissioner for hearing and acknowledging the challenges. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have been participating in the conversations as well and also want to extend my appreciation to the entire planning department team working on this. it is quite the undertaking and

quite the shift from the status quo in san francisco over the last few decades. and we definitely do think it is a positive step in the right direction and there are a lot of details that are important to be figured out. can you take us back to the level in which the housing element is required through state law and it's obvious that all of you are considering this as an impact when we look at cities around the entire bay area and to add more housing and we do think it is a significant benefit for the region as a whole and that all the cities are going through the housing element and uncomfortable decisions for some about how and

where to add housing. and i have always believed the type of change can be a positive impact on communities and walkable, dense neighborhoods are incredibly attractive places to live. and be incredibly healthy communities to live and so we are excited about the work san francisco is doing and the bay area and actively paying attention. and extend the appreciation to the entire staff for working on this. and looking forward to continuing the conversation. thank you. >> and we are a member of the race and equity and planning

coalition. spent on race and equity and planning staff has the impossible task of reconciling the housing needs of low income, bipoc and marginalized communities of the incredible production that must happen in the next eight years. coalition members have to lead the conversation for ensuring eligible resources and a framework sentered on the priority geographies and not defined by communities on the ground is not relevant because the policy interventions proposed in the priority geographies do not adequately center race inequity. planning should center on communities instead. and the overreliance on the top-down market-based solution

does not address the needs of vulnerabilities who will suffer arm and being displaced from their homes and too little emphasis and change public policy and public investment toward community equity solutions and achieve genuine affordability as the scale to achieve an affordable outcome. and there are alternatives to market-based housing solutions that must be explored for the planning and house element. i am truly concerned as planning to accommodate and the building blocks that make up housing policies in 2014 will be tossed out. and this spells harm for the vulnerable communities. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the co-chair of the land

use community from the lgbtq group and we were delighted to host one of the focus groups and are enthusiastic about the process going forward. the castro is an important neighborhood for new migrants and immigrants to the bay area. and without it we face greater challenges maintaining our personal safety, accessing personal health care services and meeting about our identities and forming families. and in the focus group we heard again and again how the back and brown people to live and work in the castro and racism, homo phobia and two decades of the highest eviction rates in the city and real estate speculation were seen as central to this. and the housing developments and leads the castro and the lgbtq is left out. and the castro is prioritized for increased housing like the west side or increased services like the east side.

and this omission is a critical threat to our community's existence in san francisco. unlike straight communities, we reproduce when lgbtq communities have moved to s.f. and live near each other. we do not produce from marriage, inheritance, and traditional family models. racial and social equity must include the housing those at the intersection of the black and brown as well as lgbtq identity. our focus groups participants ask to prioritize housing element and queer people and make significant investments in queer centered, queer affirming,

deeply >> i want to thank the presenters for capturing a lot of the elements that were brought forward from our community in in endeavor to establish this ability in the city. and people need to understand what and why the american indian community is here in san francisco. first and foremost the city was build on unceded land as what we

said. the and gave up the land rights and reservations and they would be training income and housing and quickly found themselves forced to the outer edges and red lined and we still experience homelessness and lack of equity and equality in this city. so it is vitally important that this housing element is not just a check box for inviting communities to participate. that both the advisory and community need to see the results of their input, get

feedback response changed cht thank you. >> caller, are you there? >> caller: hello. >> linda chapman. i was lucky to be part of the focus group that freddy martin shows and therein lies the rub. if you happen to be in one of the chosen organizations and happen to be one of the lucky few, then you will have input here and the process and the staff were excellent. i just want to emphasize that it

is important that not everybody is in a focus group. besides putting it on the internet, which it should be, paper copies need to be made available and the community needs to know about this and a lot of us who participate and with a lot of things to say when i see the paper copy eventually and read it and have some ideas. and the way to constrict it by time. i want to concur with what was said earlier and in the focus group and talking about how black people that is the same story with my family and the

huge office buildings and all of the natives san franciscans are being displaced and that is very important and brought in banks and brought them back, at least they have different income levels. it was insanity for a mayor to do that and with the impacts and i will reserve what else i have to say for the paper copy in front of me and thank you for the process. [speaking in spanish] >> good afternoon. i am going to say it in spanish and there will be interpretation.

>> firstly, i would like to thank you for having the focus group which included the latino community this has been very much affected by the housing problem.

>> i want to say that this right to housing unfortunately has not been a right and we need to put life at the center of this. this is the right that i am a housewife and the work is not valued and we cannot afford to continue to pay the high prices.

>> i can see in the community and the community is not being taken into account with the high rents and families that live in a closet and apartment where 10 people live and the paying a high rent and it is too bad in san francisco the housing is not being taken as a right.

