okay. yes, i see you. we're moving you back to the panelist position. >> there you go. i'm back. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. thank you, miss rosenberg, and thank you, board members. so let's touch on a couple of issues here. so first, the legal standard. there is, in fact, you know, decades worth of the word significant. we are not discussing this word in a vacuum. just like any administrative regulation, not always, you know, published on-line, not always easy to find, but certainly is a standard for administrative regulations. we do have a precedent, you know, to the degree that it's not apples to apples, but it is a precedent, removing 13% of

the project, not impacting it above grade but below grade. putting a policy decision on the zoning administrator would make these decisions very challenging. we haven't engaged in that on this case, but just think about this. we have a public benefit zoning project which provides three major public benefits. i think we're over $100 a square foot in impact fees. even this decision, if we were to put it before the zoning administrator, is not an easy decision as to what is more significant. and maybe it does make sense that the board of supervisors should pass more specific guidelines in the planning code, but we are where we are today. to speak to the issue of alexandria's intent in this process, we entitled a project with the private tennis

facility. it was at significant cost. the structural requirements were such that we needed to modify the size of the largest tower on this site in order to provide the structural support and the space separation for these tennis clubs. alexandria spent a year seeking a site permit for the tennis club, and only after we hit the pandemic, only after the anchor tenant lost, was this process followed. the fact is -- and i understand the tennis community here, their passion for this, but the fact of the matter is their private agreement that they negotiated and voluntarily agreed to expressly recognized this potential scenario, for this to happen, so this is something that they negotiated and is in the agreement that they negotiated. last thing, again, back to the community, i totally understand

the passionate views of this tennis community. i just think that if we're going to consider that, we need to also consider the ten years of work that went into the central soma plan, the thousands of people in the south of market involved in that, and the -- thank you. i'm here for questions. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: yeah, so mr. kevlin. i told you i'd ask the same question after rebuttal. so 11%, has there been a project that's been 11% removal other than a parking garage? >> and let me be clear, president honda, the project is not removing 11%. >> president honda: what percentage would you say is removing that tennis court? >> i don't know, but there is another floor in this project, so it's not a net loss of floor

area, so we still have two below grade basements. >> president honda: okay. and then, imagine if this -- if the l.o.d. is approved, what are you doing with that space? >> it's building support for the project, the million square foot project with six different uses in it, so there's quite a bit of need of building support. >> president honda: so you would not be using that for leasing support, so if we put that in perpetuity, that would be no problem. >> no, there's no use for this space other than support for above. this project has p.t.r., child care, retail, so there's a lot going on. >> president honda: so a member of the public presented a thing

that this company's stocks have gone up, so covid did this company good, didn't it? >> i'm not really qualified to speak to that. >> president honda: if it's a million square foot project, the area that we're talking about is, give or take, 100,000 square feet? >> yeah. >> president honda: okay. thank you. thank you, mr. kevlin. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from mr. teague, the planning department, and public comment is closed. >> hello, again, commissioners. corey teague, zoning administrator. i'll be pretty brief. i do just want to touch on the fact that, again, this was a unique situation. i don't think we're going to find any apples to apples situations here, and this was not an easy determination. it was definitely a bit of a line call, kind of no pun

intended. i think part of the challenge is the fact that everyone wants to interpret significant in their own way, and the question is, significant to whom, and the planning commission motion does not really provide a lot of guidance there. it's just whether or not the modification itself is significant, and it's revieweds as significant in terms of the representation of the overall project, so if significant changes need to be brought back to the planning commission to consider, then the consideration is really from the planning commission's perspective, a modification that would be deemed significant by the commission. so that's why in this case, we didn't review this based on alexandria's perspective, we didn't review this based on the club members' perspective because they would have their own perspective.

it was an objective technical review of the removal of this component relative to the overall project context, and the specific informtion and kind of criteria and information that was provided in the presentation. my review was very much intended to be an objective review as more of a technical call, but again, you know, i understand the views of people on both sides, and i'm definitely available for any other questions that any of the board members may have. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: of course it would be me. so since john kevlin, counsel

for the project owner, was unable to say whether or not 11% was significant, can we say this is a one-off? >> i think the challenge there is it is really difficult to pin down the total universe of precedent in these situations because most of these determinations are done by a review of a revision permit, and obviously, if a revision is approved without requiring to go back to the planning commission, then the approval of that permit is the determination itself, so for many of these cases, there aren't kind of clear written records of that. in this case, there will be because obviously there is the specific letter of determination and the appeal, but we don't have, like, a database of these decisions to draw from, obviously, there are cases that i know just from my own experience and research.

same thing from mr. kevlin, so it's not really easy to say that this is a one-off, so to speak. again, as we mentioned, this is relatively unique. you don't see projects reducing components too much, and when you do, you see small amounts, and it tends to be parking and below grade parking. >> president honda: i respect your opinion. you've been my zoning administrator for several years and my deputy zoning administrator for several years before that. many of the people in the public have mentioned that this is the only indoor public facility. is that correct? >> is that a question? >> president honda: yeah, that's a question. >> i mean, i can't 100% confirm

that. i'm also a tennis player here in the city, and i'm not aware of any other -- >> president honda: the question would be, if it is -- if it is the only -- and i'm not a tennis player here, and the last time i played tennis i was in junior high, and pancho gonzales was my tennis coach. if that is true, wouldn't that be significant? many years back, when the giants facility was being proposed, you know funny how certain sports entities around, they didn't want a hockey rink, they didn't want a facility to house hockey. having the only indoor

tennis -- what i've heard -- and again, i'm not a tennis player, tennis courts are being challenged because pickle ball is a competing sport, so wouldn't the only indoor facility be somewhat significant? >> again, i want to be really clear. my call on this was not a value judgment on the tennis club itself, right? whether or not it's a -- it's good policy or a good facility to have. for whatever reason, the planning commission did not apply the replacement of the tennis club. if they thought it rose to a level of that significance, they can make that a condition of approval. now making that a condition of approval doesn't mean it couldn't be considered a

significant modification, but it was definitely part of the consideration in this case, so that's not really the perspective that i was looking at, in terms of is this particular, you know, business itself or facility significant in the larger context, it was looking at the project as a proposed project, and whether the modification itself was significant, so that -- >> president honda: i'm not trying to put you in the hotseat, it's just whether the zoning administrator erred or abused his authority, and what was said at the planning commission was if there's any significant changes, any minor changes, that the zoning administrator can do. so the onus that's thrust upon us is if it's a significant change, and if it is, we're at a different space. i apologize.

that finishes my questions. i believe that commissioner lopez has a question. >> commissioner lopez: yeah, thank you. mr. teague, i just want to make sure that i'm hearing correctly. it sounds like because these prior decisions haven't always been carried out through an l.o.d., it sounds like we don't have, you know, a ton of kind of, you know, clear precedent or standards in this area. if i heard you correctly, it kind of seemed like you were, you know, just relying more on, you know, the little bit of, you know, your experience and maybe some of the prior decisions that weren't encapsulated in an l.o.d., am i right? >> not really. we've been entitling projects in san francisco for decades, so we have hundreds and

hundreds of projects. so almost all projects change between the time of concept and permitting, so this kind of thing is happening all the time. there's no kind of formal database of these decisions. there are some that are more well known, right, because they were either more challenging decisions, more, you know, larger changes, much more of a line call. is it significant? is it not significant, and i could provide some examples of those. i'm sure mr. kevlin could, as well. part of the challenge is that this is a somewhat unique proposal, again, removing this much of a basement level of a project and it not be parking. again, most of what we see typically in these situations is a building design that wanted to change. maybe some of the materials, the architectural style's going

to change, or they're proposing to shift some of the massing or maybe add a little bit of a mass, and again, the same situation, like when they're proposing fairly significant changes, you have to look at the written record to see how much value did the planning commission place on the design? sometimes the design was very meticulously required to be what it was, and that change was deemed to be significant on the record, so it's very much case-by-case. mr. kevlin referenced that we have these kind of standards, rules of thumb, and as commissioner honda mentioned,

there's very little guidance. the z.a. may make this determination. is this modification significant or not? this one, again, was a tough call, and it was fairly unique, and it was very much just based on the information available in the record, and primarily the motion, and also the hearing itself. >> commissioner lopez: thanks. that's helpful. and in terms of itself, you know, the variables that you weigh, the ones that jump out, it's the percentage of the footprint, the subterranean nature of the space, the fact that it's not visible from street level. like, which ones kind of weighed more heavily in your balancing kind of formula?

>> i don't think there was any one that had anymore weight. any time you make one of these decisions, you're trying to look at everything in context, so i don't think there's any contemplative way to say that one is weighted more heavily than the other. these are all areas of analysis, and in all of those areas of analysis, it kind of pointed to one side. of course, the appellants have pointed to other side of the equation, and that's why we're here today, and that's going to be for the board to determine where was it appropriate to land in that final decision, which is admittedly a challenging call. >> commissioner lopez: thanks. >> president honda: corey, i have one quick question -- go ahead, commissioner chang. i'll let you go first, since

i've occupied so much time. >> commissioner chang: thank you, president honda. i think it would be helpful to describe to us how you came to that decision and understanding that it wasn't an easy decision to make, i think that would help the public and the commissioners make our determination. >> as was explained in the -- in the letter, one part of the analysis was looking at this as what is this project? fundamentally, it's an office development, but as mr. kevlin described, it's an office development that provides a lot

of other components. whether it's the child care, the park, the community recreations center with the pool, there's a lot of other components to this project. so when looking at the motion to kind of gauge the relative importance and significance of this component, you compare it to those other extra components, right? and that's where there was contrast because those other components were called out specifically in the central soma plan, and at least one of them had to be provided to get the exceptions that were obtained by this project, and they were required as conditions of approval. you know, the flip side to that is, you know, i think it's pretty clear that the development would not include the replacement tennis club unless they came to the private agreement to do that. like, the city would not have necessarily required that to happen, at least not by -- not pursuant to the planning code

or central soma plan. there's no -- there's a component of the project, a very clear component, but that was part of that analysis. just reviewing, part of the other review, too, is the planning commission, when approving this [indiscernible]

making a lot of the findings that were necessary to approving the project, so i think -- and that was a challenge. like i said before, it was very clearly part of the project, it was a unique and -- feature of the project that kind of stands out, obviously, and there was public comment from people who supported the cause of that. there wasn't a lot of conversation at the planning commission about that component, it was a challenging call, but that's in part how i landed where i did. >> commissioner chang: thank you. that was very helpful. >> president honda: thank you. so -- >> clerk: so commissioner's, this matter's submitted.

>> president honda: no, no, i have one more question. >> clerk: i thought you had started deliberating. >> president honda: no. so the question is if we ruled that the l.o.d. was given incorrectly, what is the consequences for that, zoning administrator? >> sure. i'm glad you asked that, because i wanted to point out the question here is not whether the tennis club should be replaced or not, the question is should the planning commission make that decision? if you make that decisio that the letter of determination should be overturned, it would

go before the planning commission for a formal hearing and official determination, but it wouldn't necessarily bring the entire project open again. it would just mean on this question of whether or not the tennis club should be removed would require approval from the planning commission. >> president honda: okay. thank you for clarifying that. thank you. okay. that's it. no more questions, madam director. >> clerk: okay. this matter's submitted. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus, please step up to the plate. >> commissioner lazarus: just for consistency's sake during the meeting, so when i read through this the first time, i found the z.a.s reasoning fairly compelling, and i thought from a technical point

of view there was quite a bit of merit in how he reached his decision. but then, i started thinking it through a little bit more, and there was a few issues bothered

me. -- that bothered me. i just see this decision as potentially setting a very dangerous precedent for large projects going forward, and frankly, i see no harm in asking the planning commission to revisit this with the revision that's being proposed. >> president honda: agreed. so basically punting this back to the planning commission so they can determine what significant actually means. i see commissioner lopez' hand up. >> commissioner lopez: yeah. i won't echo everything that commissioner lazarus just said, but i was thinking about the precedent setting, in terms of tucking everything in and then the project sponsor pulling out at the last minute. that prospect, it just seems

problematic to open that door going forward. and the only other thing i'll add is my reading of the planning commission's lack of aspect on this project, in my mind, i can easily see how, if they had a decision before them, where a -- essentially, a deal had been struck, right, and a deal that had, you know, this public, you know, ballot initiative in the background and, you know, there was an alternative path, i could see how they could have just, you know, taken it as hey, this is one of the easy parts of the project that we don't have to worry about, right?

and so i think that's -- that's the part where i'd hesitate to assume that it wouldn't be deemed significant by the body where they'd reassess, you know, the change dr -- i think it's a call for them to make, and i wouldn't read into the contingent or the lack of contingent aspect of this that it wouldn't be deemed significant by them. >> president honda: thank you, commissioner lopez. commissioner chang? >> commissioner chang: thank you. i just want to acknowledge that i can absolutely see why this is a difficult decision. i think assuming out of it and taking this project in the context of central soma, and it had been raised before that central soma was a project and

planning area compromised of several projects that took years and years of negotiation with the city, with the developers, and the community, and there was an incredible emphasis on affordable housing and creating a new employment center for the city and recognizing the importance of that, and i want to support that amidst the reality of the pandemic, as well, is something that i'm thinking about, as well. and i know, mr. teague, that, you know, you were trying to make a very technical call. it's challenging to ignore that, you know, remove that from the context of where we find ourselves. the reality of that is a lot of office development does move

out affordable housing and resource commitment that the city is struggling to find, and undoubtedly, there's so much passionate testimony from all of the community, so i just want to emphasize with the tough decision that you made, given that the over -- you know, if the l.o.d. is overturned, the decision goes to the planning commission to make the call, it seems like it adds an additional burden, but given the outpouring of all of the community members who came out, it seems like that would be the fair thing. i would hope that there are other voices that are heard at

that commission hearing, as well, because i do think that a missing voice in all of this is the voice of housing advocates and just thinking about that and the central soma plan at large, so i wanted to offer those sentiments, as well. >> president honda: thank you, commissioner chang. and before someone makes a motion, i want to acknowledge all the people that sent letters, whether support or against to our body, including supervisor ahsha safai. he's the only one that sent a letter, and his was in support. so with that, keep in mind, commissioners, that this is a decision on l.o.d., so our decision would be if the zoning administrator erred and abused

or erred or abused in making his decision. so with that said, would anyone like to make a motion? you came out strong, ann. i'm looking for you. >> commissioner lopez: go for the clean sweep. >> commissioner lazarus: yeah, i guess so. i'm deferring at the next meeting. all right. i'm going to move to grant the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his determination. >> clerk: i think the deputy city attorney would like to address -- >> yes. brad russi, deputy city attorney. i think the commission should lay out why the zoning

administrator erred in his decision. obviously, it's up to you in how to frame your motion, but i would suggest motion, framing it as voting to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination based on the -- on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in his determination concerning the significance of the proposed change to the project on the specific facts and circumstances of the unique facts and circumstances of this specific case due to the prominence of the tennis center in the presentation and proposal that the planning commission considered at its meetings, and the size of the proposed change in relation to the overall size of the project. and you may also want to check

with the zoning administrator to see what arguments he may have considered on the other side of the argument. >> president honda: thank you, brad. you're amazing. >> commissioner lazarus: i'm happy to go with that. >> president honda: did you want to ask the zoning administrator if there were any factors on the other side, commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: i feel a little awkward about that, given that we're overturning his decision. >> president honda: there is no abuse, there's only error, and lucy is going to be mad for keeping her daddy up this late. >> i can quickly point out those were basically the counter points, right? it's just weighing those factors, i don't think there

was any kind of other specific factor beyond what was cited there that was kind of the counter point to make an alternative determination. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator erred for the reasons stated by deputy city attorney brad russi. >> commissioner lazarus: to be transcribed later. >> clerk: yes. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. >> president honda: i've got to say, watching laurel here be so excited as a young teenager,

watching everybody here, it's been amazing. thank you, all. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you so much. >> clerk: remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of all patience. please mute your microphone,

and sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on this agenda. comments may be provided by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2495-073-6232. dial star, three when you hear your item of interest that you want to speak to, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, you may begin your comments. you will have two minutes to provide public comment. best practices are to speak

slowly and clearly, turn down any speakers or television, and state your name for the commission. i'd like to take roll now. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. 2021-006098-cua at 1358 south van ness avenue, proposed for continuance to january 13, 2022, itemed 2-a and b,

2019-020611-cua and var at 5114 through 5116 third street, proposed for indefinite continuance. item 3, 2018-515983-var, 136 del mar street, the request for variance has been withdrawn. finally, commissioners, item 13, 2021-010715-crv at 1201

sutter street, it is proposed for continuance to your january meeting. members of the public, this is your opportunity to provide public comment by pressing star, three to speak. you have two minutes. >> hello. this is ray. i sent an e-mail in at 10:00 this morning. can everybody hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> so around 10:00 this morning, i sent an e-mail to nicholas foster, and i was an applicant at 1201 sutter that's on calendar for today. and i want permission to read the e-mail to the group. >> clerk: sir, you've got about 1.5 minutes remaining.

