we will talk a little bit more about the safety and structural concerns and we want to describe our continued working -- work in progress and making sure we mitigate as much as possible under the permit. mark, if you can touch on the safety concerns and then we will pass it over to carl so we can address this moving forward. >> thank you. yes, safety is our biggest concern in the project. i think i explained it that we do have other obstacles in removing bicycle racks and things to move them out of our way it is a really difficult

process. i'm sorry to use that word again, i know it is not a good one. those are our issues. it is less safe with the more obstacles you have.

i feel like i would like you to know that the department does care about trees and the environment and taking cars off the road and using almost entirely greenhouse gas emissions for energy. we are committed to sustainability in all of the projects. we regularly planted trees. we do analyse all of our projects and all of our extension projects we have mitigations. [ indiscernible ]

there were maybe three trees at lafayette station. and nine in the downtown berkeley blocks. the people we work with long ago, they liked the trees. i will pass you on to carl. >> thank you. a few things i would like to say before talking about the continued negotiations is that this design of the station entrance canopy was not decided by bart. it was a collaboration with the city and the county of san francisco and other entities. it was mainly the city that referred to this particular

design, not bart. so we had other canopies, or at least another canopy that was a pilot in downtown oakland that personally ran and delivered that. it was a different style. however,, the city wanted something that was different and unique. so i just wanted to bring that up. the design was driven by collaboration with the city. the plan, the original plan was that as these canopies were installed, that it would be aligned with the better market street program. i have heard that there were concerns about that program, but that was the original plan. what we are trying to do is create a new plan which is what we are in the process of negotiating now with the potential green roofs, as well as advocating for replanting on the side streets that are adjacent to market street.

the 3-5 years or the three years of establishment, i'm confident that working with the cbd that we will be able to achieve with the replanting. and then bart plans to be around for a while with sfmta. so instead of making sure there is agreements that are renewed or helping to subsidize in order to make sure that we don't have trees or green roofs that are not maintained. i also recall, even though i wasn't personally in this role at the time, but during the construction of the two pilot canopies, at least from what i was able to research, the idea was to install those two canopies so we would know what to do when we installed the other 19 canopies which are part of the contract. i don't recall seeing that there

was this amount of concern with the trees. so that is also still a lesson learned in terms of making sure that we ask the right questions, even if we aren't getting a certain amount of feedback on the trees that were removed in order to install the canopies. i think, even with that, just the fact that we're trying to create a plan to allow for enhanced greenery on market street in the adjacent streets, hopefully can be viewed as a way forward for a better long-term plan and city and county of san francisco. one last point, i believe it would take about 30 days, but luckily with the holidays it took 60 days in order to finalize the agreements. i believe one of the commissioners had asked that question earlier. that's what we believe in terms

of everything to solidify things. >> thank you. that will do for the district time. >> thank you. is bart finished? >> correct. >> thank you. we will -- we have a question from the vice president. >> mr. holmes, if we are doing a project at your house, and the project manager came to you with the lack of clarity that you were presenting to us tonight with regards to what will we do here, what will we do there, would you allow that contractor to proceed on your house? >> i think when we talk about lack of clarity, it is regarding having to come up with a modified plan. so even chris bock indicated

that there is a moving target in terms of being able to ascertain which trees would be impacted on a more permanent basis if we were to try to replant for market street. so i comfortable with accepting a certain amount of risk, as long as that risk is identified so it can be mitigated throughout the process, but not identifying the risk, yes, i would be concerned, but the fact that it is identified and we are trying to show ways to mitigate, then i would be comfortable with moving forward with making sure that the risk is addressed while the work is complete. >> are you aware that by asking us to deny the appeal that you are asking this body to assume your risk that you have identified and taken the risk along with you on behalf of the city of county of san francisco and their citizens?

>> can you rephrase the question? >> are you aware that tonight, if we deny the appeal, that we are assuming that risk, along with you on behalf of the citizens of the city and county of san francisco? >> i aware of that perspective and, again, i would like to remind you and others that we are also accepting the risk in terms of the fact that this design was not our preferred design. so, we have been working in conjunction with the city and county of san francisco and have agreed to move forward.

i do acknowledge that the risk is shared, but we are the ones that are still in the driver seat in terms of trying to mitigate the risk and keep this moving forward and working with josh and the other appellant to make sure that, at the end of this, we should be able to say that this was a successful program, that we are able to enhance what is needed for riders to be able to safely enter the system, but also be able to say that we have something that has long-term in order to the green roof, as well as trees that maybe are not planted on market street, if they are not liable, but planted on the side streets as a result of our project so that we wouldn't want nothing to happen in regards to our replanting effort. >> this will be another question because you said this is not,

you know, our preferred design. we really didn't like this design, but we will move it forward. and with that, you know, i shuddered because what you are asking, for myself and my colleagues is to kick the can down the road, approve a project that you really don't like, and take responsibility for doing something that you don't even think is right in perpetuity. is that correct? and my hearing that? you are asking us to take a design that you don't like and approve this project because you all have a process, there is that word because i stuck it in there on purpose. because you have a process that you are going through, and your priority is just to get this thing done in a timely fashion because it will cost more money

if you don't get it done? is that where you are going here? and if anything, trees beach at -- be damned. is that where we are going here? i a native of san francisco. i get really pissed off when things don't -- when i hear stuff like that. >> my response is intended to clarify that when people say that they don't like the bart design, it was not necessarily a bart design in its entirety. it was a collaboration with the city, as well as other entities. we have agreed collectively to move this design forward. that was my intent in my statement. >> because it is your process and the priority is to get it done. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> we have a question. >> commissioner chain, you have a question? >> i actually just wanted to provide some thoughts, but i think i will wait. i will wait for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. you have 12 minutes. >> thank you. i don't have any rebuttal at this time. thank you. >> wow. >> thank you. do you have a question? >> sorry, i have a question. [ indiscernible ] >> someone from the public mentioned there is a much larger project of tree removal on market street, and that our hearing and our multiple hours and my earning of $75 today is at bay. could you elaborate on that, please? >> thank you, commissioner. i only aware of one, possibly

two applications for removal that are currently active related to some type of maintenance on an existing vault for electrical. >> sorry to interrupt. one of the appellants had brought up that there are ways going to be 800 tree removals. >> no. that is not true. the better market street plan was changed drastically by the pandemic. the numbers that were in play just a couple years ago have been reduced quite a bit. >> is that to like 10 or like 500? >> i don't think we have enough time this evening to go over that, but the comment is contemplating from embarcadero to octavia.

>> thank you, chris. thank you. >> thank you. this matter is submitted. >> okay. who would like to start first? [ laughter ] commissioner chan, would you like to start first? >> thank you, president honda. i just wanted to chime in and respond to the comments that have been made by my fellow commissioners. i similarly a tree lover and honor and very much hold dear the limited tree landscape that is on market street and the rest

of the city, for that matter. i do think it would be fair to acknowledge for a moment that the new work that is before us is not actually for us. that was a project that has been many, many years in the making. i left the planning department in 2017, and for a couple of years during my time at the planning department, better market street and their efforts there were still underway. i guess i say that just to highlight that during my time at the planning department all of this was still being planned with the many agencies, including bart, it is unfortunate that not all the other agencies are here to

represent, but i do think it would be fair to acknowledge that it is not only bart that has been at the table making this decision. i know that m.t.a. was involved, the planning department was involved. dpw was involved, but i think we should at least acknowledge that part. it is not like unilateral decision that bart takes to design new canopies and then implements them. it is a really, really long and involved process. i think by the time it comes before us, the limited scope that we have is to hear about the tree removal, but i don't think it is as simple as that. it would be unfair to characterize it as such. i just wanted to get that one out. >> similarly, my comments will be even prior to the statement. i will not blame bart as well.

i believe in this particular case. the process in this particular case is flawed. at the same time, i want to be productive going forward and not have a pincushion. i always say it is construction. no one pays about the electrician, the hardwood floor guy gets the worst of it because he is the last one on the floor. >> i feel this plan was poorly planned and bart is not responsible for the canopy design and the removal of all the trees and the additional maintenance as an excuse to remove trees is a pretty poor excuse. also, i of the opinion that this permit was issued in error. i think it is flawed. i think just from the testimony

and material that was brought before the body this evening, that the mapping and tree removal and placement was faulty. at the same time, i'm not willing to deny the permit. i more looking at giving more time so that we can work with bart and with the public and the department going forward so we can have some positive results for all the work that has been put into this the far. many people have talked about market. like you said, rick gets really fired up. i believe that market street has always been an afterthought, and the plans were always kind of funky. now that we have made it a commercial zone, supposedly with noncommercial vehicles, it gives us an opportunity to plan in the

future, as someone has said that market street is the largest venue. when you look from the satellites, they are the two streets that you see from the satellites. because it is the widest position, we have an opportunity, bart has an opportunity in the city has an opportunity to do something about this. i don't know what can be done, and i'm sorry for taking so much time. that is my comments. i would prefer that if we not kill this permit, but we give it some time. i would like to see a better plan between the people who have spoken tonight, including the department, bart, and the tree folks. commissioner lazarus? >> i basically in the same place that you are. i would like to give more time for these negotiations. i guess i did want to clarify potentially with our deputy city attorney that if at some point we want to mark a condition on

green moves and perhaps a few other things, that that would be essentially kosher. i do understand, i think mr. buck said in some of these instances they will not know until they start digging, but i do think that more time -- in more time we might get a better sense of what can be dumb and i would feel more comfortable under those circumstances. -- what can be done, and i would feel more comfortable under those circumstances. >> good evening, commissioners. the code doesn't provide for the department to require things like green roofs, if that is what bart agrees to. it could be included in your order as a recommendation that they uphold their agreement. those requirements are not in the code. it is a one-to-one replacement or an in lieu replacement, as has been discussed.