>> i think it is urgent for this to be taken into account for equality for all the people and they can have the basic needs and to be recognized for the work they do. and people who work in homes and restaurants and people who families who are not housed and please take the people into account that the undocumented people and we are here and we need this right.

>> this is a graph from a larger chart that was about housing and in the "wall street journal" and was fascinating and basically says that san francisco comparing world class cities and eight times the yearly income and that was comparing meeting median apartment price to median family disposable income as of the middle of 2021 and that will be important with other outside information to look at as you proceed with this element. and i also sent an email from october 10, 2019 and and the housing element and the policies in there and we further are flushing out and i hope they aren't discarded and that is an

important thing. and the other thing that the chart raised the questions is how much housing can be built to substantially lowe'sing prices with the imbalance and how much of the existing housing has been built and a lot built in the last 10, 12, 15 year in the eastern neighborhoods and how much of that occupied full time. and i think that's important because and i am including stuff along the eastern neighborhoods and markets and venn us in avenue and if you build, if there is more building and follow the market rate tlugs that people were there. and i understand why they were saying that. and how much that will be occupied and the citizens that need to live here and need housing is outlined by your participants in the study. and i guess that's it. thanks a lot. take good care.

be well, be safe. >> and i will be calling last call for public comment to be translated into cantonese and spanish. >> press star 3 to be entered into the queue. through the chair, you will have 2 minutes. [interpreters speaking]

>> we have accepted a lot of new jobs and not built the # # housing in the pandemic and built around 25,000, 30,000 homes and it is not a surprise that we are gentrifying and so

much of the eastern was explicitly by the elected official and some of whom are in the office and that the eastern neighborhoods plan especially on the left side and not on the east side. and that is exactly where we should be going housing and the support of the housing sustainability district that are being proposed and the construction and is exactly what we need. thank you.

>> there is always one. >> and good afternoon, planning commissioners and i am the policy and planning manager and i am also a member of the race and exegg coalition to avoid any race and exegg framework and the san francisco bipoc and low income communities. and with the with w the past housing policies and disenfranchised communities and not a housing element that blindly increase and with the

2022 and the future of housing and the housing element reflects that emphasis on priority jobs and opportunity areas. and and the ground truth and the policy interventions and do not center race and equity and most importantly, we feel that vulnerable communities to be leading the conversation to define what mapping and sis with the affordable allocation of resources and could like the housing element to be the voices that have been there and the housing element. and the planning department approved project and from the

housing policy and the case in point and with the market-based housing development and strategy and to hold this accountability and with the broad-based and housing affordable stuff. >> thank you. seeing no other requests and the item is now before you. just a reminder that there is an informational item and there is no action by the commission. thank you. >> thanks so everyone involved

and great job translating the koord naytors and all communities allowed to share tin put. i am still just a big point of pride that the commission is taking this seriously and putting in so much time. >> thank you, president koppel. i second you to that effort of the planning department with a really big task and of all the different communities. i just have one question in terms of this process and it looks like in the phase 2 of outreach and there is going to be the phase three of outreach.

what is included in the phase three outreach? >> we are still identifying the gaps in the two phases of the outreach and the community requirements that still need a deeper dive discussion. we do expect that outreach to be more targeted and within limited scope. and there are gaps and some points that we need to and change the shifts and into and in addition to that and as i said, starting the race and social impact and also involve with the company collaborators.

and one of the comments that was highlighted during the public comment portion was the mapping analysis and just trying to have some probable will be more in the outreach process and the community engagement process. and i just would like to highlight that in terms of the mapping analysis that seems to be like a big issue for all the groups. i am wondering as to what kind of maps. i think the planning department should be aware of in terms of what the kinds of maps we are using and sound like census track is something that is not heavily used and clarify on what the maps are being used and can there be alternative maps that are used on that and what the tools are being used on and looking into those.

>> sure. i will first create the first draft, and we realized that in order to really and the item to identify in certain communities and areas for priorities. and it would be hard to pursuit the reality of equity. and we relied on the analysis of the areas of the building that has been using for a while. and use the geography and the cultural district experiences and in our policies at the target areas and target communities for certain investments. and required by state law to use the opportunity mapping for and

for housing in our upcoming side and the racial equity analysis and we want to analyze the impact and with the areas of very similar to the communities that some commenters mentioned and also that the environmental justice communities and so we want to get the geographies right. we are trying to look at the various analyses. >> thank you. and again, thank you for all of this update and i am nervously looking forward in our draft of the second release by the end of the year and looking forward to