>> okay. >> clerk: you can speak. you have 1.5 minutes left. >> okay. so i said, hello, nicholas. regarding the planning hearing today, i would like to comment. i placed favorably in the 1201 sutter below market rate lottery. more specifically, i placed 15. there are three below market rate units available at 1201 sutter. as such, i only have to compete against five people for a unit. my chances are good. i want to state that [indiscernible] appears deceptive on some basis. they're trying to get out of their obligations and set a dangerous precedent as they're going to be able to come into the city and pull bait and switch-like tactics. >> clerk: sir, i'm going to pause your time right there

because we're only taking comments on the matter of continuance, not on the matter of the project. >> yes, sir. so why does it need to be continued? why are we continuing? >> clerk: we received a last-minute request from the project sponsor. >> okay. and is that permissible, for them to submit a last-minute request and bait and switch again? what are the rules here? it's my first time. >> clerk: well, we received a request from the project sponsor, so we are bringing it to the commission in order for them to consider the continuance. >> okay. well, i hope they deny it. thank you. >> hello. this is margaret. similarly, i oppose continuance

on item 13 on the calendar, which is 1201 sutter street. i am prepared to share my public comments. i just am concerned, if you choose to grant the request by the project sponsor to continue to january 22, that myself and others, including the gentleman that just preceded me in public comment, may not have a chance to public if it's not properly publicized. for example, i just got this a week ago, and i still have not been able to find any of the background materials of what was the submission by the project sponsor about their reason for requesting approval to change their means of compliance with the inclusionary affordable housing program section 115. i am a resident of district 3,

and i am in the neighborhood resident housing preference, up to three units available, ranked very, very rare, and this is rare that this had studios. it only had studios in the san francisco housing lottery portal, and that it had a district 3 housing preference. that is also rare. i'll pause there, and i look forward to hearing whether you're going to continue the hearing or not so that people like me now whether to stay on the line or not. >> i'm calling regarding item 1, 1358 south van ness. i support a continuance. i'm a neighbor of the proposed

project. i did not get the full 21 days' notice. there's a lot of material to review. people are busy and have jobs. the planning code is massive, and i did submit documents today with planner christiansen and still have questions and would like to submit further documents, so i support the continuance. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. last call for public comment on items proposed to be continued. you need to press star, three. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public,

commissioners, public comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yeah. could staff provide any reasoning why the 1201 sutter street was proposed for continuance? >> yeah. nick foster here, planning department staff. commissioner, that's a good question for the sponsor. to be honest, staff does not support the continuance because we have a fully constructed building ready for occupants. >> commissioner diamond: is the sponsor available to answer why they want a continuance? >> jonas, is the sponsor attorney on the line?

>> clerk: yeah, i'm not sure if they are. mr. zablat, are you on the line? >> yes. [indiscernible] generally, i can speak to the matter that you just inquired about, 1201 sutter. their position is they're trying to figure out the financial path forward. it is a real struggle forward financially with the project and are trying to determine which route is financially feasible. at this point, all i can say is i know it's financially oriented, and they're asking to continue it because they're not prepared to commit to the fee route at this moment.

>> commissioner diamond: staff, could you explain why you are not supportive of the request? >> that's a good question. staff's analysis of the situation, which is unusual and unorthodox in a number of ways, we believe it's best for the sponsor to have a number of options, to stick with the original plan, and by continuing this item to a january date just pushes the item out without a resolution, and we're seeking resolution. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'm very torn about this particular issue because we never had a

change where units are being assigned for affordable unit occupancy. and in principle, i think a developer can choose which way to go, but i think affordable housing in the city is incredibly important to all of us, and i do not know if we have the legal right to deny, and i think that is a question

that should be at least a few plans should be given to the commission before we rule on this project. some of us might find ourselves shorthanded in this project that represented to the community they would provide eight affordable units. i would like to have that ahead of time, and that would also influence my position on continuance to see that the developer finds further ways of resolving that issue. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i will support the staff recommendation today to hear it. it sounds like, to me, we have more questions, and whether the city attorney's input need to

also listen to our questions, and we can decide whether in that hearing to continue it, but it sounds like in that hearing we can have at least conversations on this today, especially that there is a short minute on the public notice that this is a continuance, so i would support the planner's motion to hear it today. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: i would also support that idea to hear it -- hear the sutter project today, and i also had a comment for 1358 van ness. we received a letter from one of the tenants asking to be informed on any of the action, and i wonder if staff could reach out and provide more information about the project?

>> clerk: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i would move to approve the continuance of all items except the sutter street item. i think we should start that item today. i have many questions, like commissioner moore, and i would like the opportunity to engage in conversation with city attorney and staff about what options are available to us. >> vice president moore: i second that motion. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve all requests for continuance except for the sutter street project. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will continue indefinitely the variance case, item 2-b.

>> clerk: commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar, and this matter listed hereunder constitutes your consent calendar and is considered to be routine by the planning commission. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the public or commission so requests. item 4, case number 2021-009720-cua, at 556 hayes street, a conditional use authorization. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request this item be removed from the consent agenda and be considered at the end of today's agenda by pressing star, three. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, public comment for your consent calendar item is closed, and it is now before you.

>> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: move to approve items as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on that motion to approve items on the consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and will place us under commission matters for item 5, consideration of adoption of your 2022 hearing schedule. it is that time of the year again, commissioners, where we are almost done with 2021 and need to adopt your 2022 hearing schedule. your packets included a draft

hearing schedule, and i will try to share my screen. >> vice president moore: mine didn't, and i'm just seeing it for the first time, i admit. >> clerk: well, hopefully, you can see the draft hearing schedule here -- you are able to see this, yes? >> vice president moore: yes. >> clerk: the only changes are the fifth thursdays. we have one in march, again in june, and september, and then, we also have your summer hiatus for the first three weeks in august, the thanksgiving holiday on november 24, the christmas holiday for your december 22 hearing, and the new year's holiday for the december 29 hearing. there weren't many other

holidays that actually landed on a thursday. chinese new year's is on february 1. your hearing is on february 3. that might be a little bit too soon after the new year holiday to have a break. st. patrick's day falls on march 17, a thursday, and in march, you do have the fifth thursday that you cancelled generally. you could consider replacing the -- or reinstating the march 31 hearing, so the timing may be good. also, cinco de mayo falls on a thursday, you may want to

consider. april fools falls on a thursday. rosh hashana falls on a monday, and yom kippur falls on a wednesday, so i'll just leave it at that, commissioners. the only suggestion i would have would be potentially replacing the march 31 with cancelling march 17. you generally cancel ten to 11 hearings a year, and as proposed, you have nine cancellations. you could keep a couple in your back pocket if you so chose. commissioners, before you begin deliberations, we should probably take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on its 2022 hearing schedule by pressing star, three. seeing no requests to speak,

commissioners, public comment on your 2022 hearing schedule is closed, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i think it is a good idea, partially because of how the holidays occur, to switch out the march -- the middle of march with st. patrick's day and then jump in on the 31 as a regular meeting. that would be a good idea, i think. >> president koppel: i would support that, as well. >> clerk: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i also think this is a good idea, and this will just be my second full year on the commission, so the second time of looking at this calendar, and thank you, jonas, for explaining the ten to 12 cancellations. i don't know what our practice has been beyond just that

number. it does seem like the second half of the year is more sparse, and maybe there's some holidays that people try to takeoff, but the only one that's close to our august hiatus is the fourth of july, on that monday. i think the june meeting is cancelled, so maybe that kind of takes care of the fourth of july weekend, maybe a couple of breaks, so those are more

things to think about, for the cinco de mayo in the first six months. >> clerk: commissioner tanner, your first hearing on may is on a thursday. you could bump that to give people a break on the july 4 week. it's just one week removed from the fifth thursday in june. especially if you do add the cinco de mayo holiday. >> president koppel: i'm with you, jonas, and also, i think we'd have less requested days off if we took some of these

proposals into consideration. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i would support the request, switching june 30 to july 17, but i think we should take another break in the april to june time frame and then potentially also one in october. i think those are long stretches to go without a break, and given the heavy schedules, it would be good to plan it now. >> president koppel: i agree. commissioner moore? i was just going to say it would be good to consider moving our meetings around in the thursdays before the holidays. i think it's a good idea.

>> clerk: commissioner diamond, i would just point out that september 29 is a cancelled hearing because it's the fifth thursday in september. if you want, you can move that into october, but that is close to your summer holiday. >> commissioner diamond: right. i was just thinking about continuing holidays, and when it makes the most sense. i think the first thursday in november, or maybe even better, the last thursday in october. maybe the last thursday in october would already make sense because we already have a thanksgiving break on the last thursday of november.

>> president koppel: i'm sorry, commissioner moore. did you have anything else? >> vice president moore: no. >> president koppel: i think i know where we're headed, but we'll go to the next step. commissioner tanner? >> clerk: commissioner tanner, you're muted. >> commissioner tanner: i think the motion would be to cancel the march 17 meeting -- let me just say this so people are more clear. i heard cancel march 17 but hold march 31. i would say cancel may 7 but reinstate june 30, did i hear that right? and then, the last note was

responding to commissioner diamond's suggestion, possibly cancelling october 27, as well. did i miss anything to reinstate? >> clerk: well, that's what i was going to ask, cancelling the october 27 meeting for the halloween holiday, would we propose reinstating the september 29 hearing? >> commissioner tanner: i don't think i would do that. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there's no further discussion, there's a motion to adopt your 2022

schedule with the following amendments: cancelling the st. patrick's day meeting but reinstating the march 31. cancelling cinco de mayo but reinstating june 7, and then cancelling the october 27 meeting for the halloween holiday. all other dates would remain. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and as always, commissioners, you can also move during the year to

reinstate any of these dates if something came up. thank you for that procedural matter, commissioners, and that would place us on item 6 for commissioner comments and questions. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so we've been reading about the [indiscernible] so i wonder if you could tell us where the planning commission stands and the role in this discussion? >> director hillis: sure. and i was going to mention this in my discussion but happy to talk about it now. you're correct. there's been some recent media coverage that's been reported. it was a program implemented

quickly and i just wanted to recognize the incredible work that our team, led by robin abad did, as well as other agencies. now that we shift into a more permanent phase in the program, you require meeting places to meet certain requirements. our goal is to make that process transparent and easy on small business owners. [please stand by]

reviewed and approved that project in july, 2019.

it was a large project. authorization for a large office development on a key site in central soma. it also includes numerous other components, including several community benefits that were called out in the central soma plan, including a linear park. a land dedication for affordable housing. and a community recreation center with two pools as well as a child care center. if you recall, it did also include the replacement of the sf tennis club facility within basement levels of that project. subsequent to those approvals, it was well reported that -- flowed out from that. subsequent to that, there was also reporting that the

developer, alexandria, were going to use the provision in the private agreement that they had signed with the san franciscans for sports and recreation regarding replacement of the tennis facility to remove the tennis facility from the project and present a payment to that organization in lieu. the question arose as to whether or not that change to the project was a significant modification that would require new large project authorization approval from the planning commission. and that was the request for determination from that organization. i issued that determination earlier this year finding that it was not a significant modification that required the planning commission to plan a new private authorization, but that it was substantial enough that we would require an informational presentation to the planning commission prior to

those permits to revise the project. there were i believe more than 100 supporters of the tennis facility online. i'm not sure how many of them actually spoke. but it was substantial. the board members all kind of acknowledged it was a challenging decision and somewhat unique and unusual in terms of the type of changes we see. but ultimately, they did vote unanimously to overturn that determination and they ruled that in order to remove the tenant facility from the -- tennis facility from the project, it would require authorization from the planning commission and i'm available for any questions you may have about that case.

i do see commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask mr. teague to give us one more reasons about the reasoning that the board of appeals held that way. i considered a change, a reduction in security. it does provide any other

guidance, significant modification. there is no guidance in the planning code on that either. so it is a somewhat subjective determination. but we do use common metrics in reviewing the situation, because it's common that projects change between entitlement and permitting although it's usually minor. my determination, i looked at the specific findings made in the condition -- or motion of approval and that the other kind of community benefits were conditioned in the motion and the tennis club replacement was not conditioned in the motion. and the fact that the tennis facility was completely below grade at the basement level, so it would have no kind of exterior impact to the project and because of the layout removing it would not have impact to the uses or benefits in the project. the board of appeals felt like

the overall area that it represented, which was a little more than 11% of the total area of the project was high. and also felt that the nature in which the replacement had been presented as a key component of the project when it was presented to the planning commission, so the way it was represented, and also the significance of the facility itself, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that even though it is operated as a private, it's still open to anyone to join for a membership and they do a lot of other kind of programs. and it is the only indoor -- or was the only indoor tennis facility in the city, so there was conversation about that being a worthy consideration for how significant this replacement facility was to the project overall. >> commissioner moore: thank you. that was extremely helpful for

me to get a broader perspective. thank you so much. >> thank you, if there is nothing further, we can go to general public comment. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the public for two minutes. and when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> caller: i was just calling in to comment on the teleconferencing process in

general. i thought that was an item at the beginning of these meet but i might of missed it. >> secretary: we take that matter up once a month right now. >> caller: okay. so would it be appropriate to comment now or next month? >> secretary: this is general public comment as i previously stateded. remote hearings is not on today's agenda so you can go ahead and comment. >> caller: okay. thanks for that. so we were up last week. we had the 4-3 vote. it was so slow. we were disapproved. it was devastating to our family and ability to stay in the city. but i did want to give feedback on the video conferencing and specifically the video part of the video conferencing. you know, i just believe that if we were in person, it could have been different, you know, if you can see and hear us and the people who were calling in, i believe it would have made a difference in a close call like

this. you know, webex it is and was and, you know, we presumed that we'd be seen and heard virtually, but as it turns out, we were heard, but not seen. again, i just wanted to bring this up for others. you know, i was in the presentation, we were in the q &a and i asked can anybody see us and the answer was no, we can't see you, but we can hear you. i assumeded we were on camera the whole time and our reactions were being gaged. that's a close matter that's emotional to us. and also, we couldn't see you either. without rare exception, we were presenting to a screen of black boxes with xs in them. and i think, you know, we

should make sure that our videos are on for the speakers. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. sir, that is your time. okay. last call for public comment for items not on today's agenda. general public comment is closed. for item nine, case number 2020-008417cwp, recovery strategies, economic recovery update. informational presentation. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am, jonas. i'm throwing my case out to who i believe is in the list. >> secretary: yes. we've moved her over to the

panelist side. >> okay. thank you commissioners for the opportunity to present to you today. big thank you to the relatively new director, the office of economic and workforce development. although i think not new to many of you, she was the executive director made and appeared before the commission a number of times in which the mayor, the board of supervisors, kate, and her team have been in front of the board of supervisors. we've been working closely with o.e.w.d. and other city agencies notably, are the mayor's office of housing and community development as well as community partners on how our work could and should shift in response to the pandemic to promote inequitable recovery. we've been focused on policies and investments that can strengthen the equity and

vitality and resilience of our economy. we've put a strong focus on other communities of color who've been impacted most by the pandemic. in the past presentations on recovery, we've focused on housing and housing instability. today, we will primarily focus on office in retail sectors and especially our downtown core, but as well as in our neighborhood and commercial corridors. next slide, please, james. i'm not seeing it transition. okay. go a couple more. i think slide four i'm on. so i just wanted to there's much more data in information in your packet as well as the controller has been putting out regular reports on re-opening

the last one was issued in november and go into additional detail. but some of the highlights. our pace of our recovery has been increasing as we've seen increased vaccination rates. he'd slow somewhat as a result of the spread of delta and we're not clear on the impacts of what the new variant will be. our hospitality sectors have been most impacted by the pandemic's job losses, but have also been adding most of the jobs in the past month. currently, hotel occupancy rates have been about 50% occupancy below the 80%. we saw pre-pandemic, but significantly improved from the sub 20% rates we saw during the spring of last year. point in time remote work is allowed office space employees to keep working.