>> that is why i would like to clarify. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i want to clarify that this is not about me wanting to kill the project. the project is very important. bart has worked very hard on this project, and it was pointed out by my fellow commissioner that this has been many years in the making. it has been collaborative with many departments and far be it for me or this commission to come in here and try to do bad things and dismissed the project. i do, however, i just wanted to make that clear, i'm not looking to kill a project. i looking -- what i looking to do is get bart to review, and

the department to review some of their points of view and strategies, and not place process in front of the priorities, other priorities in the city, including the macro priority or the tree count of the priority of protecting the environment. i think that there is a great deal of pressure and time pressure by two of the bart speakers tonight. we want to get this thing started in january. the world will continue if you don't get it started in january. will cost more money? yes. probably. i have always been of the belief that the priority should be doing it right as opposed to doing it because your process guides you in that direction, and something which is -- and the priority should be

associated with the important things of life, just not because you have a time schedule. i would agree with commissioner lazarus. i would agree with commissioner honda. we could not -- that we do not make a finding tonight, that we do not support an appeal, but we ask for bart to close the loop and also -- and to close the loop on all the things tonight that they talked about, which haven't been resolved, and go back and see if there is a deal. review their construction and priorities and processes to see if we can have less impact on trees. we will review it so there is more clarity so when we hear this again, we can make our decisions based on the real

facts, real schedule, the real strategy, and the right priorities. i would move this, extend the time on making a decision on this issue. >> thank you, vice president. commissioner lopez? >> just reading the room, it looks like we will move towards -- [ laughter ] >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> yeah,, i guess my, you know, request or suggestion would be to acclaim what some of my fellow commissioners have said is i think the permit holders, you know, well served to just be a little bit more surgical about

focusing the tree removal on what is absolutely necessary. and i think, also, just coming with a little bit more detail and a little bit more robust of a plan on how to mitigate the impact of those. from my perspective, looking at the detail and accuracy that the appellant has presented, versus even some of the factual errors that have surfaced, and the broad brush strokes discussed by the permit holders, i think we would be better served to be able to assess this appropriately if we have really detailed and focused information on how to mitigate the impacts. that is my suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner

lopez. >> thank you. i won't repeat. i just wanted to shed light. i share commissioner lopez's thoughts. i wanted to ask a question for chris buck. do you -- can you respond to the perspectives that this was not properly issued? >> thank you. chris buck, bureau of urban forestry. i strongly agree with that statement. i should have stated that for rebuttal. the permit is not issued in error. the code states that we do the in lieu fee, or a value, whichever is the greater of the two. i don't see an issue with the permit itself. as well as all the comments for mr. karn, i think there is a

disagreement on that as well. there's no faulty info from public works. >> to make sure i understand properly, you think the permit has been properly issued and that the requirement is where they can't be planted and a payment would be required and that is what is agreed to is code compliant and would satisfy the requirement? >> thank you, commissioner. that is exactly right. >> okay. i guess, what i saw earlier about sharing commissioner lopez's perspective, i think

whatever comes out of this needs to be surgical and specific, and i guess i'm not completely convinced that we need to continue this item. commissioner's wake -- commissioner's wake and vice president honda, could you specify? >> as a deputy city attorney, we do not have the ability, it is a one-for-one fee as the department has spoken. this board does have the ability to revoke the permit. in past history, in dealing with the development projects, they voluntarily come to jesus. they come back to the board with a plan, with suggestions that they work with the department and the people.

if you want to hold a vote tonight and you don't think it needs to be continued, i would vote the permit be revoked. the thing is, bart and the department, along working with whoever they need to work with, if they need to start in january, that will probably not happen. the next question would be to the project sponsors and how much time would you need? and the direction i getting to, in any commissioner can chime in here, we want to see something better coming forward. if anything -- if anyone has any impact on that, we should be surgical on our wants so when this comes back to us again that we have the ability to come to a very decisive decision. >> i think you just uttered a very important word. that is, decisive. i would like to see this come back. and i would vote with you in

upholding the appeal. >> let's be productive. >> i think -- i digress on my own statement. the word decisive, and also the word surgical. we have heard from the board presentation and we have heard clearly decisive decision on how this would work. this is what gave me the information. we heard that we don't like this design, we heard that, you know, we don't know that if we move this thing here or this thing here what will happen. if you will have to take out more trees, list trees, we heard a lot of indecisive behavior, and also with, you know, not of a lot of design in the first

place. i would like to have bart come back with some clearer and more decisive direction. this is what we are going to do. that is realistic. in the appeal you never know what the hell will happen. what i heard tonight, too much ambiguity, and a lack of surety. i would like more surety, more decisive connections, and something less spent on the process of getting it done. >> can i add a little input? we can't do anything about the design. there is no time to do that. i think the appellant has been working with the department, as well as pg and e. and crafting an agreement together. i think that could probably

work. i see my fellow commissioner shaking her head. other than that, we can't touch anything. let joshua, who is very good at what he does and he's doing this for free work with the department. in past cases, he has been very reasonable in his demands. and that gives us a shorter period of time that bart can come before us and we can improve their projects. we talked about good trees in barcelona and london and paris, but those cities also have something. they have a very significant and working underground system. we need that infrastructure in our city as well. going forward, how much time, i'm speaking to bart and potentially the appellant, do you guys need, and potentially the department, need them to finalize or come to agreement so bart can get their stuff going? raise your hand if anyone would like to proceed. >> are you addressing all the

appellants as well? >> joshua, the council, or whoever wants to speak for bart. i will start with joshua. >> i in communication with carl. i will move as fast as they can move. >> do you need a week, two weeks, a month, two weeks? >> carl? >> i think 30 days is what we're looking at. >> is that good for you, carl? thirty days? >> thirty days is what i hearing. can you hear me? >> we should check with the other appellants as well. >> you are on mute. >> then we will hear from glenn and lance. >> if you guys are sincere and i

have to take you for your word, and word doesn't mean a whole lot from the things that i have been through so far, if i take you for your word and you really want us to work together, if you want us to work together, we need more than 30 days. we have to earn a living. i do. there is not the time that it takes, okay, but except you are here -- your service to the board is for free also. it is basically out of the goodness of your heart. >> she needs more than 30 days. that's her answer. >> please go ahead. how much time do you need? >> very short. can you hear me? >> please, go ahead. >> the market street trees are in poor condition because of poor city maintenance. >> we are just asking you how much time you need to come up with a plan. we are not discussing logistics.

>> i'm sorry. why did the poor maintenance occurred? >> i have to put him on mute. he is not answering the question. >> i see the attorney, same thing, 60 seconds, sir. >> we can turn this around in 30 days if we have to. >> thank you. thank you for everyone's cooperation. i think there is a motion. >> we could put this on january 12th. it is a little under 30 days. or we could probably put it on the january 26th. >> i think we can get this done under 30. let's not try to solve it going forward. >> i would give them a little margin for error and acknowledge the holidays. >> i would do the 26th.