this and it is a big task that you are doing. >> a commissioner tanner. >> and thank the staff for the presentation and the many hour of work. and i want to thank the community organizations that gave the time and energy and focus groups and giving testament today and the sign of a good and rebust public process and to accept what they want to see improved and folks who are seeing things that they appreciated about the process so far. and hearing from different perspectives means we have a lot of folks in the room and happy to be a task for staff and also for the commission and the board of supervisors and different

perspectives and there is multiple angles and housing that affects it in the city and so many perspective. and present when we are think about where you live. and where do the friend, coworkers and colleagues live. and big task and not there yet. and i wanted to pick up on the imperial mapping and in regards to the creation and blood map and several maps and layering on the different maps and do we have to use different maps for different purposes. maybe talk about how the maps or if it's one map are used. >> so far we are basically layering on different maps. and including the geography chart and culture differences as

well as areas with the patient for targeting investments and antidisplacement efforts. we are also using the high opportunity areas and directed with the state law. we heard the concerns that are wanted and the different layers of areas and vulnerability and using the additional maps and geographies and the social equity impact and will hold that and the areas of the undergoing displacement and the geographies are the proxy tool for targeting. and the investments and helping advance that.

and we heard from folks who are able to participate in focus groups and every person that participated and great remarks to say and do you have any groups of people we can't get here? and able to get to a wide variety and with the public and some of these we wanted to have two focus groups and there were the capacity wasn't there. they also wanted the housing populations and unable to do that and with the conversation and the providers.

and we talk to lgbtq plus community and it was only one of the principals and two different focus groups. and also the community conversations and through those community conversations and we also tried reaching the broader population as well. and maybe just eliminate the difference between the community conversation versus and i think i can imagine the focus groups and people are gather and selected and facilitators and how does the community conversation focus group setup and 8 to 10 participants and hosted by the community based organizations in the

co-facilitator capacity. so they basically included participants and made sure there is a good representation of perspectives. and focus on this group and group of people with a wide variety of perspectives and reached 183 people with the diverse perspectives and lived experiences. and the community conversation basically reached a lot of already and to hear about the housing elements. and the generously allotted and an hour their monthly and the meetings and presented and there

were and to capture those different average. >> during phase 3 if there are organizations that wanter to a community conversation, is that still available and talk with them. >> i want to encourage folks on the line if you haven't had a chance to do that, that would be a great community and there are concerns around leading the effort and leading a conversation is a good start and i hope to see a lot of the organizations called in to have a conversation if they can make time for that in the regular meetings and work with the planning department to set up something with your membership or board or however your structure would be a good use of time and a good way to get more feedback and into the housing element. and i think those are the main questions and not having

remembered the timeline and when do you think you will be back before the commission with the self-draft and what is the next thing to see with the next effort? >> that is correct. and i will be spending the next few months analyzing the input further and drafting and creating the second draft basically. and releasing to come back to the commission in january that will launch our last phase of outreach as well. >> great. certainly heading into the hol dis but time for people to be engaged and a big job to commission and racial equity and what does that mean to serve the current and future residents of san francisco. one thing we heard a lot and folk displaced from the city and large part many folks do

government action and repair the past and also not repeat the past as you go forward. it is a delicate balance and is certainly difficult and i know i am inspired by the right to housing and some of the other topics thatter really centering and the housing development and may not have read a housing element before and i don't think the themes are very common in the housing elements across the state. and i am very pleased to see how we are beginning to center our element there. and the task for our city will not just be in what is printed on the paper and how the resources are or are not realigned to ensure that we live out the housing element and housing in your right and is a bold statement. and will take full budgetary al equation to be a right for the resident of san francisco. and thank you in other folks who

are here with us and please keep up the good work. >> commissioner moore? >> thank you to everybody and for creating the process that is new to all of us and the challenges being posed with the social equity statement creating a dialogue that has never been had before. i am very, very moved and touched and inspired and the presentation as well as feedback from the public that you are truly engaging and why you are not seeing eye to eye on everything is a process to be extremely creative and challenging and i hope as you move forward that much of what is being discussed as possibilities come into

fruition. i have to acknowledge at least to myself that while you are doing this work and coming from state legislation that show sets up the the barriers and not as easily incorporated into the thyroid element and you are much further down the line than incorporating and fully understanding all of those challenges which are coming every week. i hope that we would be able to do this in a way that has never been used before. and the substance to work with and the more previous generations not able to do. and the one question to ask you is, are you continuing with the public process? and moving into the time between now and january and where the work is ending and the next

update to the study. >> in the next few months, most of the time and the the input and incorporating that input and the changes to the draft have been invited to a couple of events in the past in the next couple of months and definitely honor those an participate. and we also note that we will reach up to the community experts in a certain sections of the plan. when we need their expeer's the. and that starts when we publish the next draft. >> and to keep the doors open for ongoing dialogues into so

many areas where you are challenging and being challenged and again, i look forward for this to ultimately become the result that reflects the majority of people and the majority of people who are participating in the process. and again thank you to everybody. >> commissioners, if there is no further discussion on this item, again, this is just an informational item and we need to move on to the next item. >> great. >> commissioners, this takes on to item 14 case 14,