on the job front, unemployment in san francisco is currently at 3.9%. you're on the right slide here. far below, it's been a high of 12% and expanded unemployment, stimulus payments, rent relief and other aid have provided workers with temporary stability. for decades, as you know, unchanged during the pandemic, san francisco's economy has increasingly become poll areized between higher wage and lower wage workers. this chart shows 71% of the workers earning less than $50,000 for people of color. these jobs, we saw typically affected and it's also been the essential workers and restaurant hospitality, education health and retail. next slide, please. on the retail front because of

the dramatic loss of visitors and office workers retail and the city center has been more significantly impacted than in other parts of the city and the pandemic shifted, accelerated the shift to online shopping. we looked here at saleses tax receipts for retail activity. in retail sales were significantly lower than pre-pandemic levels down 25% from quarter two 2021 from quarter two 2019 to quarter two 2021. and this shows a significant increase in district three and district six which include downtown union square, fisherman's wharf. 33%. so, with that i'll hand it over

to director hillis. >> good afternoon commission. so i'm going to talk about two things right now. i'm going to talk first about what's going on with the office and the industries that typically occupy our office and then i'm going to move into a brief discussion of union square and our destination retail. so the first is let's define how we are coming to see our city core. the city core is really not only the heart of san francisco's economy, but it is one of the beating hearts of the bay area's regional economies as well. and it actually covers downtown certainly, but really it starts across six zip codes along market street and includes soma, downtown, union square, and over the years, it's actually been expanding new areas of development along the water front such as pier 70,

the central soma corridor. so collectively, our city core is home to businesses that drives close to 70% pre-pandemic of san francisco's g.d.p. which i am told is roughly, our g.d.p. is roughly the size of a small nation. downtown and the city corridor also provides about 45% of our sales tax revenue. a very important part as we think about why downtown. why our city corridor, why are we worrying about these offices and really at the heart of it are the jobs. so 40% of the jobs in san francisco are actually downtown, pre-pandemic and there are more residents in every neighborhood across the city at least 30% overall who work downtown than in any other location in the city.

next slide, please. it's also really important as we all are looking at a racial equity lens in how we approach everything we do in our economic recovery as a city. it's really important to recognize that downtown also disproportionately provides employment to our communities and these two images are illustrative of black community and the latinx deployment next slide, please. so as we think about what can we do to really accelerate our economic recovery, we are very focused here at accelerating the return of our office users and their workers to downtown. we were really the first in the nation to implement the state of emergency and our region was the first to stay home and because of the partnership with our business community who were

compliant and very much part of the implementation of all of our health orders and who enduring shelter-in-place, we were very successful as a city around being able to sustain the pandemic with reasonable health outcomes. but as a result, many of our downtown and city core businesses were able to pretty quickly pivot to remote work and online service delivery while staying in business and that was both a testament to their flexibility and also a testament to the high adoption and technology in the bay area and the resilience of our economy. now, as we have been looking at the data, we are slowly starting to see people and businesses come back to our city core and the news

continues to be a little better and better every month. but we're still in the middle of recovery and it's harder to predict the acceleration, and the return to downtown. we have some strategies i can discuss in a minute. next slide. so what are the levers that we have to help encourage our downtown businesses which range from technology companies, financial companies, law firms, hotels, and all of the myriad of restaurants and professional services and other small businesses that traditionally have served the businesses and their employees. so what levers to we have to help increase the velocity of returning. while as i said, while we we don't know exactly in large

numberses. we do have led us to some strategies. so first we've been in the conversation with many of our larger and medium employers and what we are hearing is most 93% do expect ultimately their employees will come back to the office at least two days a week. we recognize that for many of these businesses, they will not necessarily need the full amount of office space that they currently have and i think we've seen evidence of some of our office users proactively starting to right size their space as evidence by the subleases we have on the market. but overall, i think it's very encouraging that most of our city core businesses whenever the media might lead us to believe with an exceptional technology company, i see most are planning and many have

already allowed their workers to come back on a voluntary basis and, again, we're starting to see some decent progress month over month as we look at data such as people coming in and out of our office building with an example. things that we are doing outside of working directly with companies include certainly all of the efforts that we are collectively employing in the city around safety and cleanliness on the street. we have a big investment we've made this year in our ambassadors and layering on top of ambassadors we already have. we now have a whole group of welcoming ambassadors to be able to welcome folks back downtown and if you haven't wandered downtown, it's worth doing. i also want to recognize that building back better for this city and our community is about reclaiming the streets and the public spaces for art and

performance and music and we have seen a number of initiatives leading up until now and heading into the holidays. we are seeing new arts initiatives and i'll highlight, for example, our 'let it glow' downtown video exhibition. if you haven't seen it, get out it's running this weekend. it has been put on by the downtown community benefit district and it's a collection of local and visual digital artists. incredible projections on four of our downtown office buildings. we are also working with business groups, with leadership groups of different industry sectors again to look at very specific strategies to attract them. but one of the biggest opportunities you see is to pick the opportunity of the right sizing of some of our larger who might not need as

much space as a real opportunity for the first time in a long time have some smaller office spaces and more affordable office spaces that we can now be marketing to our younger companies who previously had either been priced out of downtown or had been able to find the appropriate size office space. next slide. all this to say the data is pointing towards a recovery of our office market. a restructuring of the number of days that an individual company may have their workers coming in, but encouraging signs that most of our current office tenants are planning to return and that we as a city are planning to work hard in collaboration with them to scale the smaller spaces that may and will becoming available so that we end with our city

core full again but potentially with a greater group of businesses. next slide, please. moving on to union square. much of downtown's regional importance employment and economic activity for union square and its key tourist attraction but also housing them in our hotels. the large group of retailers that we have in union square are critical to continuing to bring customers to the area. if any of you have experiences the recent macy aegis tree lighting. having some of those anchor downtown is really essential to the vibrancy of that neighborhood and of the city as a whole. and certainly there's no time like the holidays to get out and continue to experience union square.

next slide. as we heard, there's certainly been some long standing changes to retail and many of these. this had started before the pandemic had only been exacerbated and i think director hillis already described a transition of people and shoppers with ordering things we know that those structural changes which had started have only accelerated in the pandemic. i would also be remiss not to mention the organized crime which certainly we have all seen and read about and the challenges that oppose to retail across the state which is including san francisco and most recently in union square. these are not just property counters.

these put shoppers at risk and cause trauma for those involved and we are working hard and hopefully any of you who've been back over union square since the most notable retail staff. you will see the difference. you will see a police presence, you will see our city taking that back for ourselves for our customers and our visitors. ha office and this mayor are vigilantly focused right now on turning around the safety and cleanliness and the sense of joy that people can feel when they go shopping. setting aside those efforts. we are very clear, retail itself is not dead and it's not dead in union square. we see and looking at. we do see new stores coming in

to the area first and foremost such as omega. we have a toys 'r us pop-up right now and a number of other luxury brands have recently taken up residency in union square. we are also very important for the commission seeing changes in how our retailers are using their space. many of our retailers have actually slide during the pandemic by learning how to become distribution centers as well as destination where people can order online and then they can pick up curb side or where retailer is actually able to ship directly out of their store front. we are also and this is near and dear to my heart seeing more hybrid demand for retailers who are also small manufacturers who are also

designers and who potentially would like to do all three of those things in a same space or in multiple floors within the same building. i think that's a really important trend we have to keep our eye on particularly in the kinds of buildings with the flexibility we have surrounding the square. next slide. we have made a number of investments in union square providing programming investing and physical spaces. like downtown, this area already has some flexible zoning, but there's likely more that we can do together with you moving forward. some questions that we are interested in exploring include how come we broaden our thinking about learning the lines of retail, design and even like manufacturing. how we bring forth the next generation of retail headquarters. we have prototyping. should we in union square be

thinking about some residential uses in this district on the upper floors and are there other kinds of upper floor tenants who could retail, but don't necessarily need the ground floor and i think a good example of that is ikea. last slide, please. last but not least, union square needs to be -- remain a vibrant retail core for the city. we do think there's some opportunities to get more creative throughout these larger buildings and we are looking forward to continuing to explore that with you going forward. back to you. thank you. >> thank you, kate. so i just wanted to expand on that discussion and talk more broadly about the retail and service sector and also our work and how it's transforming within the city central core, but outside of it in

neighborhoods too. as you know, the department and oewd took on a range of responses and recovery in the neighborhood retail and service in this sector that have and will continue to assist in economic recovery. shared spaces as we talked about produced more than 2,000 new spaces that activate the public realm. in new businesses which was passed in the small business recovery act. decreased process in expedited permitting for small businesses. first year free which is a program that waives permit in other viewses for new business as well as considerable tens and millions of dollars through funding. the federal government state and local sources to support business owners and their employees. next slide. as we move through and out of

the pandemic to focus on recovery, the department is going to prioritize our work program on efforts with oewd to continue to address these challenges in our retail and service corridors. many of which these issues began pre-pandemic but were exacerbated by the pandemic. this work will be led by our city wide and community equity team and developed in two parts. first, to understand the current landscape and second to taylor initiatives to respond and make improvements to corridors. next slide, please. to understand the existing conditions and trends better, we'll focus both on people and places. we'll talk to business owners, residents, patrons, employees, and property owners to better understand changes and needs in retail in the service eco systems.

we will particularly focus on black, american indian and other people of color with the focus on cultural districts. we'll also look at places as you know not all commercial corridors have similar needs. there are different skills and different populations serveded on one end. there's the more community serving neighborhood corridors that primarily serve local residents and on the other end of the retail spectrum other destinations that have higher concentrations of retail space and larger formats. they depend more heavily on a widespread customer base tourists, visitors, and specifically tied to residents in the immediate neighborhood. next slide, please. so the goal of our work in this area is to produce policy and program recommendations that support commerce, tied to

cultural and community. support the needs of neighborhoods. and increase opportunities for business owners and employees. and we recognize that these recommendations need to be. >> commissioner taylor: tailored to specific businesses. and different types of partnerships and initiative in the inner sunset. next slide. we anticipate that the proposals from this work will come in the form of process improvements, land use or code changes. programs and incentives such as the ones we already described that primarily will be outside of plannings realm. with potential corresponding updates to our general plan, notably the commerce and industry elements.

next slide, please. so in closing, we're optistic. we we have been creative to ensuring planning and our other to develop and implement a better program for our city. thank you, director. and we're happy to answer any questions that the commissions and. >> secretary: thank you. if that concludes your

presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star three to be added to the queue. through the chair, each member of the public will receive two minutes and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. >> caller: [inaudible] >> secretary: not quite yet. okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this informational presentation. seeing no requests to speak for members of the public, public comment is closed and this item is now before you. great to see the update today. thank you so much. especially now during the holidays, it's very festive down there and a huge attraction for the city for jobs, for commerce, for

everything and looking forward to as much of a rebound as possible. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: thank you for that helpful report. i too was downtown in union square and felt very vital and alive with the menora and the christmas tree and the skating rink. it was exciting to be part of that. i wanted to explore a little further, the role of the hospitality industry in the revitalization in union square. so i've read some articles in the press that indicate that while hospitality is recovering here, it's not recovering as quickly as it is in other major centers. if so why that is and what the city can do about it or is doing about it and then the second and maybe it's a related question is the role of the

convention business as it relates to hospitality and what the city's doing to attract work. >> i can take that one. thank you. these are really important questions so generally, overall our hospitality industry has suffered a more significant blow than many other sectors and so i would include in that leisure visitors coming here as tourists as well as our business visitors and convention business. so there are a couple things going on. the first is proportionate to the size city we are. we have a disproportionate percentage of our economy being driven by visitor and business travelers into the city and,

again, any of our service provider catering companies and restaurants inside the hotelses, all of that has been impacted and is absolutely recovering more slowly than some other major u.s. cities. again, part of it is we are a smaller city compared to new york or l.a. so it's a proportion of our economy. it's more. the second is that the type of visitors that we have historically drawn are a high percentage of international tourists and international conference and convention attendees and certainly with covid and all of the ever changing restrictions that both we have had, but other countries have had on having people come in and out of our country has absolutely put a huge damper on the international visitor community. we have a few bright lights of hope. the first is slowly but surely,

we're starting to see upticks in the occupancy of our hotels and we're not where we want to be at and the last data i looked at was 45% occupancy. that's a lot better than we were a year ago. we in partnership like sf travel and others have been focusing first and foremost on domestic travel, domestic conventions. we're seeing some of our first conventions coming back as a direct result of marketing outreach here in the region and in the country. now that we are starting to see a little bit more of that, we are adding in additional incentives. for example, the city now has in its current budget, a mechanism to allow us to charge less. so we have that in the city's budget this year and that gets passed through and it allows us to book conferences and frankly

compete with other low cost areas such as las vegas by bringing down the costs as one example. certainly, the work that we are collectively engaging in and are sustaining around making our streets feel safer and cleaner and more welcoming are also going to be material particularly around convincing. the event planners from other parts of the country who hear what they hear and read what they read about san francisco, we have to work really hard to overcome that perception. last and not least on that lechl, we think and mayor breed has been very much expressing very vocally recently that it's time for us to mount more of a brand campaign around who we are as san francisco and get the word out for businesses and visitors and we are as we speak

engaged in partnering with the city and exploring how we can do that. i think you are correct in observing we are in a slower recovery for that than even their office businesses. the but we are focused on that. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i'm glad to hear and happy to hear that. that just has an impact that spreads widely and affects all sectors of the economy which is so important. i have a related question for director hillis and that has to do with the rash of certain mob attacks on retail stores particularly in union square, elsewhere i assume too. and i know that and this is really a planning code related

question. that and we are thinking a way to design that security that's attractive still, but provides an additional element of security but would be encouraging retailers to locate in union square. we have tried to have open store fronts and encouraged people to be able to look in. but i also think we need to be realists about what we're facing and i'm just wondering if you're looking at that issue. certainly, i think this done in very attractive ways elsewhere and wondering if we are thinking about that? >> great question, we are looking at it. it was more in relation to

early on in the peck. so where some similar break-ins and they came and talked to us about different ways to design some of those barriers that could meet their goals and keep store fronts transparent. so we have started that discussion with them and i think that could be informative and help inform the discussion at a broader scale for retailers throughout the city. but you are right. it's a balance. even at night with larger store fronts or gates pulled down, it's not a welcoming and attractive street scape. and so we try to balance that in the code, but we will look at it in relationship to the cannabis retailerses, but that will have -- we won't limit it

just to that. >> commissioner diamond: i'm glad to hear that. the cannabis retailers have their own particular problems but i'm also concerned about this with respect to, you know, the high-end retailers in union square and it just seems to me there's so much talent that the ability to design security entrances that service better deterrents than what we had now, but allow for the opens and excitement that are part of the deal of union squares seems to me worthy of deeper exploration. >> currently, there are provisions in the code that will. we can flush that out more.

>> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you very much. i just want to make sure we're using our creative power without looking like a completely shut down. great report. thank you so much for bringing this. some of it's not great news, but it's good for us to know where we are. we all have our day-to-day experiences of the pandemic, but to kind of get a big picture of where things are happens and just to see district three and six impacted and kind of the basis around that. thank you so much for bringing this information, the data, and helping us think about what we should do next. i wanted to pick up on

something that you mentioned around the future of office. one thing that we often get here are proposals for new office buildings and we're kind of like, okay, maybe this office looks cool, but who's going to occupy this new office while we have all this existing office space that's being subleased and whatnot and each project has their own crystal ball. one of the reflections that i've heard is kind of that we'll see newer offices and those built with the pandemic in mind by some of 0 our wealthier and resourced businesses i just wondered what you thought about that and if you're me, it could be housing

instead. if you can just kind of give a little bit of a reflection on the thought and need for existing office space. >> sure. thank you. we believe we need both and it's interesting because, again, i think right now, we are sort of maybe at the low point of offices have started to come back but then we had delta and now we have omicron and every time we start seeing companies, we've been on the phone talking. it seems like most are going to have folks coming back in november and now we have delta. and now they're aiming for january and we're waiting to see if omicron is waiting for that. by in large even setting aside the pandemic implications, we have seen a slow and steady

uptick of people coming back. along with sublease space, we are also seeing new leases being signed. and my experience of sort of coming into this world from the outside and also seeing who are in these offices, i very much see use for both our older historic buildings and for our newer office development on the newer side. i think we have companies, certain kinds of technology companies. i'll throw in certain kind of light manufacturing office hybrid that do very well in very modern office-like space. the building that many of you may remember that sf help helped build which is part of a larger project. the campus has a mixture of class a offices and class apdr space and they really work

quite well together on different floors within the same building. [please stand by]

super cool downtown old office buildings as equally valuable assets in the economic ecosystem. it would be my professional recommendation you should not convert any of the office right now. i think we are sort of at a low point and we want to have some time to repopulate and have the opportunity of this recession to get young into the older spaces and i think it would be a mistake to sort of not be actively considering the newer office spaces particularly those that are in mixed-use projects where you might have office and pdr, or office and residential. i think those will keep san francisco competitive at a

class-a level. >> thank you for that reflection. it's helpful and i trust your professional opinion a lot, so it means a lot to hear about that. when you think about union square, downtown, the comparison of the tax revenue, i mean some of that is not going to come back until we have a larger fraction of the workers coming back. i think that's just factual. we just can't make up that difference with the san franciscans we have. where do you see the role, and director, maybe you can talk about this, of adding housing in some of these primarily shopping or office-related districts, or given the scale of the decrease, a nice thing for long-term planning and resiliency, but should we look at the zoning in those areas to accommodate more houses and to accommodate more offices, to accommodate different types of mix than what

we currently allow in some of these districts? or to promote things over the other, to try to use our regulatory tools to try to move these areas in a different direction, or we want to get back to where we were before? >> i would just note that pre-pandemic for the last several decades we've promoted downtown south of market as a place not just for work and for office. the code is very flexible and we've tried through central soma and the transbay district to build affordable housing. i think the code reflects that. it's fairly permissive. you can build housing in union square. you can build housing downtown as well. i think maintaining that mix to

have both people living and working downtown works best and that's where we've kind of pointed the zoning and it's what we're seeing developed especially in newer spaces or neighborhoods like transbay. >> yeah, for sure. my last question then, i love this idea and kind of the trend and the hybrid business, the multiuse spaces, whether it's different things coming together under one roof. i wonder, do we need to have to look at our code in the next year and think about how we actually make that easy for folks to do multiple things under one roof? i know, my limited experience with the code as a planner, wasn't always easy or clear. so sometimes folks with creative ideas would get shutdown because trying to find the regulatory

path could be hard if you want to be, you know, have events, and do these different streams of income. i just wonder what do we need to do with the city to make that regulatory path really clear and free and easy for folks to have multiple streams even if it's all under one physical roof? >> that is part of the goal of the work we want to take on over the next years is to do that. prop h in the recovery act did some of that in trying to be less prescriptive in what we consider kind of retail or services in kind of what requires a cu or some additional requirements. so it got us some of the way there, but part of this analysis will be did we do enough and are there other types of uses where we need to be more flexible?

>> great. and can you add to that? >> i just add in, we deliberately wanted to mark this for extra discussion, but we need to look at coming it both directions. with where is retail and permitted use where we might be able to accommodate the lightest of light manufacturing that actually historically actually has been done. if you look at where we had manufacturing in the city, it was often on the upper floors of the very same building in which the product was being sold. the cross key mattress was a great example. if you go up to the top level, you can see the chute. they would put the mattress down the chute for the distribution.

on the other side, i think we have continue to see our manufacturers who make use of pdr to continue themselves to diversify, in terms of having manufacturing and design. and design can look like office use, but it is very much related to the production process itself and retail in the same space. and pdr right now is constrained with only having up to one-third of what we design as accessory use. i think we are interested in having some further research into whether we need to continue to evolve our thinking around what legitimately should be allowed as a hybrid within pdr. >> that's great to hear and i look forward to that coming forward. it's a bit of a web to untangle, but i think it's so worth it to

nurture the activity. and my very last question, i thank you all for your indulgence. one thing i think about a lot are the small businesses that maybe were able to pivot to online distribution, online sales, and then those who weren't maybe able to do that. i wonder about, it's so easy to go on my phone to so many places and order something in an instant and i just wonder about our smaller retailers who haven't been able to make that pivot, if there are ways we can help them to figure out how to get set up online. there are so many third party tools, shopify, it'sy, where they can make their wares known, where people can purchase. i wonder about shipping. if i'm a little store front, am i set up to ship my stuff via

fedex, even if it's a few blocks away. >> first on the matter of helping small businesses across the city, i think the pandemic was a crisis, but it was also something that pushed many small businesses to move online probably much faster than they would have if we hadn't been faced with this crisis. i'm really proud of saying that oewd and our office of small business as part of oewd was there from day one. if i look at the rate of calls coming in to our office of small business, to our small business development center and then to

all of our contracted community partners that we work with, everyone from renaissance center to mission help for the elderly, they're all partnerships with the city that are able to deliver assistance to individual businesses and i know that one of the number-one topics was helping if they weren't online, helping them get online. if they weren't transacting online-many across the city had an online present, but they weren't actually transacting. so that's the technical assistance oewd and osb has been providing. and we'll continue to provide that in our low-income communities. but the journey continues. on the matter of distribution, that is a really important thing

to be thinking about and probably another day to talk about the role, but also the challenge for the need for distribution in major cities like ours. i think when it comes to setting up distribution centers, whether it's a distribution center from amazon or a smaller distribution center from a regional retailer, again, we have limited p.d.r. stays in the city to begin with, so i think we're always going to be trying to balance our policy objectives of having p.d.r. also available for small manufacturers and repair. but i also believe that if we are smart in how we negotiate terms and how we think about the last-mile service providers, even amazon, one of the opportunities is to really dig deeper from a community benefit perspective into ensuring that the capacity partly allocated to serve our local businesses.

and there is some precedent for that. part of the negotiation needs to be how do we -- i mean, we can't fight at this point in the world, i think, global retail distribution and ordering, but we absolutely need to privilege more of that capacity to help our local businesses take advantage of what i would call collector's picking and placing and distributing. so i think that is part of the vision that we need to sort of keep in mind as we move forward and as we -- and as you see folks applying to do distribution in the city. >> thank you, both. and i look forward to more coming to us. thank you. >> president koppel: just one more thought. as much as we can do to get what i think are the most two important words these days, foot

traffic downtown, union square, south of market, financial district, just to enable all the restaurants, all the merchants, all the retailers to succeed, that is the most important thing we can all do now. >> okay, commissioners, if that concludes the deliberation, this is an informational matter, so no action is requested of you. we can move on. so, commissioners, i have just been informed that item 13, we've received a formal request to withdraw their application for case number 2021-010715crv. so at this point, it does appear on your agenda and has been noticed to members of the

public, so you can either honor the withdrawal or hear the matter, but at this point it becomes simply a procedural informational type of hearing, because they have withdrawn their application formally prior to you holding a hearing accepting public comment and closing public comment and indicating that you will be approving or disapproving. so we can take up that matter when we reach that item, or you can accept their withdrawal to inform members of the public that they no longer need to wait to hear that. furthermore, the withdrawal effectively puts them in a situation where they will be required to provide on site b.m.r. units unless they come back with a new application. so do you want to take the matter up now or wait until the matter comes up?

>> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: could you explain what that means in terms of their ability to re-file? i mean, can they re-file in january and then, you know, immediately want another hearing next year? >> jonas: potentially yes. the application has been withdrawn, you haven't rendered a decision on the application. >> and if they did re-file in january, when would we expect that to be in front of us? >> jonas: it would have to go through appropriate notification, so it effectively could come before you as early as february or march. >> commissioner diamond: so this could just be a tactic essentially result in -- to accomplish what they wanted originally which was defer this

to january? >> jonas: i, you know, i won't presume, commissioner diamond -- >> no, but i'm wondering if the effect is the same. i'm just wondering if the impact is the same? >> the impact would be essentially the same, yes. >> commissioner diamond: okay. while i want to be courteous to the people online and if we were going to decide not to hear this, i would want to let them know sooner rather than later, i'm concerned this could end up being back in front of us early next year again. >> jonas: indeed. >> commissioner diamond: director hillis, i saw you come on. >> you'll be ultimately asked to make a decision on it. i would imagine you like us wouldn't look too favorably on them using this strictly as a

delay tactic. we'll decide to these onsite and we've encouraged them to move forward with the project and make a decision so these units can be occupied. so, you know, not presuming what would happen in the future, but i know i wouldn't look and staff wouldn't look too favorably on them coming back and asking for the same request and you wouldn't either. >> commissioner diamond: which i guess gets back to the question that commissioner moore had for the city attorney office, if they come back and ask for this next year, do we have the ability to say no? >> commissioner moore: we're not here to judge. i can only say that i feel a great degree of uneasiness of what looks like somebody abusing city processes, because what is a concern to me, seconded by commissioner diamond and commissioner tanner is, us

supporting prospective affordable renters into these units. that is the biggest heartbreak. particularly this building is literally built. and i feel a lot of trepidation having to even verbalize here in front of the public how i feel about this. the department has bent over backwards. this has been with us since 2018. this has been this project after a lot of push and tuck with all-day votes involved, director hillis was on the commission at that time. i think even president koppel was on the commission. we really gave it a lot of workover and here we are only with empty hands. i just need to express my significant disappointment and can only hope that this developer stay the course and deliver what he has been asked to deliver. what he promised to deliver, i'm sorry.

thanks. >> jonas: commissioners, so, maybe an indication to members of the public of your intent to hear the matter or to honor the withdrawal of the application and simply have it removed from your agenda, may be beneficial to those members of the public holding that have been holding on to submit their testimony? >> commissioner diamond: i saw that the city attorney popped on briefly while we were talking. i wondered if he wanted to respond or participate in the discussion at this point as we're deliberating what to do here. >> deputy city attorney austin yang. commissioners, there has been a couple of questions regarding interpretation of section 415. you know, i believe that like

director hillis, you know, you would take this request at face value. it's difficult to define intent at this moment. and if it were to come back, i think the project sponsor would know that this would not be looked upon favorably, but section 415, it is -- it is limiting and, you know, you did hear before the amendment to section 415, i believe in the last month or so that are intended to address changes in compliance with the inclusionary obligation in both tenure and fee options. so, that may be a relevant consideration. >> does staff have a recommendation as to whether or not we should -- given this

news, this information provided by the applicant? >> i think if it's being withdrawn, there is no reason you can't have a hearing and pose some of these questions that you're asking to the project sponsor. that would be my recommendation. just hear it. as more of an informational item and prose it to the project sponsor. >> let's do that. and commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i was going to support what director hillis said, because it sounds like we are frustrated with this project sponsor and perhaps we can, you know, have this kind of conversation with the project sponsor that these kind of actions are unfavorable. i'd rather have the project sponsor explain and also at the same time honor the withdrawal. however, i would rather have this kind of discussion with the project sponsor since we're all

talking about this item. >> jonas: very good, commissioners, if that's the intent, members of the public who have been holding on, the commission will be hearing this matter even though there will be no action on the matter, because the application has been withdrawn. so i'm going to clear the request for public comment board and we will take up the next item on your calendar as listed. number 10, case number 2021-011130pca for the automotive uses housing density planning code amendment. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. good afternoon, commissioner. the item before you is the automated use. this legislation was sponsored by the mayor.

this ordinance would do two things. the first is to provide density exceptions for auto orientated uses. this is defined as any use with an accessory parking lot or garage. and also any automated use as defined by section 102. so this includes gas stations, towing stations, et cetera. for r.h. zones districts, the density exception would allow up to four units. for all other zoning districts, the density would be based code with the number of units determined by the applicable height, setbacks, open space, exposure and any other requirements underof the -- of the underlying zoning district.

also cannot have had legacy business on the property within the past 10 years. the ordinance also removes the conditional use authorization requirement when converting an automotive service station. however, all other conditional use authorizations not related to residential density would still apply. i'll just mention them again here. the first is to revise the climate change findings with more recent data. the second is to eliminate the r.h. zoning district site eligibility provision, mainly because supervisor mandelman's ordinance that you recently

heard is more expansive than this one when it comes to the r.h. plot. the third amendment is to allow for some nonresidential parking and lastly, we would clarify that the program can be combined with a state density program. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance with modification as it moves the city away from auto centric uses and increases for all residents. two of the staff recommendations actually overlap with the anticipated amendments from the mayor and those two are the ones related to the r.h. zoning district provision and the state density bonus clarification. the other recommended modifications are as follows. first, to allow parcel with the last legal use of the automotive use to also be eligible for this

program. only the parcels where the existing use is a legal use. for those parcels where automobile uses have been abandoned, would not be eligible. and the last recommended modification is to reduce the legacy business eligibility criterions for the past 10 years to four years instead. and this still protects the legacy businesses and helps ensure that legacy businesses would not be evicted in order to use this program. lastly, as note, after the packets were published, you received two letters of support from livable city and a letter from spur and the housing action coalition. this concludes presentation and staff is available for any questions. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. if there are no immediate questions from the members of the commission, we should open

up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3. you'll have two minutes. when you hear the line is unmuted, that is your indication you can begin speaking. >> hello. i'm s.f. living in district 11. and i want to call and support the initiative by london breed. this will mitigate multiple issues. things like supporting small businesses and neighborhoods surrounding locations that have had complication historically and zoned in the past and also for sustainability. the thing about this initiative, it will support small businesses where we can create housing

locations that will support -- where individuals will support nearby neighborhoods where typically in small business districts right now they're suffering, especially -- slowly going post-covid and the -- they can transport themselves through alternative modes like bike, train, bus, like a scooter, like so many things. and then also you save money in your pocket as well as you travel to different alternatives. or the transportation, inflation or the gas prices. so it's one thing to also keep in mind as well. thank you for your time.

have a great day. >> commissioner: hello, i'm a resident of district 8 living in the valley. our city needs more housing, especially more affordable housing. this seems a great way to clear up overhead and make progress on that goal. it's real important to me that we have more housing in the city. just because i've watched as friends of mine who would love to continue to be able to live in the city move away because they can't afford it anymore. and it's breaking my heart. so i really hope this passes. thank you. >> commissioner: good afternoon. i'm a resident of district 8. i'm in strong support of the

proposal before you. housing and transportation are intimately connected. when the housing shortage priced out residents, that means more cars, more traffic and more emissions are added to our community. by reducing delays and developing housing, this legislation is going to mean more homes and critically by shortening the time frame for housing production, that means the houses will be more affordable and it's going to do all of this reduce our dependence on cars. moreover, this would streamline housing and it's harmful. i live near the divisadero. it's unpleasant to walk and dangerous to bike. i used to live in noe valley near the parking lot where cars turning in and out made it dangerous to pass. this would add to the communities and make them safer

for pedestrians, transriders and cyclists. auto centric lots should be the easiest, but they're the hardest in the legislation. finally regarding the proposed amendment to remove the four plex component due a conflict with legislation, since we don't know what the fate of supervisor mandelman's proposal will be at the board, i encourage you not to remove this proposal, instead add language that would reconcile the two. this is a really important component of the legislation and we should have -- not pass. thank you, please support this. >> my name is the jim chapel. i'm a 45-year resident of district 8 and professional planner by training. the planning code has this bizarre requirement that favors giving cars a place to sleep at night over giving humans a place

to sleep at night. several decades ago this planning code requirement for c.u.p. was passed with no study and no analysis. it was the pique of one supervisor who didn't like losing his favorite gas station. it's time to remove this irrational requirement and speed up the approval of housing at the proposed increased density level. we have an unprecedented housing shortage and it is simply good planning policy to eliminate road blocks to allowing more homes to be constructed. please pass this ordinance, including the four-plex component. thank you. >> commissioner: hi, i'm emily and i regularly spend time in san francisco. i'd like to voice strong support for this bill.