>> julie, i didn't get a chance to speak. >> i'm so sorry. >> sorry, i apologize. >> i would go along with something in the order of 4-6 months to give josh and his negotiation team to come up with something. >> thank you. >> thirty days is too short. >> do we have a motion? >> i will make a motion to continue this to january 27th so that the parties can -- >> january 26. >> let's make the 27th so no one knows. make it for the 26th, at which point, the parties can negotiate and hopefully come to an agreement. >> okay. on that motion... [ roll call ]

that motion carries 5-0. >> thank you all. i wish you luck. >> yes. we are now moving on to item number 7. >> we will need it with that amount of time. >> okay, we are moving on to item number 7 which is a special item. us discussion about the developmental report of fiscal year 21. >> can i interrupt for one second? >> i would rather move this along. >> last year you just read the report. and if you had questions, you asked me and we could adopt it. >> i just had to ask so i don't get killed later. >> okay. thank you. before you for consideration is

the adoption of the fiscal year 21 annual report. you all had in opportunity to read it and i would like to know if you have any questions. commissioner lazarus? >> yes. first of all, as always, extremely well done. i just have one question on one little piece that i was not clear on your phrasing. i'm on page 6 where you are recapping the matters that were heard by the board. you say 77 matters were not hord and the first bullet is 20 pending appeals. i did not know what you meant by that. >> that means that they haven't been cited. they are still pending. may be they were rescheduled. they were on the board's docket if the board didn't make a decision on them. >> i guess because it doesn't line up with the style in which you did the other bullets. it threw me off a little bit i happy to talk to you about it

online. i needed a little clarification. that was all. >> appeals were, i guess they are pending, but they weren't heard for some reason. for example, the parties wanted more time and they asked to be rescheduled or they are negotiating. we can talk off-line. >> that is fine. that was the only thing that i had in the entire report. >> okay. i feel like that is a success. >> for one commissioner, i don't know about anybody else. >> we have had the most efficient executive directors on the planet. going through them has always been a pleasure, to be honest. when you change the format, i'm like wow, that looks great. >> are there any other questions? it doesn't look like it. okay. is there any public comment on this?

okay. so, -- >> i will make a motion. >> we will need a vote on adopting or approve the report. >> i will also make a motion that we should keep scott chance -- scott sanchez on the cover of the report. >> in perpetuity. i agree. >> commissioner lazarus has a question. >> no, i didn't. sorry, did i hit that by mistake. >> i would take a motion to accept the minutes and i want to thank our executive director and staff that we have at the board of appeals for putting this together and making things seem so effortless when we get here. and the only thing that we are dealing with is appellants and permanent -- permit holders. julie, alec, staff, thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you to alec. didn't he do a wonderful job tonight doing all those presentations? he is -- he did an amazing job.

thank you, you worked so hard. back to the motion. we have a motion from president honda to adopt the fiscal year 21 annual report. on that motion... [ roll call ] that motion carries 5-0. that concludes the hearing. >> do we have another hearing? we don't have another before christmas. happy holidays, happy hanukkah. >> we will see everyone tomorrow night. >> that's right. okay. thank you, guys. >> good night. good night. >> good night. [♪♪♪]

>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another

commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle. if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like.

>> clerk: remote hearings require everyone's patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment on each item on the agenda. dial 415-655-0001 and enter meeting i.d. 2488-410-2876. when we reach the item that you are interesting in speaking to, please press star, three to enter the queue. each speaker will have three minutes, and when you hear a chime, your time is almost up. when your allotted time is up,

your microphone will be muted, and i will take the next person in the queue. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly and call from a quiet location. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioner tanner to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is items proposed fo continuance. item 1 at 616 belvedere street, and item 2, at 1228 funston avenue, is -- i have no other

items to be continued, so we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter public comment by pressing star, three. seeing no -- you've got two minutes. >> yes. my name is james howls, and i, together with my wife, own the property adjacent to 616 belvedere street. i also represent the views of the tenants who live in that property at this time. we have basically two concerns about this property -- >> clerk: let me interrupt you right there because we are only taking public comment on the item of continuance. at this point, we're only taking comments on the matter

of continuance, not the project itself. >> okay. then i misunderstood the announcement. i don't have anything to offer at this time. >> clerk: thank you, sir. okay. last call for items proposed to be continued only on the matter of continuance. you need to press star, three. seeing no additional members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment is closed and the items proposed for continuance are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on the motion to continue items as proposed -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and will place us under your consent calendar, and all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar and are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. we have a number of items on the consent calendar, item 3, 2034 mission street, item 4, 1501-c sloat boulevard, item 5,

5098 mission street, item 6, 2100 chestnut street, and item 7, 724 head street. members of the public, this is your opportunity to remove any of these items off of the consent calendar, for the commission to hold a separate hearing on the matter at the end of today's agenda. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. go ahead, caller. you have two minutes, and this is just to remove the item from the consent calendar so it can be -- and heard at the end of the agenda. hello.

this is patricia hoy. i would like to support this, but i would like to make a statement. >> clerk: miss hoy, you can remove the item from the consent calendar and make the statement. >> okay. i will send in the statement by mail. >> clerk: that would be the best way to proceed. seeing no additional requests from the public to speak, public comment is now closed,

and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like to suggest that we look more closely at 724 head street, and [indiscernible]. >> clerk: i don't believe so, commissioner moore, as you don't have a financial interest in the property. and if i understand correctly, you are asking that item 7, 724 head street, be removed from the consent calendar and heard at the end of today's hearing. >> vice president moore: that

is correct. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i would make a motion that we approve items 3, 4, 5, and 6. >> president koppel: so moved. >> clerk: very good. on the motion to approve items 3, 4, 5, 6, and to hear item 7 at the end of today's agenda. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. i guess -- i know it's a financial institution, but if you were any customers of any restaurant that came to the commission, you would have to recuse yourself, so i believe that would be taking it a step

too far. commissioners, that brings you to item 8, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for december 2, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star, three. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is now closed, and the item is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: move to adopt the minutes. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and will place us on item 9, commission comments and questions.

okay. if there are no comments or questions from members of the commission, we can move onto item 10 for case 2021-004810-crv, commission rules and regulations. several months ago, we tried to add clarity to the commission's rules and regulations. we got significant opposition to any modifications we were proposing, so these are back before you simply to complete phase one of the department's racial and social equity plan by adding language relates to that effort in your rules and regulations. the first simply adds language. the second has some type of

cleanups that ms. lynch will now take you through. laura? >> great. thank you, jonas. as jonas stated, we have two regulations. this designs and reaffirms the goal that the commission has to the racial equity action plan, as well as version one, you're requesting some text edits to affect some very nonsubstantive edited, including commission secretary, to make that consistent throughout the document. one amendment that i would like to read can be found on page 10. under cases, we accidentally,

and by we, i mean myself, included the draft e.i.r., and let me get to that portion of the document really quick. so under cases, we would like to remove the addition of draft e.i.r. we don't follow that -- sorry. i'm having a hard time finding the location. >> clerk: it's under the hearing procedures. >> yeah, sorry. i had -- the full screen kind of messed me up.

anyway, we do not want to add draft e.i.r. to that section because that was specifically for case cites and not for the draft e.i.r. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: going up. >> i was in version b. i apologize. it's a very minor edit, as you can see, because i can't find it. here we are. here we are. i highlighted it. everyone can see my screen, and i thank you for my patience. originally, we added this draft e.i.r., however, that was mistakenly added, for draft e.i.r.s don't acknowledge a

project sponsor presentation typically, so the edit i would like to read into the record is under version a which strikes the words of draft e.i.r. that concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> clerk: thank you. i guess i want to reiterate, this sets forth the racial equity component, and there's no substantive changes. if we get substantial feedback from the public, so be it. if there are no commission

comments or questions, we should go to public comment. you should press star, three and listen for when your line has been unmuted and begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastasia iovannopoulos. when the community met with laura and jonas, we had several suggestions to make with the race and social equity, and i'm wondering if they're going to be implemented at any time regarding, i guess, some of them, and then, we sent a letter to you with suggestions, and some of the things included

more accessibility for people who do not speak english, and also language and translation services that didn't seem to be flowing smithly. so i'm hoping that you'll follow up with -- flowing smoothly, so i'm hoping that you'll follow up with our suggestion. thank you. >> oh, good afternoon, commissioners. i'm georgia schiutish. my only suggestion would be that as long as we're on the phones like this, i think it would be good if the commission would grant this additional time when you're in room 400. i saw it -- happens to --

happened to see a comment from the public who said he hoped he got his ten, but if not, he'll take his seven. i hope we're not on the phones, but i have a feeling that we will be to march or april or may, that you'd grant the additional time when we were all in a room together. thanks, bye, take care. >> clerk: okay. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed, and they are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have no problem to correct the

document, but i'm wondering if we should change the word cases. >> thank you, commissioner diamond, for the question. i think if the commission would like to change that language to project entitlement, that would make sense. we use that because that's what it's been for years, and it's true that it's an internal planning way that we reference cases that come before the commission, so i think project entitlements would also be a

fine edit, as well. >> commissioner diamond: so i would move to approve the version that has the typo cleanup in it and also suggest that we change cases to project entitlements, but if the other commissioners feel we should keep cases, i don't feel strongly about that. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: actually, i just would like to follow up on one of the public comments -- comment on the racial equity comment, that we have asked here for the outreach, but is there a way -- what happened to that, because as of now, it's more of the racial social equity statement, so is there another