2018-004886cua at 2350 green street. and staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. afternoon good afternoon, commissioners. mary woods of department staff. the applicant saint vincent depaul school is seeking a conditional use authorization with the plan development to renovate, expand and construct and elevate a play area above the existing surface parking lot. the project site is part of the saint vint depaul california parish complex which also includes the saint vincent depaul church and the rectory. however, no work is pr posed for either the church or the rectory. it will include a three-story horizontal addition linking the lower school and the middle school buildings. we move a certain-car car port

and enclose that ground level in the middle school building. and construction of an elevator play area. and the existing surface parking lot. and is 40 foot high in the zoning district and is rh3 and require the conditional use authorization to expand the existing school use. the project is also speaking out planned unit modification to provisions related to the rear yard section. for the new horizontal addition and the new play area. the project will be build out in four phases. as such the applicant is seeking a five-year conditional use authorization rather than the standard three-year performance period. the reason is for additional time and for fundraising either for the project and the sequential construction of the

four phase work. since last week's commission package distribution, staff has received two letters in support of the project and eight letters in opposition with seven letters coming from the same building, a three-unit building at 2822 through 26 pear street, which is immediately north of the project site on pear street. the recommendation is to approve the project with conditions and also approve a five-year conditional use performance period. and this concludes the summary of the project and i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. and we will now have a presentation from the project sponsor. >> okay.

and i believe your line has been unmuted. through the chair you will have five minutes to present. >> good afternoon, commissioner. i have been a parent at saint vincent depaul school for the last 11 years and parishioners for 22 years and member of the school's advisory board. i am here with our principal and saint vincent depaul is frb the k-8 school and the neighborhood street and at pierce and steiner and evaluating the seismic conditions and required by the city of san francisco. and we also identified other areas and the last major completed on campus 70 years ago and require remodels and all the buildings are not accessible. next slide please. the proposed project for you

today is necessary and desirable and accessibility and with the staff to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. we conducted community meetings to inform the neighborhoods about the proposed project and listening to the address passed away unexpectedly and this project will honor the father's 10-year legacy as a pastor at saint vincent depaul stew skool and parish and we hope the commission will approve the project as we approach the 100-year anniversary in 2024. >> i will now turn it over to the architect. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time to hear about this important project. and we start with the project site and saint vincent depaul is part of the parish complex on green street between pierce and steiner.

this includes the school for grades k-4 and the middle school and the gym and the main courtyard used by all grades. next slide. and into the project site and with the surface parking lot and the main school buildings and the courtyard and the primary play area with the single series site and which will be demolish and the proposed plan and the knuckle connecting the existing school buildings and improve the existing school building and the improved main courtyard and the lower courtyard where the science building had been an elevated play area above the existing surface parking complete the project's scope. and the zones in pink and in

addition in the elevated play area and indicate the portions to encroach on the rear guard setback and is worth noting that the gym and the zero lot line and the middle school has the lot line on the front and the lot line on the rear. next slide. this diagram shows the proposed landscape for the open areas. and the main play yard and courtyard and elevated play area and the lower play area are all intended for students and you can see there is lots o f striping going on for that and to support the activities. the north court is quieter and is adjacent to the staff lounge and is a quieter environment. next slide. this diagram as mary discussed will be phased and indicates the four phase of the work. phase one and the work in the middle school and the new

addition and the main courtyard and the lower court. phase two is the lower school and the lower yard and phase three are renovations to the gym and finally stage four and is the new elevated play yard. next slide. >> let's get back to the four important reasons and the purpose for the project which is security, safety, accessible and wellness. next slide. >> this slide illustrates the existing conditions at green street and it really talks about the safety issue and security issue and paramount up to the school and the school community. you can see from the photograph that the entry to the school is actually deep into the project site so anybody can walk in all the way through that main courtyard where the kids are playing. and that is a source of concern and the other thing to see is that the middle school has a

soft story and there is a covered park and carport beneath it and with the seismic concerns. and the elevation on the bottom and shows additionally that there is a fallen wall fence at green street and it feels very solid. and so next slide. and the next slide proposed the proposed work which includes bringing the entry from the back and all the way to the front of green street and making it more visible, more prominent and it also shows that improving the fence -- >> this concludes your time at the moment. just a reminder that the commissioner may have questions later on. >> right now we need to move on to public comment on this item. thank you.