we need build cities for people, not cars and have a people-first, housing-first and transit-first approach. we're in the midst of a housing and climate crisis. these crises are not new. we need to acknowledge this by taking swift and meaningful action, including passing this bill. and also allowing for duplexes while allowing the modification of the legacy requirement from 10 to 4 years. if people who work here can live here and they will not need to drive. and as others have mentioned, we will have a safer and more -- city. we can reduce emissions and also build more truly affordable housing. this is crucial for essential workers that we depend on. we cannot hear about people facing racial injustice and climate justice.

i urge you to do more in the future. >> commissioner: hello, this is anastasia. i'm a senior tenant. i live in district 8. i'm also a member of race and equity in all planning coalition. i'd like to ask the mayor what she intends to do about the people who work in p.d.r. spaces? the ones who have jobs there and their livelihoods and families depend upon them. are we going to phase them out? this is ridiculous. i think this is not a well thought-out plan. and cars to cassa is an insult. borrowing from a latino phrase to make this thing fly, it really isn't very well thought out. what about the people who live

and work in these spaces? thank you. >> commissioner: -- i think this is a great idea. it addresses two important issues in terms of the housing crisis as well as environmental issues. i agree with the gentleman earlier. i think that certain hurdles in cases like this are unnecessary. they're developed for people that have specific needs in the past. i think in this specific situation, this is a very, very creative way to address housing and environmental concerns. i've dealt with planning commissions and a lot of other things in the past.

i understand the -- how hard it can be and when there are proposals out there to do better for everybody and to, you know, combines these two issues. i think it should be fully supported. thank you. today i'm speaking in support of the cars to casa legislation, sponsored by mayor breed. it's a win-win, as it supports transit first policy and addresses the severe housing shortage. with the cars to casa legislation, it will be easier to build housing by removing density units in certain areas. these are simple commonsense changes that can encourage housing production that will address the housing shortage and affordability crisis. we're pleased to see this is

used in tandem with the density bonus feature. additionally, we recommend eliminating the requirement of the site-specific environmental impact review for the demolition or alteration of historic resources on these parcels. instead, the city could do a impact review and make findings for the housing element. the amendments being offered to strengthen this legislation, and we urge the commission to incorporate our proposed improvements as well and move this legislation forward. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition, also here to speak in strong support of mayor breed's cars to casa

proposal. we do have a letter to you highlighting some of the things that we really like about this project. -- or about this proposal rather. and it is a bit obvious to us converting auto uses to homes in a city is a natural, you know, improvement of land use. the entire idea to be quite frank about conditional use permits and whether or not family housing in san francisco is necessary and desirable, honestly gives us the indication that we should probably just remove the city requirement for all multi-family. i don't think there is any situation when creating new housing, especially if there is going to be affordable housing on site or off site, it's always necessary and desirable at this point in time given our current situation. i was actually unaware of what

jen chapel pointed out earlier as to why this became a rule in the first place. and obviously, seems very outdated considering our current challenges. so, again, we are enthusiastically in support and look forward to this legislation continuing through the process and to hearing all of your feedback before it heads to the board. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm an urban planner living in district 5 in the haight. these car oriented sites are stretchy, unsafe. walkability is the corner stone of transit, because all riders have to get to and from the bus. this is a win-win. it would make walking safer along key corridors.

we all have to keep our heads on a swivel mid block waiting to see if the cars are paying attention to us as they try to turn in and auto of these lots. -- out of these lots. these probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. the introduction of these sites, it's almost like an oil spill on a world heritage site. not just because of the pollution, but it creates dead zones in places are land use has made san francisco the premier city of this hemisphere. please move this legislation forward. >> good afternoon. my name is -- i'm a d3 resident

and i volunteer with san francisco unb. it is harder to -- shelter for people. san francisco has a choice. on one hand, we can continue down the path that it's been failing us or decades. it's pushing san franciscans further and further from the jobs that give them a living, the entertainment that gives them joy. this has pushed cost into the stratosphere while making residents to make obscene commutes. as a result, this path threatens to put our public transportation systems into a death spiral where they're inconvenienced by residents reach further and further neglect from public officials. the alternative is a city that built enough homes for san franciscans to live where they want to. they could live close to their jobs, amenities and love ones in

a city with abundant housing. they would live greener, happier, cheaper lifestyles. today's legislation is one step in that alternative direction which will be realized when all lots in san francisco can earn ministerial approval. >> hello. i live d8. i'm in support of this proposal. it's a really good idea. long time coming. please vote in favor of it. and thanks.

>> hi, i am a 41-year resident of san francisco. i live in d10 and this is almost perfect. i absolutely love the idea of turning space for cars into space for people. and specifically homes. our need for housing is just acute. you can just walk down the street, or bike along it, and you see our streets littered with people that don't have a home. and these people are trapped in

their homes that can't go get another home because the market is so out of whack. yeah, part of it is prop 13 and whatever, but we have not built enough housing for the demand for this beautiful city. we need to do this. every single car property in this city is an invitation for more cars. every parking space, every gas station, every car wash, every auto body, every dealership. we should not have these things in a city, the second most densely populated city in this country. i am very excited about this. the only thing i would change is that it's for four plexes. i don't understand why we're stop stopping at four plexes. if we need to build 80,000 units of housing in the next nine years, we need to do a lot more

than four plexes. please pass this, but increase it to 6, 12, 23, something. we need help. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. okay last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on this matter is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: so couldn't be more supportive. this is where the city has been headed for years. in full support today. anybody else? >> commissioner diamond: i, too, am supportive of the ordinance and will vote for it, but there

is one area that i think i would propose that we discuss for amendment and that is -- i think we should have like we have with some of the other ordinances recently, annual monitoring so that we better understand how many and what kind of auto oriented uses are being proposed each year for housing. i think we have to count the units any way because there is a cap of 5,000 and it would be helpful if we had an annual report as to what kind of lots are being used, how many houses have been approved, how many have been built. i also want to say that while i definitely think that many of these lots should be converted to housing, that there are people in the city who still rely on and are likely to rely on in the future on their cars. families and seniors in

particular. and i wouldn't want us to get to a situation where we have no gas stations or almost no gas stations in the city, or where people have to drive to the suburbs to fill their cars up. so i'm wondering as part of this annual report, we could also get information on how many remaining gas stations we have in each part of the city. i think it would be challenging for people to add gas stations in the future. we'd be adding tanks and there is likely to be, you know, enormous hurdles involved in overcoming concern about that. so i just think we should stay aware of how many stations we have left. so i'm interested to hear from staff if they would support that kind of monitoring provision being added to the ordinance?

>> commissioner diamond, as you've seen in the ordinance, we already have to be tracking the number of units that are to be approved under this ordinance, under this program. so we would just have to figure out the most appropriate and the most logistical way to provide that information to you. and i believe mr. star has ideas on ways to incorporate this into some reports that already appear in front of you, so i'll pause there and invite him to elaborate more. >> actually, i wish i had a more clear answer for you. we've been asking around on the most appropriate place to do this. it would be in the housing balance report or the -- another report -- sorry, there are so many. but we will -- yeah, we do support it. we support the monitoring.

we could also do the gas station as well. we would have to figure out how many exist now. and then track that, but we can certainly -- that is certainly possible. we can do that. >> commissioner diamond: so thank you. i'm interested to hear if the other commissioners would support that kind of amendment? >> commissioner, i just say we add that to the housing inventory report. >> commissioner diamond: whatever is most convenient. the least amount of work for staff. i just think that tracking data is absolutely critical to having us figure out whether or not policies are working. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i'm really happy also to support this legislation. i think it is pretty commonsense and really a great direction for our city to be headed. it did have -- i did have a few questions. i think one of thing -- i i'll start by saying i do support the

monitoring as a suggestion and it seems like the housing inventory report would be an appropriate place to add it, just to understand, you know, when we look at our pipeline how many of them were on parcels like this. one of -- the only potential downside i see in this legislation, aside from, you know, those who use cars and people having a few less places to get gas or repairs, is some of the job impacts for automotive repair places. i was trying to understand kind of the different uses where this does and doesn't apply. so if it is a vehicle, that does engine work and does repairs to certain parts of the vehicle, is that how we're deciding what -- it was seen in the definition of auto service station, i think, but are service stations and vehicle repair places also

included? or is there a line of the type of function that makes a site eligible or not eligible? if we could illuminate that a little bit, that would be helpful. >> sure there is a confusion on what c.u. is for. it's not just gas stations, it is automobile service stations. that's what the cu, getting rid of that. you no longer would need a cu to get rid of that specific use. if you just had a gas station, you could get rid of that without a cu. it's that sort of service component that is required. the other part is it's allowing any use to decontrol for density. so the only -- you're getting rid of is for that specific use going through.

i didn't know the history behind it, so that was interesting. i'm wondering how accurate that is. >> okay, thank you very much for that. i think that's probably one of the only kind of edges that i see in this legislation is the potential job impacts of folks, vehicle repair places if they don't own the -- goals of the city. i don't think all places are going to turn suddenly to housing, but i think there are ways that the city has tools to reach out to those businesses to let them know that the legislation is coming. let them know it's impacted. maybe some of those auto repair places are legacy businesses and they never thought of becoming a legacy business, but that may be something they want to pursue. so i'm hoping that planning, working with oewd, maybe even

workforce development, can do some outreach, particularly to those places that are operating that have employees. ways to have -- operating for business. they're going to have just maybe a few employees if any employees at all. and so the employment impact is really limited. so if we can find ways to soften the impact to folks who are earning a livelihood. i think that would be a really good way to make to have as few downsides as possible. i did want to hear about accessory parking lots. let's say i'm a bank and i have a parking lot and i can use this program. am i then able to use it for the parking lot portion of the bank, the accessory use and the bank building? if you could walk through how accessory parking lots are viewed under this legislation? does it make the whole parcel ineligible to have the density

control, or is it just the parking lot portion of the site? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. so the way that the legislation is drafted right now is that it would be any -- any parcel where there is a use with accessory garage. so it's effectively the entire lot. >> commissioner tanner: great, thank you for clarifying that. that makes sense. again, people i guess could decide just to build on their parking lot, though, and then they would have just that portion if their lot was configured in a way that made sense for them? >> yes. if there is a very large accessory parking lot, that could be a potential option where they would not disrupt the business or the building that is on site. >> commissioner tanner: great. i think that just kind of leads to comments or suggestions from

different members of the community, one suggestion was to not have a site-specific eir for historic garages. i just was wondering -- it seemed to make sense to me. i don't know what staff thinks about using -- analyze this impact and the housing element eir for this program included in that. i don't know if that makes sense to staff as sequencing or it would be something we would want to pursue for the eir and then secondly for the historic resources. wondering if i have accessory lot and the building and the whole site is eligible, if the building is in a garage, let's use the example of the bank building, would that still be protected under this legislation, or is that something that they can look at the entire site. if you could maybe explain that interplay. >> sure. so in response to the first question regarding potentially having the site-specific analysis and housing element,

the eir, so for that piece, i'll just first share that the housing element eir didn't identify with the historic resources so it deferred all that site specific analysis once we have a project in front of us. which appeared in the packet for this hearing, it will be the same approach for the housing element update in 2022. and just to add on a bit further for the housing element, 2022 update, it's really a program level analysis. if we were to have a site specific analysis, that could potentially be hundreds, maybe even thousands of properties which wouldn't really be practical understandably. so we would not support recommended modifications for that type of analysis -- site specific analysis to be included

at this time. >> makes sense. and then in that case, in my example, if that project came forward, then that would be analyzed at the time and historically it would be analyzed -- as you said with the housing element, i think other approaches you've taken, kind of larger planning efforts. to me, that makes sense. i think the housing property probably has enough weight on it as it is in terms of things to refine and things to analyze. and so that makes a great deal of sense to me. i do kind of -- i understand planning saying we have this -- and so maybe we don't need to have it here, but i did support this idea that one of the callers mention, that reconcile, if both pieces of legislation pass. so it's unknown what the future of supervisor mandelman's

legislation is, or supervisor mar, so let's keep the four plex, and we can see as that gets closer if adjustments need to be made. but, again, my only suggestion would be to think proactively about how we can soften any job loss that might happen because of this legislation. and really reach out to those property owners, the business owners employees and make sure they know this is a potential and there are things they can do about it, otherwise, i'm in support of the legislation and happy to see it. >> commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i have questions around commissioner tanner regarding the -- i do have kind of condition in terms of the supervisor mandelman legislation and with this legislation coming forward as well. i understand that supervisor mandelman's legislation is around r.h.

and this one will not be covering r.h., or it will be around automotive uses definition? >> thank you, commissioner imperial. so the ordinance in front of you today would specifically apply to r.h. lots with auto orientated uses. and i'm only speaking about the r.h. zoning right now. so this is in juxtaposition of supervisor mandelman's ordinance by with i is -- which is across all the r.h. zoning districts. that's the difference, if it has the auto orientated or not. >> commissioner imperial: in terms of the clarifyification for this -- clarification of this legislation, the

differentiation, i feel it needs to be clarified more in this legislation, especially when it looking for the cu requirement. the reason that i'm asking for that clarification and i believe, you know, when it comes to the automotive service station where we're looking into the job losses, which looks like will be incorporated in housing inventory report, you know, i think it's important for us in the planning department, you know, the job losses when it comes to the -- and how are we taking that away as part of the economic analysis. another part of this

legislation, too, that i'm trying to compare to supervisor mandelman legislation is that this legislation doesn't have this affordability requirement or -- where it does discuss in this legislation or the process of this legislation? the affordability and affordability requirements were not discussed. the affordability levels would be the same that exist today.

so market similar type controls without density limits. you know, we would have the same affordability. >> so i guess i'm confused, because in a way if it's tied to state density bonus, because the planning department's recommendation i see this that there is a recommendation to clarify to combine with state density program. and i see there is inclusionary requirement because of that. however, that's why i'm kind of confused. >> yeah, inclusionary requirement would apply to these projects. >> it's because there would be additional density allowed, because you wouldn't have density controls, so there would

be more units in the same envelope and then more forum units because the inclusionary rates would apply. >> okay. so, yeah, and just need more clarification than that. i feel that i get it, but at the same time because i'm think offing the supervisor mandelman legislation when it comes to the four plexes. so that's why the differentiation in the parking lots needs to be differentiated. when we're looking at the neighborhoods, the tenderloin and chinatown, especially tenderloin where we've seen it end up being group housing. i feel like this legislation still lacks when it comes to the housing units requirements. it's something that can also be added to and also since we've

been -- it was part of at least the second draft or even the first draft housing balance report, how we've been kind of like looking into land banks and this could be a good opportunity we've been discussing on what ways or sites. and so, you know, kind of like thinking in a way like this equity land support we've been talking about here at the planning commission, instead of this, yes, there are uses that are underutilized for this housing, but how do we make sure that housing is equitable? those are the main comments i have for this. and i would support what commissioner diamond would say in terms of annual monitoring. but, yeah, i feel like there are elements in the legislation that

can be -- looked deeper. those are my comments. >> commissioner chan: the parcels are not scattered and while all the parcels may have the same use, those corridors have different context. i'm wondering, this is a city-wide legislation, but is there any room or role for planning to take a higher level thinking about how the housing that might come in through the legislation might be designed to the particular corridor or neighborhood?