[indiscernible] that we will receive down the line? just wondering where that's going. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. yes, we did have various outreach with groups and members of the public with previous iterations of the regulations. any services under translations would be handled under a different lens than planning, and the rules and regulations is something that we're looking into, the department is looking into, but it would be a separate effort from this. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you very much. and regarding commissioner diamond's response, i am fine can cases, just because conditional use office allocations are all in the matter of project entitlements, but i am okay either way if we

ended up with project entitlements. >> president koppel: if we end up with discretionary review, are those project entitlements -- i'm fine either way. >> so whatever the commission would like to keep it as -- however the commission sees has the most clarity to the public, we're fine with. >> clerk: if we wanted to get specific, we could say other cases or other project entitlements. a discretionary review is part of an entitlement process, so, you know, a bit of semantics,

but other cases could be other titles of projects that we change it to. >> commissioner diamond: i think i'm indifferent, but i think that i'm fine with either. >> clerk: i mean, i think project entitlement is a good replacement. >> commissioner diamond: you do

think that i would include the suggestion of putting the word in front, other. >> vice president moore: that's fine. >> commissioner diamond: i move to include the version that has the language of racial and social equity with the draft e.i.r. as proposed by staff and changing the word other. >> vice president moore: i second that. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing no other requests to speak, there is a motion that has been made to accept the document accepting the typo graphical corrections and language corrections. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. thank you, commissioners, for us to take care of a little housekeeping before the end of the year. commissioners, that'll place us under item 11, director's announcements. >> director hillis: commissioners, enjoy the year. no announcements. >> clerk: very good. that places us under item 12, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and h.p.c. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the department was represented

by josh switzky, who presented the report, and the major findings were that housing production in the past decade fell well short of meeting all housing needs, which shouldn't be too much of a surprise for anyone. while the future 20 years was projected to produce a surplus of housing across all income levels except moderate, the net would still be 106,000 housing units in total. the report concluded that would take about $20 billion to meet the full cost. department anticipates undertaking the second such report at the end of 2021, however, we request that the

report be required every four years, and to that end, michelle littlefield presented a report on the department's efforts to modernize its reporting capability. at the end of the hearing, the supervisors continued it to the call of the chair, allowing them to continue the conversation at a later date. at the full board, supervisor ronen's resolution passed its second read, and the mayor's

ordinance that exempts a conversion of m.c.d.s to cannabis retail from 311 also passed its second read. the board also adopted a resolution urging the san francisco planning director to amend director's [indiscernible] number 6, and the resolution asked the director to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the state density bonus law. the board also adopted findings related to the conditional use authorization appeal of 450 o'farrell, and conditional use findings related to the denial of the 249 texas street c.u.

and also made findings denying these final environmental impact reports regarding 469 stewart street. and that concludes my report. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. seeing no other additional questions or comments from the commission, the board did meet last night on one item that may be of interest to the commission, 617 reed street. the neighbor to the north came to an agreement with the project sponsor, whereby they simply requested that you adopt the project with the modifications. it satisfied both d.r. requesters. the board of appeal heard an appeal filed by the neighbors to the south of the project. they registered concerns about incorrect installation of story

poles and impacts to light and air and privacy. the board found that it complied with the code and is consistent with the residential design guidelines and therefore voted unanimously to uphold the appeal and deny the issuance of the permit. if there are no questions -- and there is a member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is anastasia iovannopoulos, wanting to comment on the item about the jobs housing fit report. i'd like to say that the ordinance that the supervisors passed mandates that a report be done every year, not every four years, and that stands. we need to monitor what's

happening in our city, as only 7% of the workforce is able to afford to work here, and so many of them have to leave the city to be able to find accommodation. you have the ability and the discretion to approve projects that would help the workforce stay. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, again, if there are no questions from members of the commission, we can move onto general public

comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, and you may do so by pressing star, three. >> yeah, hi. georgia schiutish. just following up with mr. starr on the jobs housing fit report. i think it would be good to know all the market rate housing built up in the sunset so far. there are three market rate units in the sunset that are currently empty. the term zombie has floated

around of the market rate buildings in the soma. if you -- it could raise if yous about full time occupancy versus not so. an couples of how many water usage is standard for occupancy versus not is possible. when we all used to go on a vacation, say, for a week or two, that particular month's water bill would be less because we were away, and that could be seen on the bill. i assume that each unit in these multiunit buildings receives a bill from the water department and there's a way to bills to get a look at the

amount. seeing something is objective, not subjective, and i hope you received the e-mail that i send on monday. in the meantime, happy christmas, merry new year. good-bye, and take care. >> clerk: thank you, miss schiutish. seeing no other additional requests to speak for public comment, public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar, item 13, 2021-010875-pca, for bars in the castro street neighborhood commercial district. miss merlone, are you prepared?

>> yes. before i speak, [indiscernible] is here to present. >> good afternoon. i'm jacob bentliff here on behalf of supervisor mandelman to make some additional comments. >> bars are not permitted in the castro neighborhood district. this may come as a surprise to many of you as there are bars

in the castro district, but they were all grandfathered in. the supervisors had a chance to discuss the question with a lot of folks in the neighborhood and the broader queer community, including the castro merchants association, castro upper community benefits district, and the castro lgbtq cultural district. the prevailing sentiment is that it doesn't seem fair to totally preclude new folks, especially trans people and people of color from opening new liquor establishments in the neighborhood.

this ordinance would remove the outright prohibition on new bars in the castro n.c.d. and instead make bar uses conditionally permitted. this way, there would still be an opportunity for the public to weigh-in on any particular proposal to see how it fits in with the mix of businesses on the block and the neighborhood. this would fit in with other neighborhood districts in the city. in summary, commissioners, this is a relatively simple piece of legislation that supervisor mandelman believes the castro will be a more welcoming and

diverse neighborhood, and i'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a safe and merry holidays and happy new year. and with that, i'll turn it over to you, audrey. >> thank you, jacob. i won't repeat most of what jacob has expertly summarized for us. i will just add that, as jacob says, bars are not currently permitted in the castro. to be eligible for the legislation, a legal nonconforming bar in the district had to prove that

they'd been in continuous operation as a bar since at least january 1, 2004. again, as jacob mentioned, that legislation was great at making sure that our existing bars as of 2004 were able to continue to operate with proper permits, but it did not help new bars who want to open to be able to do so in that district. i'll also add that the small business commission did hear this item, the 13, and voted unanimously to approve the ordinance, and that since the publishing of the package, the department has received one letter of support, which has been sent to the commission via the commission secretary. the department is recommending the commission approve the proposed ordinance as drafted, allowing bars with conditional use authorization will create more opportunities for the vacant storefronts in the

castro will revitalize the c.b.d., and with that, i'll conclude my presentation, as well, and of course, i'm available for any questions. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, audrey. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star, three. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial?