members of the public, now is your community to speak on this item if you wish to submit and through the chair you will have two minutes. >> hello. and i want to be clear i am objecting to phase four only, which is the poorly designed and unsafe above ground play structure proposed to go on top of the parking lot on pierce street. with all due respect and the project sponsor and staff, there are some factual errors in the draft motion that i saw today and significantly on page four and the point pour, more than one letter in opposition to phase four which the staff member corrected that in the oral comments. but also and more importantly

there hasn't been adequate outreach to neighbors and neither i nor several neighbors i spoke with. and any other virtual efforts to discuss phase four of the project. and before buying 2826 pierce in june, we asked the church if there were any plans to alter the pierce street parking lot which is directly adjacent to the building and we are told there were none. also it is simply not possible and will not dramaticcally impact the use of the 25 parking spaces and the construction phase four and finally there is no obvious need for the expansion and proposed by phase 4. and with the outside play area and page four and namely the proposed purpose and the

elevated play area is unsafe and placing it on the boundary of the property will both add unnecessary noise and be extremely insightly. in conclusion, please separate out phase four from any approval of this project and note some phase four is not scheduled to begin for four to five years, you are denying approval of the separate incongruent aspect would not delay the applicant's immediate project goals. >> i will keep it brief and the three or four neighbors who haven't received the input and test points from saint vincent

depaul and to wholeheartedly agree with and not given the reasons that were just said and i will not rehash them. >> last call for public comment if you wish to speak on this item. please press star 3. seeing no further requests to speak, public comment is now closed. commissioners, the item is now before you. >> i am in favor of staff's recommendation and will be supporting the project today. >> commissioner fung. and a staff for the staff or project sponsor and the elevator

play area and can the side that is adjacent to the residential and and in terms of light, air, and the visual interface. and probably won't do anything on the acoustical interface. >> the proposed area is pulled back for a portion of the property line and there is proposed steps going up to that second level and the elevated play area. and that they start from the left of the page from the west

and step back where that building ends to give a waiver to the rear yard. up until 1994, there was a three-story convent in this location as the property line. so the surface parking lot has not been there indefinitely. >> can you repeat that? there was an existing building previously to the property line? and in 1948 from green street to that site and there are pictures in the historic book about the complex. what year was it removeed? >> it was removed in 1994.

>> commissioner diamond. >> and within the five-year approval to have adequate time. >> commissioner diamond, we cannot hear you. >> is this any better? the five-year time frame makes sense to accommodate the fundraising to not interfere with classroom instruction and i am just wondering under the

performance conditions the first one under validity says five years and the second for expiration and renewal is a three-year period. was it your intent to change the second one to five years as well, too? >> yes. as my intent to change that. thank you very much for bringing that up. >> i am also in support of the project and the play area is just fine from my perspective. and the way to have a parking lot and to be able to have the ability to have children play on top of it.

further discussion and a motion to discuss and seconded and the modification and three years and shall be changed to five years and the performance condition of approval. on that motion, commissioner diamond -- >> commissioner fung? >> commissioner imperial? >> commissioner tanner?

>> happy that four square is still a child playground staple and will be saying aye. this will take us on to the next item. at 660 third street and request for office and a variance request from the zoning administrator. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes, hello. can you hear me okay? >> can you hear me? >> thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners. alex west, department staff. and the item before you is a small cap office allocation pursuant to planning code section 321 and 322 for a property located at 660 third street which is a contributor within the article 10 south and landmark district in the central soma special use direct and 65 district. and the office allocation would legalize 36,699 square feet of office space within a four-story former industrial building as stated on the plans. this will including and with the square feet on the second floor and the with the 40,000 square

speet and the project does not propose automobile spaces and with 24 slasz one and five class two with the active close and planning code 145.1 and office uses are not consider active use to 249.78. and the department staff has received one public inkwirly and neither in support or opposition to the project. we want to mention that staff have discovered some low area discrepancies in the proposal because it is important for the planning commission's actions and office at allocations to be specific regarding the total area allocationed and staff feel this item should be continued

two weeks to allow the issues to be address and # to the planning commission. however, we would like to ask if they would like to move forward with an option to continue afterwards. and our zoning administrator is here as well as myself to answer any questions on that. >> commissioner tanner, >> i am open to the staff recommendation to continue and clarify that nothing else would be expected to change and making sure that the documentation regarding the square footage is accurate and remain the same?