>> thank you, commissioner chan. to that question, i will just share that each of the projects would still go through our planning process, our design review process. so it's really those iterations that the site context are concerned about would come up. they would still have to go through our regular review process. >> commissioner chan: i understand. i do think that some of the parcels are located in different neighborhoods and there might be different concerns surrounding kind of the development that might happen. and just seems like good planning to have kind of that city-wide context, but also to

understand that context really matters in terms of the particular design. i just wanted staff to maybe as part of the monitoring suggestion, which i think is great, i would be curious to track which parcels in which neighborhoods are developed first and maybe there is a way to do analysis to sort of understand the attractiveness and development of that. those are my questions for now. thank you. >> again, i'm going to support. and would accept staff's recommendations. and call on commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm listening very carefully to what the other commissioners have said. i think this is a beginning point for consideration. i would say quite a few

remaining questions. one question i'd like to add to the total is, what type of community outreach has been conducted? and how have potential stakeholders like the owners or workforce within automotive small business been participating in formulating answers? the public expressed a great deal of positive enthusiasm of becoming carbon neutral and moving away from the use of automobiles, however, in reality, we're still a little bit trajectory today. we have returned because of the pandemic to increased use of automobile with a decrease of use in public transportation. i see buses on the street where i live or drive by literally less than a third occupied even during rush hours.

and i think this legislation may be appropriate once we know the transportation will return to where it was before the pandemic in san francisco, but right now i do not see that. i have a number of questions that resonated with me. shortly before the beginning of today's hearing -- united to save the mission, community developers wrote a letter that summarized a number of questions which i believe should be added to the discussion. and, again, all discussions are point and counter point to mention a few. any density bonus should be accompanied with rent control and/or affordability. there is no discussion about that. it is not particularly in the written legislation in front of us.

that should be considered more carefully. commissioner diamond reporting on annual reporting in principle. voters approved overwhelmingly replacement of p.d.r. space. the businesses we're talking about, there is discussion of p.d.r., i would agree with that. for many years we will need to continue to -- as [indiscernible] -- concentrate in the larger multi-industrial use building. they need to be somewhere i

think, commissioner chan spoke on looking at where these places are, what sensitivities need to be brought to the buildings that replace them. i would agree with p.d.r. replacement, a margin of workforce development. i would strongly encourage increased public outreach and -- discussion on the subject that matter. and most and foremost, i would look for stronger development criteria that guide what you're getting by replacing these uses. one comment i like to repeat. it appeared in this letter and it was also mentioned by one of the public speakers today. that we may consider rephrasing what we name this legislation,

the title cars to casa is not striking the right chord. particularly now in the discussion about racial and social sensitivity and equity. they may want to name the legislation slightly differently. i will be looking forward to seeing it move forward, but at this moment don't feel i can fully support what is in front of me. thank you. >> jonas: there is a member of the public requesting to speak. should we take that caller now? >> president koppel: yes. >> thank you. this is stacy. i wanted to clarify one of the commissioners had mentioned about counting the number of -- tallying the number of gas stations. if this legislation was successful to wipe out gas

stations before 2035 when there are not to be any other gas powered vehicles sold in the state of california, that would be a tremendous miracle and victory. i mean, i guess tracking is fine -- >> jonas: i'm sorry. i believe you've already spoken. so that was your time. apologies for the interruption, commissioners. i see commissioner tanner requesting to speak. >> president koppel: go ahead, commissioner. >> commissioner tanner: yeah, i just wanted to follow up on the legacy business. the letter said we should eliminate the 10-year look back and staff recommended four years. just to clarify, when we're looking back, it's really saying as of the date of the application for housing on that project and the four prior years, which includes when the application is made, that there is not a legacy business on the

site. that's correct, right? is that how the lookback would work? >> yes, that is correct. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i think what that letter specifically was asking is to say even if a business is eligible but hasn't become a legacy business, that those sites would be ineligible. if someone has applied to be a legacy business, but has not been approved due to timing, how might we look at that application or that pending decision to either become or not become a legacy business? >> sure. so, part of that will just be unknown. that the application in order to be a legacy business goes to the office of small business so we would have to coordinate from there. we might learn from the

applicant themselves. we wouldn't be notified of every legacy business application. so it would be a work in progress. but we would not immediately know. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so if there are no other comments from other commissioners -- i think commissioner fung -- i will make the return to make a motion. thank you very much, ms. flores. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: actually, commissioner tanner, i was prepared to make the motion. if you want to make the motion, go ahead. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i was going to add a few things. i was going to move the staff recommendation with additional suggestion for monitoring, annual monitoring, encouragement for outreach to affected properties and businesses and if the legislation passes, consideration of a new shorthand title for the legislation and consideration that eligible historic -- or eligible legacy

businesses that have applied but not yet been approved also be considered in the legislation. >> i'll second that that. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i believe that the commission had a very kind of constructive deliberation on the subject matter where i feel that individual comments made by particular commissioners would be much more helpful to forward to the board of supervisors to be injected in what they will decide. i think the legislation as it stands right now requires some additional work, some additional broadening and potentially a little ironing out in certain areas of uncertainty, so i believe that i would feel more comfortable, that people share what this commission thoughtfully discusses, instead

of saying, okay -- like any suggestion you have made commissioner tanner will only become three or four words instead of why you really said -- where you're going with this. it requires more thinking when we share a broader part of that we're discussing. that would be my suggestion. i would rather people hear us than responding to little bullet points. but that's my opinion. >> commissioner tanner: i don't share that exact perspective, but i do hope that staff would bring forward the totality of our conversation. i do think part of the ironing out is the planning commission deliberation and discussion and through my motion weave together some of the things that i heard from other commissioners to add so that the legislators have that at least if it passes a majority of the commission, that

staff would hopefully bring forward the totality of the discussion and not just a few bullet points because other things have been discussed in much greater details even with the things in my motion to give life and understanding behind the meaning of those words. >> jonas: okay, commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded. to approve the proposed amendment with staff modifications and also to include a monitoring component to engage in outreach both before and after the legislation if it is to be adopted, to give consideration to a different shorthand title and also to businesses eligible for legacy status but have not yet applied, for them to be given consideration. i hope i've captured all of the

-- >> commissioner tanner: that's pretty close. it's the legacy businesses that have applied but haven't been approved. they've been trying to go forward with the process, but they're not there yet. >> jonas: legacy businesses that have already submitted their applications but not yet been approved. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: aye. >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president koppel: aye. >> so moved, that passes 5-2 with imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that places us on item 11, 2018, 015937. 136 delmar street. this is conditional use

authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioner and members of the commission. planning department staff. to begin, i would like to state for the record that finding 6d in the draft motion has been revised to correctly reflect a proposed 25-foot rear yard setback versus 24 feet 8 inches. the project before you is conditional use authorization for demolition of one story over basement single-family dwelling and new construction of a three-story over basement and one accessory dwelling unit. the single-family home will be a three-level unit located on the first, second and third floors with four bedrooms and three and a half baths. the adu is a single store unit with one bedroom, one bathroom. the project will also include a one-car garage on the basement level. the subject property is located in the haight ashbury

neighborhood. the structure was constructed in 1924. a historic resource evaluation conducted concluded that the home is not a resource. properties within the immediate vicinity consist of residential 1 to 2 family dwellings constructed between the late 1800s and mid 1930s. the subject block base exhibits styles, massing. the surrounding properties are located within the rh-2 zoning district. to date, the department has received 14 e-mails in support of the project. two phone calls and eight e-mails in opposition of the project, expressing concerns about the size of the building, legitimacy of the second unit, loss of light and air and apprehension that the property will be sold after construction has been completed.

staff recommends approval of this conditional use authorization request that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, while the project does involve the demolition of an existing single-family home, the proposed replacement will provide a single-family home and new adu. the department finds it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes the staff's presentation. i'm available to answer questions. the project sponsor is also present and has prepared a presentation for the commission. thank you. >> jonas: thank you. mr. armer? let me find you.

>> sorry. >> mr. armor, are you with us? >> i'm here. >> i'm going to ask you hold on until we share your presentation slides. >> thank you. and just so you know, you'll have five minutes when she pulls up your slides. >> understood, thanks. >> jonas: i'm going to ask josey to share her screen. >> that would be -- i don't think -- i don't think i can do that right now. >> jonas: unfortunately, you did not share the presentation slides with her.

you want to e-mail them to her quickly, she can -- >> i apologize. i'm totally thrown off not being on my own computer.

>> jonas: members of the public, i just wanted to remind you that the application for 1201 sutter street has been withdrawn. however, the commission will still hear the matter as an informational item. so there will be no action taken and the current result is that the project will be required to provide its inclusionary requirement on site as originally proposed. so you may or may not want to hold on and submit your public comment. mr. armor, i see that your slides are up. you have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm david armor, a residential architect, 136 delmar street is my family's home.

our project proposals to demolish the current dwelling and replace it with a new building that includes a family sized unit and adu. my wife and i only our architecture. next slide. for years, we searched to are a unique home in the upper haight with no success. in 2009, we were runners up on the home next door. in 2015, 136 delmar came up for sale. it was neglected, but we saw the possibility and imagined our forever home. we assessed the current condition, explored the feasibility and ran the numbers and were lucky to be the winning bidder. the 1030 square foot house had been vacant for decades, converted laundry porch and rear

addition. we decided that doing a quick renovation would give us time to get know the community. ecrafting the home to the character of the street and location along 130 delmar. we still live in the house despite chronic foundation and defects and recent mold growth. just to maintain it as is would require half a million dollars which makes no financial sense and why we seek this replacement. it includes a reasonably sized unit for our family, a space to work from home, a small single car garage for car bicycles and a rental unit that offers flexibility to help offset. we're not high network people. the home sits on a small

nonconforming lot situated at the row of homes that abut each other until 130 delmar, a pair of similar victorians. the design of our home responds to the site condition by placing a main 20 mass against the row of up hill houses. the short -- [indiscernible] -- limit of the size of the first and second floors so the bedroom should be located on the first flow that is -- with dormers for the bedrooms. this roof shape allows greater natural light penetration to the front and the reefer the property at -- rear of the property. the height of the front building wall follows the pattern of homes on the block. the exterior materials and window styles echo other homes on delmar. most built between the 1890s and

1930s. the rear massing includes multi-setbacks that sculpt the -- adjacent homes and stems from -- to review preliminary concepts in 2017 and 2018 and then again in 2021 after a substantial redesign after lockdown. mass reductions in the rear, neighbor comments from 138 delmar. the third floor wall has been set back five feet in response to their comments. family sized primary unit and independent 669 square foot one-bedroom adu. one of the important advantages of adu means it will never be a

condo and will be used as a rental. after planning indicated that the substantial removal of the defective structure might be tantamount to demolition. the shingle style exemplified by architects and unique as a historical style, blends into the context of the block and bridges the past and future. as an architect, i understand how the prospect of a new three-story home can be uncomfortable to neighbors who will used to a one-story structure. that's why we've gone through a lengthy process to design our forever home. we designed the -- with massing that is responsive to the topography of the site and the angles of the sun. next slide. we're thrilled that neighbors up and down -- the approval of the

project and we respectfully request that the commission adopt staff recommendations. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes the presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. you'll each receive two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, am i on? >> yes. >> hello? okay. thank you. my name is ted markham, i'm the resident next door. and we've been talking about this project for -- since pre-pandemic times.

and obviously i'm the immediate neighbor -- [please stand by]

so there's actually -- sorry.thm and it projects into the 45% zone into the backyard and i'm understanding that would just be grandfathered in but, they are proposing to buildup above that center full stores and the first-storey which projects out of the space. i'm looking for some. >> that's your time. >> hello, this is ray. i wanted to comment on the 101

sutter issue and i was trying to comment earlier but anyway -- >> my mic was just unmuted so what happens? >> well, we're not considering 1201 sutter we're on 136delmar street so you have to press star until we reach 101 sutter. >> caller: my name is ken. i live in a condo at 150delmar and i'm calling in in opposition to the proposed plans. this property of 136 delmar was a renovation opportunity and we

support the applicant's desire to renovate it and there's been lots of good back and fourth between the neighbors and the applicants and unfortunately, where we are is we have eight neighbors and our neighborhoods coalition the haight-ashbury and it's to share the renovation going from 720 square feet, the sides of the home, minus the sun room that's non permitted in the back, from 720 to 3,641 square feet and so that impacts these eight neighbors in a lot of ways. three of those eight, who have contacted the properties immediate low but as could the e street and they're impacted and the other five neighbors and the haight-ashbury coalition are concerned about the impact on affordability. we're not turning this into a

multi-unit home and this is still a single-family home and so we keep doing this over and over in our city going, having this 500% expansion and wondering why we have the housing crisis that we do. so, there seems to be real solutions here and two in particular. one is to reduce the scale and the applicants have let us know that the bank, financing this, will not let them reduce the scale anymore. they did go down from 3,900 to 3,600. the second is to make it a true multi-unit home in line with what the planning commission vote and supported a month ago saying that any expansion of this size should be the second unit should be a third to a half of the square footage. we have tons of these in our areas that are not being rented out and i'm just concerned the same thing will happen here and this won't be a meaningful addition. >> thank you, sir. that is your time.

>> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: my name is eric and i live at 164 delmar a few houses up the street. i think i'm calling in support of the design and the proposal and i think it's a very attractive and caseful design and fits in very well. basically i think it would be a great addition to the street. i mean, the house was there before was a cottage, 700 square feet and it was always that that would be expanded or replaced by something much larger. i think we're really lucky that it's being done by a good neighbor who cares about the street. one who also happens to be a very highly-skilled architect. you couldn't ask for much more than that. i think we're lucky to have that instead of a developer

rebuilding this and most developers are trying to build the biggest, cheapest things they can get bae and we'll all seen things and in 20 years tag happened across the street and it really ruined the character of the neighborhood. this house will be a great addition to the neighborhood and as i said, it's a tateful design and fits in very well and i respectfully disagree with ken who thinks -- i disagree with people who think the mass isn't appropriate for the neighborhood. i think the mass is similar to most other homes in the neighborhood and it fits in well and i will be a great addition so anyway, i fully support the project and hope it moves forward. thank you. >> caller: i live on the corner of delmar and i'm calling in support of 136delmar.

it fits in with the neighborhood. i grow with what the last caller said. it suits our neighborhood. when the property was sold, we all knew that that was going to be a bigger property and the family moved in and it was tiny but it was here in a small space and it fits our neighborhood perfect and the designs look great and most of the neighborhood is happy with the design and that's pretty much

all i have to say. thank you. >> caller: hello, my name is jody and my husband and you i own and live in 1457 (inaudible) for the home directly behind 136 dell mar to the east. we're one of several immediate neighbors who will experience an excessive impact of this size and height of this project. we want to begin by saying we have always been supportive of 136 delmar having more space and it would be developed. wore speaking to ask the commission to row consider what level expansion is truly reason shall given the lot size and impact on several neighbors, we believe the proposed 3600 plus square foot structure, 82% of which is one unit is excessive for the 2,000 square foot lot. the third level is taller than the property two doors up on dell mar.

this cast a shadow that will impact the light, sun and warmth in our home. in addition to the out dor space that we use on a daily basis, in addition the outdoor space we use on a daily base will lose sun for a good portion of the afternoon from may to act. this project has been in progress for close to five years. the concerns raised by some of those here today have been the same concerns that we and other neighbors began raising in 2017. while we've been told by the ownsers that are concerns have been heard and modifications made we can't say we've seen the changes we've hoped for. the proposed project is still as impactful on neighboring properties as they had been. our concern is and always has been the height of this project. earlier this week we went with the owners of 136 delmar and communicated our concerns however we were unable to make head way. they want what other people have in this area and they've said it several times. what must be taken into

consideration is the lot they build and their neighbors. we believe that two levels above a basement are reasonable from the neighbor impact statement and what sits on the particular lot on this particular block. we understand there's an impact with any property expansion -- >> thank you that, is your time. >> caller: hi, this is mr. markham i'm going to request more time if i can get another 30 seconds. >> you've already spoken and i paused your time when we were talking. >> caller: hi, my name is samantha and i live at 182 delmar street. i'm calling in support of the proposal for 136 delmar street.