>> clerk: commissioner imperial, you are muted. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i was saying i am in general support of this legislation. i have a question for mr. bentliff about this. is there a [indiscernible] or pretty much as it's approved, there's no application date? >> thank you, commissioner imperial. no, there's no grandfathering date in this legislation. it'll simply be available to an applicant once the legislation comes into effect. >> commissioner imperial: okay. i'm not sure if other commissioners have any questions, but if there are no, i would make a motion to approve. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed legislation. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and places us on item 14, 2018-004217-gpa for the climate action plan and community safety element presentation. annemarie. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is annemarie rogers, and i am joined by my program lead and a project planner. we're hear today to share a joint informational hearing about the climate action plan and an update to the community safety element. so i'll walk you through a little bit of the context for these projects, and then, after

that, we'll talk about the climate action plan, which is stewarded by the department of the environment. this, with the publication of this by the mayor just last week, san francisco established some very aggressive climate goals. lisa fisher will walk you through this document, and lastly, you, the commission steward the general plan. danielle new will describe the community safety element, and how it can, too, address these challenges and the considerations. so first -- next slide. so first is the overview of the

climate resilient context, and its impacts are also disproportionate. next slide. the department is involved in several measures to improve climate, and today, we're talking to you about the two highlight circles, and if you'd like to know about the larger program, i'm about to turn it so far to lisa fisher, the program manager for all of us about the project and the resilience work. so lisa, can you tell us a bit more about the climate action plan? >> clerk: lisa, you're not audible. you may be muted. you're not muted, but you're

not audible. >> i can start or we can go to danielle. otherwise, if lisa cannot jump on, let's skip ahead to slide 20. >> what about now? sorry. i had i.t. come in and set this up. can you hear me now? you can hear me now? >> i can. >> okay. so should i just go ahead real quick? >> yes, please. >> okay. thank you, everyone. so next slide. great. so we only have a few minutes, and so, of course, i wanted to offer we're always happy to come back or give a deeper dive about the climate action plan

another time. this was such a great collaborative effort. over three years, and in the end about 82 city employees from 19 departments, critical community and private sector stakeholders all working together, and i did want to give a big thanks to rich chen, the climate action plan project manager, for his comments, and cindy klein. san francisco has always been a leader in sustainability and driving down emissions, and we have been able to meet our emissions goals ahead of schedule to date, but particularly what needs to happen by 2030, that we can reach that net-zero goal by 2040, which is only 18 years away. so classically, we look at our

emissions by sector, and these are the emissions that are created by sector in san francisco. for us, the big drivers are buildings and transportation. next slide, please. department of the environment has led a very innovative program by what we consume, and this is called a consumption based inventory, and this is a really great way for san francisco to also be responsible for the emissions that we are generating, in some cases, globally, so we are looking for ways to reduce this, as well.

each chapters have goals and targeted associated with them, and this summer, all of these were codified in the environment goal, so most notably, very near term, 5,000 housing units per unit, with at least 30% of those being affordable, and then, zero emission new buildings, and then, really quickly, coming in, 2025, 100% renewable electricity, and in 20 -- by 2030, 80% of the trips that we take around the city, using low carbon modes. next slide, please. of course, all this work is dependent on advancing racial and social equity.

public health, economic recovery, and just transition. we want to make sure everyone is a part of the climate transition, and having access to green jobs, having access to better and more active businesses, and then, resilience. how can we protect ourselves to the impacts that we can't avoid? next slide, please. and department of environment launched a racial and social equity tool. this is just to say that each of us use the tool for all strategies and actions to make sure we're maximizing the benefits across our most vulnerable, our bipocs and other communities, and really eliminating any burden. next slide, please. the community engagement was awesome, we had a kickoff with the mayor, many workshops in languages and almost 250,000 people engaged in this plan.

next slide, please. so just to finish, i'm highlighting the two chapters that planning was most involved in. so in the transportation and land use, the other piece of that plan that's so great is that it's data driven. i've added in here the data in this portfolio, and i think it's interesting because definitely, we're puck used on maximizing jobs and housing and -- we're focused on maximizing jobs and housing, and 81% of the transportation emissions are looking at the conversion to zero emission vehicles. i think this is going to be a very big role for planning into the future. next slide, please. and then, with the housing, we worked really closely with the housing element team, also, the

mayor's office of housing, and really focused on community stabilization, producing that new housing, rehabilitating existing housing, and all of the opportunities to increase our subsidies for affordable housing in every neighborhood. there's some challenges.

this slide helps illustrate what i mean when i say all disasters, what our city is facing and what we have to prepare for. this was pulled from the city's climate resilience plan, and it's also our first comprehensive climate adaptation plan. when the city developed the h.c.r. last year, we learned about how our general plan can change, and there was a big acknowledgement that the crises, in blue, the weather related crises, are being exacerbated by the climate crises, so that shows us an opportunity to strengthen the policies for the same set of problems. next slide, please. we're building on the most recent iteration of the safety element adopted in 2012, the strong foundation, with a clear structure for resilience planning. there's four goals that start

with mitigation, emergency preparedness, response, and recovery and construction. and in the 2012 update, there was a lot of focused on tackling seismic hazards, addressing life safety, and enhancing the recovery and reconstruction activity. so the policies in the 2012 element, they don't just sit on the shelf. there's many recent examples of these policies and actions. when the city responded to covid-19, general plan policies for the disaster service workers, the covid command center, and the economic recovery task force all sprang to life, so that's very exciting, and emergency response isn't the only area that the safety element is put to work. there are physical permanent projects that embody these ideas in your neighborhoods, as well. next slide. some of these examples are these physical projects. there's a lot of resilience

projects underway or completed in the city. on the bottom right, there's a lot of strategies to deal with sea level rise, as well, and we're doing a lot of efforts along the waterfront and ocean beach. these have a lot of action to be flood proof against sea life rise. with all that great foundation, why are we updating the policies now? it's a lot of state and local opportunities. starting with the left-hand column, there's two state laws, s.b. 3079 and s.b. 1000 that require communities to update their general safety plan and

general element with climate resiliency plans and climate action. now, we can have the opportunity to fold that into our general action plan, as well. finally, and most importantly, on the right side column, we're updating the general plan to reflect increased focus on racial and social equity, and it's this commission and the historic preservation's commission resolution to incorporate resolutions with benefits for the indigenous community, black and african

american communities, and people of color. next slide. so building off of what i just mentioned about racial and social equity, this slide is just one example of how we're incorporating equity into the safety element. this map, this draft map with environmental justice communities, has state data and local data to identify neighborhoods in the city, that they are in the top 30% of justice burden. the safety element will refer to this map to prioritize attention and resourced to these communities that are impacted first and worst by

disaster. next slide. for this proposed new content, this is a sneak peek to map out the opportunities that we're seizing at the state and local level. so again, on the left-hand side, we are proposing a new goal for equitable community safety. this new goal will how's policies on environmental justice and racial and social equity to sharpen focus on communities that experience disasters first and worst and also take longer to recover. in the center column, our second new goal is about multibenefit climate resilience. this goal will have benefits to tackle climate disasters that are happening more frequently.

and on the right-hand side, the last new goal we're proposing is about governance and collaboration. those policies will help direct and manage our city's coordinated climate resilience portfolio, so this whole suite of content will help us fill gaps in our element and lastly, to ensure that people's lives are better off with these policies. so now, let's talk about the proposed tweaks to the existing content on the next slide. so for the four goals, we will incorporate climate resilience, equity, and justice throughout

implementing partners throughout the city as well as outside of the city agencies, and then, examples of projects and programs that you can see in front of your eyes. so just as one example, there's policies yunt neath the the -- underneath the project goals that explain the path and strategy. we have a lot of preliminary high level framework that's been reviewed by several

stakeholders in the environmental justice communities. our outreach and engagement will continue to wrap up with tribal consultation with the local american indian community. we have a lot of people ready to translate all of our ample feedback into policy development. next slide. so to contextualize where we are today, we're implementing all of the input we received to policy language, and we aim to introduce for adoption in may 2022. so thank you for listening to all of our presentation on the safety element, what it is, our update process, and a sneak peek of the proposed content. our team really looks forward

to your feedback, especially on the three new goals, and we plan to return in may to ask the commission to initiate and take action on this update. thank you, and that concludes my presentation. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star, three. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment on this item is closed, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, and thank you planning staff team or for the whole

presentation. i actually would love to see if you can also give me the powerpoint -- the presentation to us and the commission. i would like to look into this deeper, and there are some interesting actually points that you point out in this plan. one thing that i'd like to -- because there's been -- i think we've all heard of the green new deal. in what way is this implemented in the climate action plan? >> well it's leveraging climate action as part of the climate recovery. >> commissioner imperial: and i

guess there would be something down the line on how this would look like. >> for the general plan policy that danielle is working on, we're also looking at getting multisubject area benefits, so as lisa said, not only will we be addressing our climate challenges hopefully with the solutions but also help to reinvigorate the city with the

climate examples, so we've got a host of content that is being developed and a workshop that we'll bring back to you later this spring. >> commissioner imperial: okay. and one thing that points out to me in terms of the, you know, the zero emission and also the transportation, that's always become a -- for us, for me at least, as a commissioner who struggles here, the traffic, and then, the transportation, the kind of transportation or the quality of the transportation that we have now. it's hard for me as a commissioner sometimes to look in the future. many residents look into ride sharing providers like uber or

lyft, that enhances the traffic problem, especially in the downtown area. so this is still -- i'm looking forward to hearing next year in terms of funding strategies and the quality of the transportation and not just where the jobs is located but also in the western area, connecting neighborhoods. for me, i think there's already one development that is going to be a public comment, so i would like to see in the