>> the basement level is not addressed on the plan and what the proposal is to that and what is used the same and is hard to say that for sure, but that is another issue to be addressed in some way. that along with number discrepancies and based on the current planned proposal that is in front of us will be clean arenaed better instead of addressing those issues on the fly to present it to you in a

more accurate manner as well. >> to continue it and agree that every square inch of this building considering the history of violations be understood and what is currently used for and when it is proposed to be used for in the future to that we would hope no future violations could occur at this site. certainly that is pending the actions of the owner of the building. commissioners, that would be my preference and would want to to hear from others. >> i would recommend the continuance by juggling between those elements and with the

entirety and this wasn't funded with the commission and that the support continues and give us the full background fact to what is available and suggest that we should live with this project. >> how much time do you need for all the facts? >> the reason i was thinking two weeks is that it is reasonable to consider within the next week some of the issues could be addressed. if that is the case, we could provide updated information to you a week from now so you have that available for you a week ahead of the hearing two weeks

out. and two weeks was the original goal. >> it looks like two weeks from today. and october 28 is currently closed and it does have the dwelling unit and going that day and a couple of longer items and is up to the commission if they want to place it two weeks on october 28 or november 4. >> president koppel, do you have any preferences? >> the first inkling is to go with the fourth and still interested in what everyone else thinks. >> commissioner fung? >> the issues that have been

brought forth by staff are not at a level to impact the review and decision on this particular case. >> and this project and this facility has also gone through a lot of process. and it's time to cut that process off. >> commissioner diamond. >> explain what the nature of the issue is that you are asking for additional time and more details please. >> hard to hear you. >> could staff explain in more detail what the nature of the discrepancy is that you want to s time to address. and the original allocation for the property is in 2014 and the top two floor of a specific

amount and with the different plans submitted for this project and compare the plans and some of the common areas on the upper floors are not counted and the proposal to be required as part of the number proposed is a bit low. to the point and won't change the nature of the proposal. it is the office allocation for the specific amount of square footage. and the other issue is the basement level which was shown

on the plan in 2014 and not shown now and with the existing use and the proposed use would be for the basement level and when the remaining four floors will be proposed and moving forward. >> did you just get new information from the staff report that is causing the concern? >> i don't believe there is any new situation. that is just part of more recent review of the materials today. so if we went forward and with the certain number is wrong and how do we address that? >> and to avoid them to to from

the planning commission to address that. we do want to make sure that we are doing what we can to make sure the one action is the single action and whether or not it is continued with the possibility that it is in the not noticed and still pretty late in the game. so there is a little bit of conversation and making sure this is open and i don't want to speak for them if they are here and to ask them if they have any preference on continuances.

and they are here so i can unmute them now. and try to provide an answer. if it is okay with the other commissioners. >> i am so sorry. i don't know what is going on. if they are available, i would like to hear about this decision. >> your line is unmuted. >> this is first hearing i have done remote. can you hear me? >> yes. we learned a tbt request for the continuance 10 minutes ago, three or four minutes before the hearing was to start. i texted our client, one of them is out of town and the other is available. he texted back and he is

watching. he texted back that the continuance is acceptable as the papers reflect, we have been trying to inform the records and the planning department records and the proper use of the building which is the case since 1980 for several years and when we started and another couple of weeks and if staff wants the time to work and get measurements, that is okay with us. and the plan with the department and when we filed this application in 2019. however, we would rather get it right and not do two hearings, although i guess this counts as two hearings suns we're here. that is our response. we are okay with the continuance to november 4. >> thank you.

>> i am also in favor of a continuance until november 4. >> commissioner imperial? >> i move to continue this item to november 4. >> second. >> commissioner fung? and i will withdraw the earlier comments. >> thank you. i do believe we should open the matter of continuance to public comment very quickly. members of the public, if you wish to speak on the matter of continuance for this project, please do so by pressing star three to get into the queue.

>> seeing no further public comment, and on the motion to continue this item to november 4, commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commission president koppel? >> aye. >> very good. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and will go to the next item. >> laura, i will continue the associated variance to november 4 as well. thank you. >> great. thank you. and now for item case number 2020-001610shdcua at 3832 18th street. this is a request for adoption of shadow findings and request

for conditional use authorization. on july 15, 2021 after hearing public comment and the hearing this, item was continued to today. staff, are you prepared to make the presentation? >> i am. >> thank you. >> the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization and to allow that building and standards pursuant to the state density law. pursuant to planning code section 295 and the item was

heard and with the design of the proposal and including the removal of the floor to reduce the height of the building. as a quick refresher, the project site is mid block of 18th street and that project site is developed with a 1200 single family dwelling. the proposal for the existing family home and the construction of the six story and 19 group housing units provided as condominiums and the communal space and biking spaces and two class two bicycle parking spaces and three of the units prosided at site below ownership. and the project sponsor has nod made substantial design changes to the proposed project.