the design of the building is -- it fits in with other buildings on the block. and in size and also in style. i'm also interested in the fact that it adds some rental inventory to this street and not a lot. it's a narrow street and traffic, you know, has become an issue over the last several years and so i'm letting -- i'm expressing my support for this project because i know the people that are planning this project, the residents and the homeowners, are planning to stay in the home for a long time and having rental properties in the building will a will you them to do that we want our long-term neighbors on the street for

many, many years and so the building fits in and it's mixed use of single family homes and two units and the design of the home fits in so i'm just in support of the project. thank you. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. you need to express star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional request to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> i'll be supporting staff's recommendation today. >>

>> i'm lus supportive. i want to ask the project response o. very well designed house and it's no surprise since they are architects and i think it fits in well with the neighborhood. i am curious, it's an r2-zoned property. did you all explore or think through adding a second unit and an adu and if you did, could you explain a little bit of the benefitses or costs or how that went if you thought about it or just what your thinking was in coming with the home and the adu? >> our goal was to -- our goal was always to build a family-sized home and include a rental unit with it and if we

were a developer, i think maxing out the unit count would make more sense and it's also adding significant cost to every additional unit brings additional bathroom and services and heating systems and it's never been our goal to maximize the property but we think they added density and we're proposing it's appropriate for the block and we've had many meetings with neighbors and gotten a lot of support for what we've proposed. >> thank you. >> yeah, i'm supportive of the project and i think it's well designed and i think one thing that i know i struggle with as a commissioner and my fellow commissioners struggle with this as well, how do we get folks inform maximize density on their lots and so, i would have loved to see two units in an adu on this r2 zoned property and where concerned legislation and we

support it as a commission to have fourplexes and things like that so we want to see density maximized and i think the more we can do it and the same time, balancing it with this is a homeowner who is living with the property and they're considering both what is feasible for them financially and also what is desirable for them in terms of how they want to live and the property they want to give in so i will be supporting this project and we're continuing to scratch our heads how we can get kids to maximize and it's a small scale that i think could really help to ease and city and more house nothing their neighborhoods and any time with their neighborhood's character and scale and it's a more pleasant experience for everyone who is effecting by the change in housing. so, thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i too think it's a beautifully designed project and i will support it. i have one question about the adu. i know your building into a hillside, but it feels like the

unit is going to be extremely dark and i'm wondering, if you explored ways to bring more light in? >> it's possible to bring more light in. in the rear corn of the unit, where the exterior glazed door is that goes up to the garden there's a plat roof where the lower unit extends beyond the building above and there's a location there that can have a is large skylight to bring additional light in and i believe it would also be possible to put a window in above the sink in the kitchen which is in the lot line wall but given the proximity to the adjacent buildings, the building department, the san francisco building code allows for windows to be located in such a position and it would be done with obscured glass and fire reading

for protection. >> so, i'm going to make a motion to approve this project but i would suggest that staff work with you during process, the rest of the process to see if some of those refinements that you just suggested, can be added in order to increase the liveability of the unit. maybe i'll ask if that's possible and do we need to make those changes now or can they just be seen as design refinements you would work on with the project sponsor. he said a revised plan adding the skylight into the adu but i'm not able to share my screen for some reason. i need to sign out of webex before i can get access. >> thank you. >> i do have him showing the skylight where he mentioned

previously. >> i'm willing to approve it but i would like to see the skylight and the additional windows he discussed added in because i do think it's important that we make these adus as livable as possible and i think it will be very dark. >> i would call my fellow commissioners comments about well designed building and it is in deed a breath of fresh air to see a better design building than what we normally deal with. the question that remains an issue for me is the unit size disparity and this design is primarily driven by the garage

which has to be placed where it is, it's on the entry level and have you considered not only ing an on side garage and creating a second unit that is a little bit more comparable in size to what you are proposing for yourself? >> well we've been living in the house for six years without a garage, which as i see it they're basics and they're where our bins go on the side of the building and in view of the sidewalks and one thing i didn't have time to mention in my earlier comments is that, while we were working on this design over the last few years, my wife and i rented a long-term space

in the lower haight-ashbury and moved to the central location which has been a huge benefit to my staff but another particular aspect of it is it's walking distance from our house which was the most amazing thing so we actually got rid of a car in the process and now we keep a car for out of town trips and if we need to take our daughter to school or i have clients i might need a car. we have reduced our driving since living in this house and moving in the office. it's something that is a necessary given all of the numerous functions besides car parking that a garage can bring. >> i hear you. on the other hand, you may have a discussion item on today's agenda about the elimination of

automobile service related uses in housing. this is again for the rest of the commission to consider disparity which the car, which is driving is a design, the height of the building, is taking precedent over creating a second more equitably sized units and it's fifth very important policy discussion to keep in mind, aside from feeling really positive about the design of the building. i'm sitting on the fence because policy and working on people with policy and implementation into a slightly different direction and building homes which are far in access of 2,000 square feet is an issue that i consider very important for myself and this particular

project raises the question because this building, that is designed around accommodating the car in the only place where it can be when you build on this particular site. i hope will be that there is follow-up with the questions before we move to vote. >> thank you. >> i'm -- with all of these discussions with the adus and rh2 and dense tie but this is a home owner trying to expand his home and providing an adu in order to create density and in a way, i share what commissioner tanner has mentioned that there are policy levels that we here

at the commission talk about and when it comes to projects, implementing into the projects, we become -- we cross in this kind of like the implementation of the policy and plus the homeowners that would like to expand a home and great density at the same time and i am looking into the general aspect of this area as well and i am more my only issue here will be the bulk and the height of this house that in a way, it unlimits the commission and limiting the policy of what wore trying to achieve in creating equity density and i feel like those were the things that i am more prone into vet that although i

understand that this is a home owner but i don't think that i would approve this for that reason that i think here at the commission and i think the planning department needs to start implementing when it come to the rh-2 and when it comes to the bulk and the density that we're trying to achieve in terms of the density but i do, appreciate what the homeowner is trying to do adding the adu and it looks like access to open space at backyard and if it's going forward, i would suggest what commissioner diamond mentioned about working with the planning staff making sure adu is livable. i don't think i would vote in

this saying yes. so that's my comment. >> clerk: there's a late request for comment. should i take that person now? >> yes. >> >> clerk: caller, if you want to speak mute your television or computer. commissioners, i apologize for that. i heard commissioner diamond make a motion but i did not hear

a second. seeing no additional deliberation for the members of the commission there's a motion that has been seconds and to approve the matter with conditions as amended by staff. as well as direction for the sponsor to continue working with staff on liveability refinements of the adu unit, on that motion -- [roll call vote] >> clerk: so moved. that motion passes 5-2 with imperial and moore voting against. that will place us on item 12 for case 2020-00914 (inaudible). upper terrace this is a

conditional use authorization staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> jeff, i believe you are muted. >> got it now. >> yes, you are good. >> thank you. good evening, or afternoon, president koppel, members of the commission, jeff warren planning staff. i have a request for condition at use authorization to allow development that will result in growth square floor area in excess of 3,000 square feet and to allow residential development in a year yard less than 45% lot depth with the cor on a heights special youth directing. subject property is on the southeast side of upper terrace within the cor on a heights neighborhood. in excess of 25% with a width of 25 feet and a depth of 60 feet. at the front of the property,

the detached garage and a court yard that is used by the adjacent property to the north at 245 upper terrace and the remaining portion of the lot contains natural vegetation including several trees. the lot totals 1500 square feet in size and located in the rh-2 zoning directing and a 40x height and bulk directing. the surrounding property consists of two and three-storey buildings on the downward sloping lots containing one to two units and the adjacent parcel to the north at 245 upper ter ace is two family residents on a deeper lot with a building depth of 50 feet and the jays adjacent property is one-storey over basement and two unit building with a depth of 30 feet. the project proposed to demolish 351 square foot garage structure and construct a new 4,081 square

foot four-storey over basement two family dwelling with a 2,074 square foot three dwelling union exit 1,763 three bedroom dwelling unit and it's including a 243 garage and bike parking spaces. due to the downard slope of the lot it's three-storeys at the street with two floors below street grade and the location of the lot year yard was through the averaging of the two adjacent buildings -- they were

removed from the proposal in response to the massing lost in the alterations described above and modifications were made to the facade for planning code requests and requirement and a contextual consistent design. the department has received correspondences from 13 neighbors and it's on the masking of the scale of the impact of the mid lock open space, increased on street parking demand and safety concerns with construction of the lots' steep slope and existing tree at rear side property of the lot. this was first scheduled for the act 28th, 2021 hearing. and must continue to allow the project as you conduct outreach to neighbors to discuss concerns with the project. the sponsor conducted additional neighborhood outreach via e-mail

and individual meeting and a larger group meeting conducted through supervisor mandelman's office. on december 2nd of 2021 the project sponsor submitted a brief exhibit f of the case report package and that includes a summary of concern expressed by neighbors and particularly from the adjacent neighborhood to the southwest at 251 upward terrace and responds and instead he's to address the concerns and it includes a shadow study, street parking study, the preparation of a tree protection plan and new privacy screening and along that south side and the relocation is the bathroom exhaust fan for the building at 251 upper terrace. the sponsor would like to include an additional modification to the project and it's a reduction to the a parent and actual height and the

removal of parapets from the roof. over all the department finds out the project is son bald with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the proposed project has a contextually in a man i remember that adds two quality units to the housing stock and the skill of the building are consistent with the subject block and compliment the neighborhood character with a contemporary design and the department also finds a project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, project sponsor, with you with us.

>> our presentation slides come up and you will have five minutes and there are presentation slides. >> ok. i see them coming up now. and good. all right, mr. pen, you have five minutes. >> commissioners, thank you for your time today, david pen with me on the phone are david cumby the project architect as well as mike and sarah and the owners and should you have a question for us? >> if you could just show the first slide and roll to the she. it was purchased by mike and sarah to the north with they made it 20 yearsing and they have always been active members of the community and run the annual neighborhood station. next slide. the project achieved a modest scale of the street and maximizing through excavation and terracing the building down the load and the if sid is two

stories setback 15 feet from the property line, the upper unit is the street level and the lower is access via stair from the streets along the north property line. next slide. each unit has three bedrooms and the lower 1700 square feet unit below the street level and the upper 2,074 square foot unit at and above the street level. we had asked that this item be continued from the october 28th year to be engage and it included a meeting mediated by supervisor mandelman's office in response to the in the year two city at the front and a reduction of parapet height this is in the drawings to you today. next slide. other ideas regard the pioneer until the structural design is

complete and dbi review, any impact to it and they hired ann arborist to we have offered to hire a second boner as well and it is not code compliant and we have offered to reroute this at our extent and we have also agreed to use the privacy glass on the two narrow windows facing 251 upper terrace. next slide. shadows cast on 251 will be minimal as it's south of the proposed building and we have provided the studies showing that shadows at summer solstice, when they would be impactful shade our southern neighborhood slightly more than trees currently on the subject which

will be re moved and construction. next slide, please. which just shows that at this most impactful time at stoll solstice,it brings us here todad just like to reemphasis what we get for this square footage proposed here. two new similarly and family sized units. and this speaks directly to our project meeting the first consideration of the sud which is to promote housing affordability by increasing housing supply. the second consideration is to maintain affordability of existing housing units but this project proposes no impact to any existing housing rather it creates two new units in place of a garage. the third consideration is the project be compatible with the existing development. the design matches adjacent property light walls and stair walls to the north and south with an average rear yard

setback and pop out positioned and setback from the neighbor to the south. and protection and dbi row have you to ensure structural integrity and they will allow a new street parking spot this will mitigate the impact on parking and prioritizing habitable space in our building design. and next slide, please. lastly the project implies that applicable provisions of the planning code and not adversely effect the general plan and this creates a new (inaudible) within walking distance to the public

we ask for the commission to approve the motion and thank you for your time and we remain on the phone for any questions you may have. >> thank you, that concludes project sponsored presentation and we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. when when you hear your line is unmuted, it's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hello. my name is evelyn mar. i'm the property owner of 251 upper terrace in san francisco, which is directly next to the proposed project on lot 45. i am deeply concerned about the

proposed project on lot 45 and at 247 upper terrace because the property tremendously it will impact it in a negative way not to mention the impact on the community of upper terrace. currently, there is seven inch gap between their existing garage and my house. the images of the proposed project david cumby of the survey shows a slight angle and the however the survey does not show that my house also pulls away at a slight angle and from the same property line leaving a large gap between my house and the property line at the back

corner. this is evident on my boundary and top graphical survey map and david map shows just lot 45 side of the parkway line. he did not show my side of the property line. which is a relevant line for this project because they will need to cross the property line to build against my house. the planning design guidelines say respect existing pattern aside spacing between the two buildings and the proposed structure project must respect that existing patterns and this side placement. any construction -- i oppose

this project. thank you, very much. >> my name is chuck dill i live at 564-566 roosevelt way and i'm a owner occupant and i'm right downhill from the project right next door. as you may know, there's a lot of inconveniences that are planned and unanticipated and anticipated when you are downhill from new construction but our main concern is this tree that was mentioned before. it's a 80-foot monterey located 20 feet uphill from our home. concerning this tree, as was mentioned earlier by the architect, on roosevelt way, we consulted with phil danielleson

of the bay area arborist co-operative about the tree and he is a certified arborist and tree risk assessor and it has report he says quote because of the tree he's lead and imbalance, lack of root support on the leaning side, the tree could fail at some time. if construction on the property above takes place this plan and there's excavation and roots need to be cut, i recommend that the tree be removed before the work is done. if the degree did fail it would impact the house below and the consequences will be extreme. i just want to say here that we appreciate the sponsors' efforts to trim the tree over the years and so finally, we're concerned about our safety but at this point i would respectfully ask the commission not to a project

unless the key is cut down and removed from the property before excavation and construction begins. thank you. >> can you hear me? >> caller: this is aaron bailey i used to actual will he give in the unit in mike's building. i lived there for five years. i just wanted to talk about sort of my journey in the neighborhood and why i'm in favor of this particular project. long story short, mike is a great member of the community and he has been supportive of me my time living there with him. i enjoyed my time living there. when i heard he was building more property in the area, thrilled. my fiance and i were considering purchasing one of the units if possible and continuing to live in the neighborhood because we love it so much. as things got delayed and the time lines on this project got pushed out, we had to look

elsewhere and actually ended up spending quite a few years looking for other places and ended up buying another place in the neighborhood just down street. this speaks to one, there's a great opportunity for housing in this particular neighborhood and it's fantastic place to live and this unit will be really nice, helpful for the community and it would impact the anesthetic or anything else if anything it will help bring up housing values a little bit and so i think it would be great to bring some more great neighbors to this neighborhood and i wish that it had been completed earlier so that i could have been mike's neighbor. the only other thing i'll add i've lived in san francisco for a long time and i feel like this is a rare opportunity where you have a lot with an old garage on it and you can very easily sit in a new house without putting up some condo or something like that that will block views and it's an opportunity to increase

housing in a thoughtful way. thank you. >> caller: is it me? >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> caller: this is carole from 290 upper terrace. and i want to say that i've lived here a long time and in 1990, a previous owner of these properties also wished to demolish the garage and build a new single family house and under the rules each unit required a garage space. the owner applied for a variant and we would have a problem with traffic and parking just the

same as we are having right now and so the property at 251 was affected at the same time of the same residents and evelyn mar lived there with her now deceased husband pete and we all were against this project at the time for the same reasons that we are now because there would be parking taken away from the house at 245, the two-car garage which has been used for 20 years by the residents of 245 and all these cars would be thrown into the competitive search for a parking place on the street and we have this variant because the

owner are died but right now we're back in the same place we were 30 years ago with the same concerns and i request this condition at use not be granted and also, why do we have a corona heights with 3,000 feet if it can so easily be challenged? thank you. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. >> caller: i'm reading a statement from carole cox who for 45 years, has lived at 282

upper terrace across the project and she was born and lived here for 75 years. as currently designed the project exceeds the 3,000 square foot standard and tent of the corona heights sud, it should not be approved. the project sponsors should develop the property can two three-bedroom units and without the fourth story to comply with the sud creating more affordable housing. the size of the project makes it undesirable and not compatible with the surrounding homes. the fourth-storey should be removed and the findings say that quote, the surrounding neighborhoods consists of two and three story buildings on the downward sloping lots containing dwelling units. it's four stores over basement on a sleep lot with a top story master suite switched from a

family room in the 29-2020 plans. look at those plans and ask your staff about them. the design on these earlier plans reviewed by your staff are more in keeping with the intent of the su did and more affordable by design without the fourth-storey. this project is really five-storeys, a basement, with four levels above that the findings state the adjacent properties are one or two stories over basement. the removal of the trees will takeaway the light and the can pee which can be seen on pages 53 and 61 to 63 of the packet. please, consider the 2019-2020 plans and ask your staff and remove the fourth-storey. otherwise, please vote no on this conditional use authorization. and thank you on behalf of carole cox. [please stand by]

>> clerk: was there a second to commissioner diamond's motion? >> president koppel: yes, it's a motion. yes. >> clerk: very good. seeing no additional request -- i see commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: eir i liketo remind about policy discussion. this project provides less than 45%. two units are very large and it makes it difficult to see a fourth floor with master bedroom

at a time when i believe that family size units can be achieved by not -- [ indiscernible ] i only see one commissioner comment, i hope that other commissioners will weigh in on this discussion. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no additional request to speak from members of the commission, there's a motion that has been seconded. that would be to approve this

project with conditions as amended to approve tree protection plan. on that motion. [roll call vote] so moved. that motions passes 5-2. commissioners imperial and moore voting against. that will plus -- that will place us on item 13. for case number 2021-'01 0715. the sutter street.

you are entitled to consider it. staff, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> staff service ready to make a presentation. i'll provide a very quick overview and probably hear from the project sponsor. just quick backdrop, this is a 6-story new construction building located at 1201 sutter. this is six-story building with 54 dwelling units, 51 approved as studios and three as bedroom units. you all never saw this project because it was not subject to planning commission approval. it was subject to rear yard

modification. d.b.i. issued the permit in august 2018. the project was built and simply waiting certificate of final completion and occupancy. regarding our subject matter here, regarding affordability in compliance with housing affordable program. all studios -- these rental units. a notice of special restriction was recorded and documenting compliance. mohcd ran a lottery in summer 2020.

the project has been on hold since then. just october this year we received request from project sponsor to change the compliance fee. i'll make myself available on conversations that you want to have about this. i am joined by my colleagues. do we want to hear from project sponsors? >> clerk: i was going to ask the commission chair if you wanted to afford the project sponsor any time to present related to their decision to withdraw?