future, the kinds of mitigation, and it's something that's playing in my mind when it comes to zero emissions, and i hope they're playing in your head, as well, so thanks very much. >> thank you, commissioner. i do thank you for thinking of how these issues come together, and that's exactly the benefit we have by working on the set of general plan updates that you see before you, so you will see the housing update, this resilience update and as well

as those things fit together is going to be critical, so thank you for raising those interactions. >> president koppel: yeah, thank you for everything today. this backs up the stuff we do on a weekly basis, thanks again for back up kind of what we do on a weekly basis. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i have a couple of questions for staff, and i look forward, of course, to see more details on the policy ramifications that you folks have -- are going to be bringing back to us. first question relates to the

goal of renewable fuel use by 2025. given the two items that you've identified, the two focus areas related to building and transportation, especially vehicle transportation, both, in terms of the banning of natural gas, going all electric, new construction, vehicles with a greater emphasis on e.v.s, both [indiscernible] given the fact that most electricity

generation -- not most, but approximately 30 aught% is mostly from nonrenewable sources? >> well, the city and our public utilities commission has really taken the lead here. they're working on state legislation and way to see have an easier time of doing that, you know, cooperating with pg&e? so already, i mean, for years now, san franciscans have had the opportunity to buy 100% renewable electricity, even using the pg&e network, and also, pg&e offers a is 00% renewable option, as well? so as a city, we've been able to procure a really significant amount of renewables, and the

electricity that we receive from hetch hetchy qualifies as 100% green from the state, so we are continuing to build those systems, and definitely, this is something that the word is grappling with, and it's all very top of mind. you may remember that there was ledge -- legislation

[indiscernible]. >> commissioner fung: it's a question that i'd be interested in hearing more information, and if that comes from p.u.c., that's fine. the second part of my question, in one part of your report related to urban forest, and a couple of years ago, a ballot measure was passed to have the city undertake all street trees, and there was a big number associated with that in terms of funding that was not guaranteed. has that been -- has those funding sources been established now?

>> rich, do you have any latest news on the funding for the trees in the public realm? >> hello, commissioners. rich chen with the department of the environment. i actually am unaware of that, but colleagues within the deputy can find that out and come back. >> commissioner fung: that would be fine. i'd be interested in knowing if you have a ballot measure to have the city undertake the planning and the maintenance of street trees or public realm trees, that would be great, but my question is, what are you

doing, and if you could get back to me, that would be fine. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i just want to acknowledge the breadth and depth of what's before us here. i do not have any questions except the clear structure with which you're proceeding in this manner. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. i just want to commend staff for this, and i was wondering if i could follow up with the slide showing the city environmental justice burden. i was curious if you could walk us through that map, yeah, what kind of variables you're using

to measure that, and to walk us through that. >> happy to. josey, would you be able to bring up slide 24, i think? and while that's happening, the environmental justice is a separate effort that we're working on. the safety elements and the environmental justice framework are two teams working together. so the map you see here has the state's cal enviro screen here. we add many metrics of local data on top to have more resolution on communities that are facing environmental justice burden. so these areas are lower

income, other health challenges, and other social vulnerabilities, and so we're layering all this data on top of each other to see the compound effect. so this map of our department's work to have a citywide map of our environmental justice communities, and it aligns with data from other city agencies. the idea is to designate areas in red with the highest environmental justice burden for priorities and policies.

it tries to show a spectrum at a neighborhood level, so as an example, like a higher resolution from the state map to our map is in -- around the yslais creek area. you'll notice that it hashed gray and red, and that's because there is a footnote that is illegible because the writing is so small. we add more of our local data on top just to acknowledge the data gap, but the general trend

that we know, it is still a high environmental justice burdened area, so that's one example of trying to create more resolution at the city level. >> commissioner chan: thank you. i was wondering if you could share more [indiscernible] i know i'm needing more details coming forward, but i'm just curious to learn more now. >> josey, may you get to the next slide? next slide, please? so the first new goal will be

titled equitable community safety, and at that point those will be our objectives, and under that will be our policies, and the draft policy is what we will be tinkering with, so a lot of the community feedback and input we've received over the past year has really put a lot of focus to this area, so being specific about the challenges.

>> commissioner chan: thank you again for working on this. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i just want to thank you and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that went into putting this together and the enormous amount of work that still lies in front of all of us. in particular, i want to acknowledge the amount of work that it takes to work with

numerous government agencies, organizations, and community advocacy groups to try to put in one place all of the overlapping policies in all the jurisdictions that are out there. and i wonder if, at the end of the day, you will have one document that will wrap everything together that will be looking at numerous agencies' separate documents? >> i can speak to that really quickly. i mean, the goal -- first of all, the department of the environment has done a great job at making sure the climate action plan is in one place. similar to the [indiscernible] and climate resilience plan, we really see those two documents as our kind of priority near

term action road map that will be updated on, you know, a faster cycle. they're looking at about every five years, and we're coordinating closely with the general plan updates because we're seeing that as the long-term policy foundation that will support all of those near-term action plans, and so, you know, in the housing element, they all have their actions kind of embedded in the housing element itself, whereas for all this climate work will maintain those two kind of separate action plans that also coordinated and then have the general plan as a more strong foundation that isn't updated as frequently. does that make sense? >> commissioner diamond: yes. i just want to tout the -- to reduce the number of places so

the city can understand our efforts and metrics. it combines the expertise of many metrics and agencies, but it can be challenging to figure out how to enter the subject, so the fewer documents, but at the end of the day that this is wrapped up into, the easier it is for the public to understand all the amazing work that's on going here, so thank you. >> you're welcome. >> director hillis: just to add to that, commissioner diamond, because i think it's an important point, which makes it all the more complicated, but i think all the more useful, too, that these documents are all coordinated and there's a strong point of view and it

sets the city on a specific policy course that are then tied to action, as well. so it's tough to do, but hopefully the outcome is worth it in that we have a specific policy directions and actions. >> clerk: okay. that concludes commission discussion. staff presentations are posted on our website under supporting documents, so if you remember the date of the hearing in which you are interesting in rereviewing some of the presentations, they're always available there. commissioners, that will place us on items 15-a and b for

2015-005983-cua and var. staff, are you ready to make your presentations? >> yes, i am. nick foster, planning department staff. this project would add residential uses to the property in the form of 21 dwelling units. no studios or three bedroom or larger units are proposed. this project does not include any accessory off street

parking, however, it does include [indiscernible] one, in the first of conditional use authorization which in itself is threefold, and i'll break that down momentarily. the conditional use authorization is threefold. we have a height request, which basically says 50 feet in height in this zoning district,

and as i mentioned, the zoning administrator is here with you today to opine on two variance requests. 11 of the 21 units proposed would face that rear yard, requiring a variance. the department recommends approval, and we do find it to be a necessary and desirable and comparable with the

neighborhood and on balance consistent with the objectives and the policies of the city's general plan. this project maximizes residential density, supports the city's transit first policy and upholds a historic resource. >> clerk: thank you, mr. faster. unfortunately, i see mr. list, but his device is one that our system does not

support. mr. leavitt finally showed up on a device that's recognized. mr. leavitt, are you with us? >> yes. okay. may i have the slides that i presented, please? >> just one moment while i bring those up.

good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. the proposed project involves the renovation and addition to an existing commercial building. the structure is located on the northside of bush street between taylor and mason streets. the property boundaries are seen here outlined in red. next slide, please. the block itself is overwhelmingly made up of residential structures, varying from four to eight stories. the proposed footprint will match the depths of the shorter of the two as seen on the drankum to the right. next, please.

this can be clearly seen -- diagram to the right. next, please. at the second level, the current double height space will be maintained, and a horizontal extension will be added to the rear of the building containing a two-unit building to the rear of the area. we took their advice to heart and redesigned the building envelope based on the criteria.

this set back serves to visually distinguish the structure from the structure above. these suggested envelope revisions were also implemented as seen in this typical upper floor plan. there are three two-bedroom and one one-bed unit per floor, with an average unit size of approximately 600 square feet. bedrooms not located on exterior walls will have floor to ceiling frosted glass panels facing natural light sources.

three on-site b.m.r. units will also be provided. next, please. the residents of the building will share a generous landscaped roof deck that will get positions of sun throughout the year. next, please. running to the block face photo for a minute, we see numbered tags on many of the buildings. these tags correspond to small scale elements that were used as a source of inspiration for the project. these elements have been reinterpreted through contrary ecofriendly materials and woven into the design to create language evocative of the immediate context.