and the plan dated october 4 with the building the same in height, total square footage and unit count as presented to the commission on july 15 and minor changes with the combination convection and oven and micro waves. and sponsor provided an updated inclusionary housing confidence that the group housing units would have a tenancy of condominiums for ownership and loans for condominiums with limited kitchen facilities. in fulfilling the intent to request the design for the masking, the department prepared the alternative scheme that demonstrates how this could be accomplished without decreasing the sielt and the sketch of the housing units and the changes include the removal of the six-floor penthouse, stairs,

elevator, roof decks and relocation of the university to the rear of the ground floor. the ground floor level units will be the same size of an up the cal floor units above. additional decrease in height through a lowering and the reduction in height of the roof parapets and include eliminating the recessed entrance of the ground floor to recapture square footage of the ground floor at the front and parking reduced to the minimum required by planning code and relocated to the entrance and the trash room and the common amenity and to accommodate the rear ground floor units. force the location and footprint of the proposed building are the same and the project would seek the same waivers a tz sponsor design which includes site, rear yard and dwelling unit spacing onto the rear yard. overall eliminating the partial

sixth floor with the attendant stair, elevator and roof deck will decrease the cost and the building code issues and not review and respond and staff leaves any building code deficiencies that may exist in the plan or readily addressable through the define refinement. prior to to and at the july hearing and the substantial and written oral comments and the project and support with the residential youth type. and the sponsor has reached out to the neighbors to discuss revision. and the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the policies and general plan and the housing group rooms with the housing

severe crisis and provide housing within that transit neighborhood and three below market rate units and the project to be necessary, desirable and the surrounding neighborhood guy. and this concludes the presentation and i am available for any questions. >> and the previous sponsor presentation and you will have 3 minutes through the chair. are you able to present?

let's see if the person who has the hand raised. here we go. is this you? >> yes. this is. thank you, miss lynch. good afternoon, commissioners. mark wilper, on behalf of the property owner and project sponsor. we do not have an agreement with neighbors. and consistent with the neighbor feedback at the first hearing and cannot volunteer and will not impede the construction of new housing. consistent with the first hearing and the full commission

and with the wide range of unit and cooking option. and between 350,000 and between 400,000 which is an extremely low entry point for condos in san francisco. they would be affordable by design homes. first republic bank does loans on condos with small kitchens and the project looks like an exciting opportunity. the project sponsor an experienced developer has a condo project at 570 jessie street including studio condos and 901 bush street with many under 400 square feet. finally we want to explain why the planning department's design exercise would unfortunately result in a project that meets fewer of the department and commission's priorities and impossible to get through d.b.i. if you could go to the second slide, please, that would be

great. and first the project currently meets the open space requirement and locating two units on the rear of the ground floor and private open space and deficiency and keeping it as common open space and the two rear-facing units and the project to the department's suggestion. >> and a crucial component in the ordinarily supported by the staff and the commission. and finally the building code and a.d.a. requirements will be met. the trash room, bike parking room, electrical room, mailboxes and rear hallway would need to be increased. >> i will interrupt you quickly. i don't see that the slides are presenting. i want to just -- we are not

seeing them on our end. >> it is okay. it's just the one single slide. and if the commissioners have any questions, i am happy to walk through it. >> thank you. >> i will restart the time. >> thanks. >> no problem. i am wrapping up. >> as i was mentioning, the trash room, bike parking room, electrical room, and mailboxes and rear hallway need to be increase and errc and elevator control rooms will need to be added. these will decrease the available ground floor area for housing units. no significant and unavoidable health and safety impacts to justify this design change. we ask you not to redesign the project to threaten the quality of three units and potentially require one or many of the units to be eliminate theed. the h.o.a. prohibits conditions that result in lower density. the project would provide 19 livable, well design and in an

inappropriate inphilocation with building features that enhance the quality of the units. thank you for your time. if you wish to speak on this item, do so by pressing star 3. once the line is unmuted and to begin speaking. through the chair, you will have 1 minute. you may begin. >> i live at 3838 18th street directly to the west of the project. i have to say i am a little bit frustrated. i attended the first meeting and it's clear to me that really none of the changes that were actually suggested by the planning commission have been

taken to heart. and mostly i would like to note that actually there is really inadequate community outreach. we didn't hear anything from the developers up until recently. and there's been really -- it's hard for me to imagine that this -- to look at the project and see t i as anything other than a perversion of the state density bonus. and 16 units will be to sale to the highest bidder. and the units barely have kitchens and they are in lain with the dormitories that we have seen and seen projects like this at 2100 market being bought out by companies and used for corporate rentals. this thing that i want to impress is for the last 20 years i have livered directly next door to the folks at 3850 in public housing and they are the most delightful neighbors. that is the key term here. i want to know who is in the community and understand that this isn't just naked profit tiering here.