>> president koppel: i was going to let the commissioners ask questions to the project sponsor. >> clerk: commissioner imperial you're muted. through the chair. we should probably take public comment as well. commissioner imperial, if you could wait one moment. members of the public when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication you can speak. you'll have two minutes. >> caller: i'm disappointed to hear that the idea of doing a

fee instead of this being withdrawn. i hope the project sponsor will go back to paying a fee instead. you heard at a recent hearing both me and a woman representing bay view homeowners and realtors what it's a terrible idea to have d.m.r.s on site. >> clerk: we just lost her. i don't know what happened. we'll take the next person to speak. >> caller: good evening. margaret o'shea. i been on this call since

1:00 p.m. good afternoon, commissioner, staff and san franciscans. i'm disappointed, the project sponsor decided to withdraw its application after lot of us had been already 1 hour 45 minutes. i work in public health. i'm an essential worker. this has been a big hardship to be on the wait. beside that point, i want to emphasize that a letter was saying, i was a affordable unit low lottery number. under the mayor's office of housing community development, this is a way that lottery holders get preferences and it's

a way for us to have a better chance of living in it city. currently i rent a room and a house that many other people rent rooms. i would love to afford a studio. this was marketed on the website of the mayor's office of housing community development. with one of the preferences deemed for district 3, that is very rare that it's studios and there are any in district 3. the lottery was held december 7, 2020.

i am very disappointed that they have not kept us informed. now there's a sudden change and now sudden change of withdrawal. i'm losing great confidence. i want you to hold them accountable and i appreciate you. thank you. >> clerk: ms. chapman, if you press star 3 again, i will unmute you. >> caller: hello. i live in district 3. i applied to be in the lottery 14 months ago. there was a lottery year ago. the building management company they've been giving us lip service for about a year. then they started ghosting people and not responding. they say they are financially challenged in regards to this

whole meeting. what this meeting is about. they trying to convert studios to one bedroom unit and drive poor people out the building. the thing that's disgusting, the law firm that represents the builder is ran by nancy pelosi's daughter. this is ridiculous. i can't believe this is happening in san francisco. it says things about san francisco and where the city is going. i had to sit through this four-hour hearing. this is ridiculous. the government and planning department should cracking down on people like this. they don't belong in san francisco. i wanted to tell everybody about my experience. it's a super negative experience. i had to go to the city for help and the city couldn't do anything. i think this builder should be

-- should have their feet held to the fire by the planning commission. thank you. >> caller: as i was saying, -- [ indiscernible ] people have $66,000 assessment. people have $70,000 assessment and people have $100,000 assessment. they have more months or they

have six months to come up with the money. no bank is going to lend them the money. i'm referring to condos. they already have a mortgage to pay. they have their fees to pay. they are also paying their property tax. they have no way. they're going to be out. just like the people in my building. my good friend, she was in her retirement home. next thing she was homeless. she had to move to reno and couldn't stay in san francisco. also she was in a hotel

homeless. if you have a rental building -- >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star 3. seeing no additional request to speak, public comment on this item is closed. it is now before you commissioners. >> commissioner imperial: i have a question of the project

sponsor. is the project sponsor available? >> i represent the project sponsor. >> commissioner imperial: my question is, i am actually surprised that you are doing the off site fee during the lottery process. when did you find out that you have to change from on site fee? why did the lottery process take place during this time? >> couple of things, i will say, having a detailed discussion about an application isn't presently in front of the commission. i will try my best. i'm here on another matter but i

represent them on this one. i'm happy to try my best. the project has been under construction just recently finished construction. it was under construction during the covid period. conditions changed in the city. economics changed for the project. at some point, the developer, my client looked at alternatives which they are allowed to do. it is awkward to be doing this late in the process. to found out later about the challenges. the reason they did the lottery is because on site is one their alternatives. that's where we are now.

i hear the commission loud and clear. no one wants to have my client back in front of the commission seeking to pay the fee even though they are allowed to do that. i understand it doesn't look good. it's a struggle by a local san francisco-based developer trying to figure out the best solution financially. >> commissioner imperial: anothe r question. in terms how you're staffing b.m.r. and homeownership program. are they equipped to have people going through this process? >> we already engaged with the mayor office of housing.

there was a september pricing determination. we had discussions about contracting with s.f. homeownership if they go through that route. there's lot of discussions internally with mayor's office of housing about the process of complying with on site. they were staffed up to do that. unfortunately, the way this is played out, obviously not good optics. it's kind of the messy part of trying to comply with a complicated statute. would add, was to give them more

flexibility. there was no attempt to try game the system or anything like that. >> commissioner imperial: thank you for your answers. my question is to the planning staff and the mohcd. is there a time frame where -- can they do the switching? i understand that the developer has the right for which alternative they can take. the time frame of this switching from on site to off site, for me, there's a lot of it happening. people are expected to be housed or interviewed. does mohcd have that to switch?

>> the approval time line is pretty far. the planning code as it stands today, the market rate units have to be marketed and leased or sold at the same time. there's a big gap between approval between what's required and the deadline.

what you're referencing here is trying to understand who the rental may qualify for an ownership unit. that's we've been working with the sponsor on for several months now. trying to really provide at least that opportunity to the people who won the lottery. supervisor ronen legislation becomes effect on december 19th. that gives us a lot -- establishing milestone between the approval of the project and the completion of the project. moving forward, we'll have a little bit more contact with developers who are seeking to provide units on site so we can make sure that they are delivered simultaneously. >> commissioner imperial: the reason it come to planning commission, this project is not grandfathered on that

legislation >> that legislation is not affected. it doesn't apply -- it did not apply to the application. >> commissioner imperial: there were questions about if they ever come back -- feels like they are not going to come back but we don't know. they still have that right to come back here. what will be the reason for them to come back? >> eventually, by withdrawing the application, they have recommitted to pursuing the alternative. if they work with us, continue

to work with us on tenure shift making sure they have opportunity to engage, they still have the ability to come to the commission and seek to change from on site fee. the ronen legislation doesn't change that process. it's still a commission hearing. that would be my understanding if they continue to look into these options. they still have to come back to the commission. >> commissioner imperial: the commission doesn't have the right to deny that? >> that's a question of timing. what i can speak to i think is how we set up -- how supervisor ronen set up her ordinance. modifications to the tenure going from on site to fee, right

now as the code stands, the commission doesn't have the authority to say no. the ronen legislation does, it sets up a series of findings if there are any findings that cannot be made, the commission could deny a project. we don't know if that legislation will be applicable. it's kind of like when is the application submitted. i don't want to get too deep in the weeds on that. that's how was set up. >> commissioner imperial: thank you mr. foster for being available.

the fact this it's happening during the lottery process, it's really a bad look. it becomes an issue within mohcd. i hope that other project sponsors hear that loud and clear. thank you very much. >> clerk: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have voiced my concerns about the project earlier. one thing i like to add. i like to thank those two individuals who were in the lottery to share with us what

it's really like when you're up against the wall. i think that is for everybody to hear and for us as commissioners to take it heart. this is more than playing with numbers. that is a direct back on people's lives. this time of year when we probably like to be, this is heart breaking to me. tan >> commissioner tanner: i want to thank those folks who did call in. this is real life. housing is the foundation of our lives. without it, we don't have a place on which to do work, to

engage with friends and family to contribute to society. it is so essential. to be at this point in the process, i know it's not the project sponsor design to do that. it's incredibly distressing. this commission not looking favorable on this. we wanted to hear this item instead of continuing it. i hope it gives them a sense of scrutiny if it were to come back. i want to ask project attorney if you -- i'm a -- it's more of statement. it's a bit annoying is the word to cams to mind, it's kind of

disrespectful the process to have item proposed for continuance. to have the sponsor not be present, not be prepared to present, i think it's a misstep i hope will not be repeated and not assume this body will continue the item. we had people hanging on the line to get questions to questions. you had testimony that those in the lottery will get updates every 30 days. that is the beginning of the year. that has not happened. >> good question. i have written it down when i was spoken if realtime.

i don't know what the communications have been back-and-forth between them and the potential future residents there. i'm happy to e-mail you the results what i find out. >> commissioner tanner: thank you very much. those are my comments. >> commissioner diamond: i want to ask why they issue the project today after it was denied? >> my explanation, this is clearly a bigger issue than just the simple request for the project, which is the project

has right to elect which route to go to comply with affordable housing requirements. it became clear that this was being complicated. i think they hear the commission very clearly. i will make sure they hear it. the way this works, you have option a and b. it's really on site or pay the fee. sounds like paying the fee is

not something that everyone is comfortable with. kind of defaults them which is on site. i think they hear that message. >> commissioner diamond: i think it is appalling to gone through the lottery and changing how they want to handle the fee versus on site at stage. as i read the conditions and i'm curious about this, it says if you're gong to pay a fee you have go through construction document.

>> clerk: commissioners we can move on to item 14. property is 400 hyde street. this is conditional use authorization. >> afternoon. the project is proposing eight antennas and not 12 as stated in the report. the project before you is a condition use authorization for a new rooftop telecommunication facility consisting of installation of eight antennas ancillary equipment. the antennas will be screened within 30-inch diameters and --o

date the support received one letter in opposition sighting concern about loss of private views and personal displeasure with verizon. staff finds that the project is consistent with the north of market residential f.r.p. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for any questions. the project sponsor is also present and has prepared a presentation for the commission and hopefully, it will work for me this time.

>> thank you all. thank you commissioners and staff. we appreciate your time. linda has been helpful. i'm hayden piper. the purpose of this project was to improve the coverage and the capacity of verizon's network

and its immediate four block radius. we're seeking a new wireless facility. you can see here on the title page, 400 hyde street, san francisco. as we do for every facility as we're proposing install, we need to express need for the carrier. this is the existing coverage lot for the verizon service.

we did have one other location in the ring. i know that's a question that comes up. that location is -- considering

the other space, radio frequency engineer was worried about other interference. bringing you back to this slide, this is what our proposed site is now. four sectors, 12rus and other supporting equipment. our main goal was to fit into that rooftop, creating a worry for interference. there's a lot of stuff on this rooftop right now. there's pipes and existing

penthouses and number of fire escapes. what we decided with planning and with our architect, best way to screen these antennas was to mimic the existing feature was of the rooftop. there are a number of pipes for exhaust. the equipment area is also on the rooftop. that is screened as well for the neighbors. i will say we did noticing to everyone. i believe 500-foot radius.

my personal number is on the notice. i only received one phone call. the one phone call was from the neighborhood about what equipment will be on the roof. they were happy with the project and didn't have any other concerns. we hope you approve this project and provide more coverage in this area. >> clerk: that concludes project sponsor presentation. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. seeing no request from the public. this public comment is closed. this matter is before you

commissioners. >> vice president moore: i'm in support of the project. i like to know that i appreciate it. i move to approve. >> clerk: on that motion to approve the conditions. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 7-0. this places you on discretionary refer calendar. item 15. 2000 oakdale avenue. this is a discretionary review.

are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. good evening commissioners. michael christensen. the item before you is for building permit application number 2021.0323.7148. this includes a mix of activities including retail, distribution -- microbusiness licensing is for vertical integration allowing multiple license activities to occur within one premise. otherwise, each cannabis activity must occur under

separate licenses. the d.r. raise three principle concerns with the proposed project. first the cannabis retail use exceeds the limit. second the -- the department review the concerns of the d.r. requester and has the following responses. to the issue of the size of the use, the park is not subject to that size limit.

the city does require preparation and submittal of mitigation plan. this project is in the land use phase which is under part 2 of the licensing process. under part 3 the cannabis business is required to submit good neighbor agreement to the city's office of cannabis for review after conducting neighborhood outreach. this outreach exceeds outreach requirement of the planning code and neighborhood notification range. cannabis businesses are required to incorporate feedback received during this period. if the business is unable to incorporate a change or not willing to do so, the director of the office of cannabis, empowered to impose conditional use on the license.

staff recommends that the d.r. request work with the office of cannabis. staff contacted department of public health. there were previously complaints about retail businesses. all cannabis products are required to be stored within pre-packaged containers.

that facility a cultivation facility. that facility is a legacy facility under temporary permit authorization that is not yet gone through neighbor agreement process or the development of an organization plan. it lacks the basic mechanical equipment. that site will be required to develop when it goes through part 3.

regarding impacts of rental rates and provides small retail space within a larger manufacturing distribution. other similar type of industrial facilities are permitted to incorporate retail spaces within the footprint. it could occupy the entire area and still remains fully compliant.

as the project is code compliant, of the pdr district, required to develop mitigation plan for review by the city office of cannabis. staff does not find exceptional extraordinary circumstance and recommend the commission not approve the proposal. >> clerk: thank you, michael. you have three minutes.

>> good evening. [ indiscernible ]

[ indiscernible ]

>> clerk: you got ten seconds left. that's your three minutes. when i introduced you, you had three minutes. [ indiscernible ] >> clerk: project sponsor. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for having my team here once again. i would like to begin by

introducing myself. i'm equity applicant of the proposed candidate retail location at 2000 oakdale street. i'm second generation resident in san francisco. born and raised in the bayview hunters point district. i want to be able to demonstrate to my community that we have the ability to be entrepreneurs within the legal system, not in opposition to it. bayview district my community and to have a business here in my community is like a dream come true. it will be an honor for me to circulate the dollars to stay

within the community. i'm proud to say our team has lived by strong experienced women of color with over 25 years in the cannabis industry. we plan to bring the same success and best practices in san francisco. we plan to use these resources to be able to carry diverse inventory of equity trade certified and lgbtq+ owned

products of our shelves. we look forward to implementing -- [ indiscernible ] we're excited to economic entrepreneurial growth by providing 15 to 20 jobs to local residents and increase the security measures and become positive active members of the community. we are working with the community. we pent countless hours in the community