the existing brick context is distinguished from the new upper portion of the brick building. next, please. the proposed addition in context seen here looking both east and west achieves our desired results. our objective was not to create an objective building, but to blend in with the street. we urge you to support the desirable attributes, including the number of units on the site, constructing moderately sized two-bedroom units offering flexibility in living situations, preserving an existing building as an addition to the historic district, including preserving

its historic use, proposing bicycle parking while no vehicle parking and creating an addition that respects its immediate neighbors. thank you for your time and attention, and this concludes my remarks. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star, three. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> oh, good afternoon. hi, this is steve shearer, and i live here in the city, and i've call index to speak in favor of this -- i've called in to speak in favor of this. i think that this would be a tremendous addition, and just looking at the proposed plans, the existing building and its

commercial use as it's preserved and really in favor of this for this part of town. you know, clearly, it's creating some modestly sized units that should be attainable for most people, and in particular, below market rent housing is included, as well. looking at some of these two-bedroom units, as well, i think having once started a family myself, i see having the -- you know, a two-bedroom unit provides some flexibility for young families, you know, for a nursery or a kids' room, and it's just a welcome project for housing that we need here in the city, and i hope the commission decides to approve this project, and thank you for your time. >> hi, there.

my name is trey mackin, and i live in the lower haight. it's important that we be cognizant and build more housing immediately because there is a housing crisis in the city. replacing a single story with several other stories i think is the best way to move forward. adding more additional units will make it more affordable to live in this vibrant and centrally located neighborhood. please approve this project. thank you. >> hi, this is scott urcanan calling in support of the project. i'm a member of the bike coalition, and i'm currently

looking for a place closer to work, which currently is in union square. [please stand by]

. >> -- neighborhood and all of the transportation opportunities that are available for people that would have a chance to live in this building. i'd really like the commission to approve this. i think it's a fantastic project. thank you very much. >> hello. my name is marsha silver, and i've been a resident of san francisco for approximately 40 years? i just wanted to express that i'm very much in favor of this project? as we all know, san francisco desperately needs new housing, and we need new affordable

housing, b.m.r. housing, but we also need new moderately priced housing, and i think that this project is a great project because it does provide both kinds of additional housing, so i'm very much in favor of it? i also am in favor of this project because of the fact that it is focusing on providing housing where there -- it's going to be more focused on public transportation and not providing parking, so i think that is a direct that i really want to see the city going, and i think that it's a very good thing that this project does not provide the parking, so i -- i just wanted to express my strong support for this project. i think that we need a lot more projects like this in the city. thank you.

>> hi. my name's davy kim. i'm a proud nob hill resident, and frankly life here is great, and i'd love for more people to experience life like this. i love living close to downtown and having lots of nice transit options. so i feel that this project is extremely sensible. it appears to be minimally disruptive. it doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary for normal construction projects, and most importantly, i'm excited that it can contribute to our supply

of housing, especially looking forward to a more mixed income or adding to the mixed income character of the neighborhood with below market rate units also planning to be constructed, so really, i just want to express my support for this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. members of the public, last call for comment on this matter. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment on this item is now closed, and it is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: it is amazing how perceptive the

public receives a project. sensibly conceived, fantastic. it is really well conceived when you look at the fact that the architect took the public's comments and shaped the project around a number of constraints. i have battled with other projects on bush and pine street which had an extremely difficult time understanding the context, not only in terms of building size, enjoining strong buildings, but also understanding the type of buildings that are really the sweet spot for this area. the buildings proposed are designed to allow deeper light wells for more light to come into these panels is just amazing, and i cannot find the

proper words to congratulate the architect to show the commission what a well designed project can be. we're dealing with units that really create a sweet spot in terms of possible affordable. these are not oversized, they are comfortably laid out decorated living environment that are not chopped up to maximize units, but they are all grouped up in a manner that they complement a comfortable living arrangement. i would like to support this project and remember the next time that we see a project and we have questions how well a project of this size can be designed. i am in support and congratulate the architect. i am in support of the project and make a motion to approve. >> president koppel: i trust

you so much, commissioner moore, i second the motion, but i would like to hear commissioner diamond's comments, as well. >> commissioner diamond: i, too, support the project, but i think there are six nests bedrooms inside this project. i had a couple of questions about that for the project sponsor and then for staff. i think, as i saw your presentation flash across the screen, that you noted that on each of these nested bedrooms, i think there's one on each floor, that you've got some glass panels. do you have some elevations what those are? i don't know if they're floor-to-ceiling, if they're just transom windows, can you just explain these bedroom -- bedrooms that have no access --

immediate access to outdoor space? >> yes. hello. can you hear me? >> commissioner diamond: i can hear you. >> okay. i wasn't quite sure. it's my first time on this webex. so yeah, those bedrooms will have full floor-to-ceiling frosted glass panels, facing to natural light sources. sorry if the presentation went quickly. i was trying to squeeze quite a bit in in the five minutes, but these are floor-to-ceiling mechanical glass panels, and there'll be mechanical ventilation to force air into these spaces. >> commissioner diamond: i recognize that you're dealing with numerous challenges here, but clearly, there's a preference for windows, and i'm wondering what it would have meant if you had to design these with windows as opposed to glass panels?

>> yeah, i went through many iterations with this. the issue is, obviously, we've only got limited exposures in the front and rear, but to group more bedrooms towards either the back of the building or on the street facade would have basically killed the living-dining areas, and so the decision was made to include these second bedrooms, nests bedrooms, as you described them, that can be used, you know, as a traditional bedroom, but they can also be used potentially as a nursery or a guest room or home office. essentially, if those rooms were not in place, those units would become one-bedroom units just based on the site

constraint. >> commissioner diamond: so one additional question. so i assume you've reviewed or are familiar enough with the building code, to know that you don't need a second egress out of these rooms. is that correct? >> clerk: mr. leavitt, are you with us? you don't need to mute and unmute yourself. >> i'm sorry. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> i'm sorry, commissioner diamond. i didn't hear your last question. >> commissioner diamond: so i assume that you're familiar enough with the planning code to know that you don't need a

second egress out of these rooms? >> yes. it's all fully code compliant. i've designed numerous of them myself on finished projects that have been built that are code compliant. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so i have a question for staff, which is do we have any policies or guidelines around nested bedrooms separate and apart what the building department requires? do they affect from a liveability perspective? how much frosted glass to they need to have? anything that would give guidance to commissioners when they're reviewing a project like this or anything to project staff or project sponsors themselves? >> corey, do you want to take a

stab at this? >> sure. corey teague, planning department staff. we went through this several years ago in terms of how do we design a bedroom, and that's how we eventually landed on an interpretation that a bedroom is whatever means the building definition of a sleeping room, with one exception. they do allow this kind of bar like nested bedroom configuration, that they require that 50% open to light. that could mean, like, an open wall, where you could have one area of the room not included or a pony wall. so our interpretation is the only additional requirement we placed in the planning code beyond what the building and housing code requires is that

it's fully enclosed, but it still has to meet the minimum light requirements from the building and housing code. separate from the code requirement, we don't have any adopted policy as to kind of when and how much or under what circumstance nested bedrooms are appropriate or inappropriate. that's a case-by-case review, and at the department level, if we have some concerns, we can raise that if we have any concerns. >> director hillis: commissioners, just as a matter of policy, this has come up

before. [indiscernible]. >> vice president moore: director hillis, you are fading in and out. >> director hillis: i think it could be the connection. i think generally, we would prefer, like you, not to have a nested bedroom, but it's a balance of the architecture. as you can see on the plan, given the site constraints, given the number of units and to get a certain percentage of twos and threes, it helps in this case with larger one bedroom units, fewer units or fewer two-bedroom units? so i think, ultimately, it's a bit of a policy call. you know, less desirable bedrooms because they don't have access to direct light, but you get additional two bedrooms and additional units.