>> that concludes your time. >> thank you so much. >> and i can't believe the planning commission would even consider approving this project. you dpot a message from the board of supervisors on group housing when they overturned you unanimously 450 o'hare. they spent time dealing with group housing as a charade. they are dealing with change to plans, and the past couple of days. and the building code issues and who is expeernsed developer? who is this experienced developer? coming to the commission in three weeks on a project on another area which is fraudulently converted to more housing than was approved by the

city. what this is potentially is str or corporate places. you have had housing element hearing today. not a hearing, a discussion. >> thank you. that is your time. that concludes your time. thank you, ma'am, very much. >> and thank you, commissioners and the neighborhood and right to the east and 35 neighbors who wrote and the claim to reach out to the neighbors and inform the settlement and reach out to three neighbors with the privacy constraints and with the conditions also agreeing to underpinning at the last moment. we don't really consider that

and the last time and upon you and may not land at some point in the future and there are concerns from the planning commission and the conditional use conditions are not being met. this is still the case. and the previous core mentioned and 454 and we kindly ask that nothing has really changed here and deny this application. >> and i am in support of the 3832 18th street. and i live on 18th street and born and raised in san francisco. and i love that the project in a

positive way. and more eyes on the streets. and there will be no parking spaces and there will be pushed to use bicycles more. and below market rate homes. and we give people a chance to come and live in the neighborhood and not just the people that may have been in the neighborhood. and to stay in the neighborhood to live in the beautiful neighborhood and the project impact fee will support child care services and in the neighborhood and throughout the city.

thank you for your time and consideration. >> i am cynthia wong and i want to speak on behalf of families with growing children. we all know there is a housing shortage but there is a significant housing shortage for families with children. in the last five years the city has approved the sro, studios and one-bedroom units two times more than any two bedroom units and 18 times more than any three-bedroom units. we know families with growing children that moved out of the city because they cannot find reasonable housing for them. and we want to support developments that support families with children. and we can build the same amount of the units and the development if they can just explore adults and children and families instead of single tech dorms. thank you.

>> and tilting it at windmills here. but here it goes. and i live across the street from 3832 18th street. i oppose this project as proposed. when my friend mary who lived at 3832 her whole life passed away, i knew there would be changes. her trustee told us the real estate agent sold it to a nice family. i have lived in san francisco for 67 years, and though i hope for a bump up or extended back on a charming victorian in an historic designated district, i had a feeling this family had a bulldozer. i could imagine a family friendly, four, five story, four to eight unit building, not a 6 1/2 story, 50% over current zoning, 19-unit sore thumb.

also, the rendering in the proposal shows the five-story building. and also in the general plan policy -- >> thank you. that conclude your time. >> thank you. >> hello. i live across the street at 3827 where i have lived for 33 years. i want to register opposition to the proposed project at 3832 only because it is too big, too tall, and at six plus floors, it is out of character with the existing buildings on the block. we have been saddled with the state density bonus mandate that has tied the hand of all local input or local representation. all the while a developer will make a pretty profit and provide a kind of dormitory that meets

the needs of the small set of residents. no place for families, couples and multigenerational household. please deny this project. thank you. >> hello. my name is elizabeth and i live on 18th street as well. and i want to reiterate that all of the neighbors who are opposing this project are not opposed to multiple units at this site, and we have mentioned that in prooefrs you hearings. i would like to say that -- we have mentioned that in previous hearings. i would like to say, as others have, that these units are not going to go to low income or even average income san francisco residents. if they are sold at market price

previously 500,000 at below market price. and they are not going to be able to use just a microwave. they need to be able to cook and this was just a minimum show of effort by the developer. we don't need anymore illegal or legal air bnb or tech housing. what we need is housing for families. and so i would vote for reducing the number of units to make long-term housing for san francisco residents. >> thank you for your time. >> hello. i disagree strongly with the planning commission's continuance to july 2021 and urge you to approve the development today. i foundses commissioners deliberations to be disappointing and very shallow

and requires you prioritize the creation of the housing and follows the density code unless there is a specific adverse health and safety impact. people might live here for a specific job and appeasing the neighbors height concerns is not a specific adverse health and safety impact. and 0.01% and the specific adverse health and is serious and to follow the city and state policies. >> hello. and there is no outreach to neighbors as you heard from