>> commissioner diamond: yeah, i'm in favor of approving this project, but i agree with commissioner moore about all of the design comments and all of the trade-offs that were made, and i think this is a project that we should approve. but stepping back, i'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for the department to think about this issue holistically and not additional rules but perhaps guidance? like how wide should the floor-to-ceiling frosted glass be? it seems like it would be helpful if we had some guidelines around this or some understanding how to think about nested bedrooms in terms

of different scenarios because i think we may see an increase in the number of proposals with nested bedrooms. by the time the commission sees it, it's at the very end of the process to say oh, add another light well. i know this issue will probably come up more often as we move forward. >> director hillis: to some extent, it is based on the site and the configuration of the site. there are light wells in this

scenario, but i don't know if there is a policy that can reflect that. certainly, through design review, we discourage nested bedrooms and look for alternatives to that, but in a case like this, there aren't. you concede many alternatives to get there. >> commissioner diamond: i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners have to say about this issue, but i'm heartened to hear that as a starting manner, our policy is to discourage nested bedrooms and to have separate bedrooms if we can. i'm still in support of this project and move to approve it, but i'm wondering how we handle

it? >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: ultimately, it's a matter of understanding which architects really understand through designing bedrooms and who doesn't? the person who originally started designing nested bedrooms is david baker, and he's a skilled architect, designing many buildings with nested bedrooms, and it may be interesting to take some of those nested bedrooms and proportion, proportion, proportion, which distinguishes if a nested bedroom works or doesn't work. in this particular project, mr. leavitt delivers a quite

useable nested bedroom based on the proportions, which is the size of the bedroom, distance to length, and in this particular case, it's well done. i'd be happy to pull out some older projects and string them together, good ones and bad ones, for those of you that are searching for an answer how to look at that. the next time i say that there is a nested bedroom that doesn't work, make a circle around it and i'll talk about it. we had quite a few projects, and we are continuously driven by creating numbers, numbers, numbers and not looking at quality and liveability, so you bringing forward questions, commissioner diamond, is much

appreciated and will allow a much more skillful and sensitive response for the entire commission to have a good eye for what is a good bedroom, a good nested bedroom, and what isn't? so thank you for that, and also, again, this particular project. >> commissioner diamond: you'll just say one more thing here, which is i've seen really bad examples in new york city, where they are, like tenements,

interior bedrooms, and i would never want to approve one of those. i don't want to wait until we get to the commission hearing, but the commission is going to have a lot of trouble. >> clerk: mr. teague, did you have some more? >> just briefly.

i just wanted to speak to the variance and note and discuss the site dealing with a number of constraints and specific context. it's dealing with the existing historic building, which is the zoning and the more, and i think there's sufficient context to support the variance, and overall, the amount here is not a situation where the variance would be allowing more development and would otherwise be permitted

theoretically on the site, so i'm also in support of the project from the perspective of the proposed variance. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. that concludes commission deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 -- zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, at that places us on item 16, 2017-015678-cua

at 425 broadway. claudine, you are muted. >> how about now? >> clerk: better. >> thank you. i have to end the year on a positive note. good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you is located at 425 broadway, an l-shaped lot located on broadway and montgomery street that requests a conditional use authorization to demolish a garage and instruct two mixed-use buildings. the building on broadway would be five stories and 56 feet tall, and the montgomery

building would be seven stories and 64 feet. the project is utilizing the state density bonus program to achieve a 27.5% density bonus. the project has been continued several times without hearing in order to allow additional community outreach. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization in order to allow the lot size exceeding 4,000 square feet, and the project is utilizing the state density bonus law and requests waivers for rear yard exposure and bulk. the project requires the adoption of findings for the

state density bonus under state code 206.6. since the publication of the staff report, the project has been revised to provide additional setbacks at 401 broadway. the two lightwells on the western facade on the broadway building will be widened to increase the light and air access and will reduce the size of one of the two larger office suites to below the 2,899 square foot threshold such that the density for nonresidential use size is now only needed for one of the office suites. the draft motion and man, exhibits a and b respectively, will be updated accordingly. staff finds that the project is

on balance, consistent with the conditional use criteria, general plan, and objectives and policies of the general plan as stated in the staff report. staff recommends project approval because the project creates 42 new units on a site that is currently a parking garage. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. that is my presentation, and i believe the project sponsor is ready for their presentation. >> we are. >> clerk: are you with us? >> yes, we need the slides up. >> josephine, would you mind pulling up the slides, please?

thank you. >> clerk: give us just a second. i need to make her the presenter. . >> [indiscernible] over the past two months, we met several times with the s.r.o. residents and made several attempts to meet the residents' concerns, including widening the lightwells and the addition of

a laundromat in the building. [indiscernible] next slide, please. we've done extensive research and outreach to other community members. consistent with the broadway m.c.d. zoning, it has a mix of

uses [indiscernible] before turning over the presentation, let me remind the commission that under state density bonus law and [indiscernible] the project is being code compliant, and we would ask for your approval. e.m., please go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. [indiscernible]. >> vice president moore: we can't hear you. >> clerk: yeah.

okay. hold on one second. i'm pausing your time. >> jonas, can you hear me? >> clerk: i can hear you just fine. for some reason, mr. churchill's having difficulty. i'm not seeing your number. i think you're on your phone. >> no, i'm on my -- let's try again. why don't you start again and speak clearly. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: it's very faint, mr.

burchill. mr. burchill, why don't you try again? he's unmuted, but i don't know what we could do at this point. [indiscernible]

. >> can you hear me now, jonas? >> clerk: it's slightly better. why don't you go ahead, if that's as good as we're going to get. >> ian, why don't you go ahead, start over.

ian, why don't you get started? [indiscernible]

. >> jonas, i can go through the slides on his behalf, if that's the only way we can do this. >> clerk: yeah. unfortunately, he's completely inaudible, so why don't you go ahead and take over the presentation and i'll start your time again. >> can we have the next slide? so this is a site plan. you can see how it wraps around the 401 broadway building, and this is the site as originally proposed before we made the modification. next slide. this is the lowest level of the building, whether it's residential parking in the montgomery building and a below-grade office suite in the montgomery building. next slide.

this is the next floor up, which, again, is below grade on broadway. it's underground floor on broadway. you can see that we've added a laundromat in the broadway building with public access access from verity place. [indiscernible] next slide. this is the ground floor at broadway, where two storefronts, including one ground level retail, is located. if i can see on the right on the lightwell, the southern lightwell has been enlarged and

extended. this is the next level up. you can see that we agreed not to put residential units on broadway, so the second floor is an office suite, and the rest is residential. you can see on the right that

the large lightwells extend all the way [indiscernible] the adjoining lightwells -- next slide. >> clerk: that is your time, but commissioners may have some clarification questions for you. let me mute mr. virgil's line. all right. 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. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is teresa flandrick, and i am calling about this project that has really been upsetting

up until very recently because of the lack of outreach to those most impacted by this project. again, this should have been 100% affordable housing with this project. the lack of real outreach to those most impacted was horrendous, i have to say. total disregard for the community along broadway corridor as well as chinatown north beach area. s.r.o.s are a particular type of housing, which is quite

dominant here, and the maximum of having only one window in their home is very important. this is a matter of health and safety, especially with shelter in place, congregate settings, the virus, and fires where you need to ventilate your entire space as well as possible to get the fire out of these older buildings. the use of the state density bonus as an incentive to build additional office space is just wrong. we've just lost more units without building more affordable units. every bit of under utilized space should be used for affordable housing. that is what our communities

need. from chinatown to fisherman's wharf, we need to house our neighbors, including those who are commuting from hours away -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> hello. this is stan hayes. on behalf of t.h.d. and its many hundreds of members and its 67 years of community service, we support affordable housing. as one of the largest sites for affordable housing in north beach, six b.m.r. units out of 42, is that really the best we can do on-site? you have to find the qualifying financial analysis and documentation have been provided. have you seen that financial analysis and documentation? if not, how can you make this

finding? have you asked that the project analysis consider alternatives? you have to conclude that the project would not be detriment to the health, welfare, or general existence of the persons in the area. did you make that finding? what about the next door broadway s.r.o.? the project causes frequent or constant shadowing, blocking sun light forever in exchange for a laundromat and two

extended lightwells. not nearly enough. facing a future of almost certain gentrification from their homes of the poorest among us, we can do better, and we should. do not approve this project as proposed. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is teddy kramer. i am a resident of district 3, and i am a member of the russian hill and north beach neighbors. i am calling in support of the 425 broadway street project for

multiple reasons. as we all know, this current lot is a vacant parking lot that is very underused, and the ability of turning it into 41 new homes in a neighborhood that could urgently use more housing would greatly improve the broadway corridor as well as this important section of district 3. this project is strong in that it encourages alternatives to driving. this project includes only 17 car parking spaces and 53 biking spaces which will encourage much more environmentally friendly forms of transportation. it will also provide market rate homes as well as below market rate homes, and it will contribute 2.5 million in fees to help build more affordable housing in san francisco, and i think 2.5 million going towards affordable housing is extremely beneficial for our city.

in addition to having much needed housing availability, we will see improvement in public space, public art, and the ability to really take a vacant parking lot and improving this community. thank you for taking the time to listen, and i hope you will approve this project. >> hello. my name's milo traut, and i think this project is really good and will be good for the city. the number of homes to parking is the right direction, and it's kind of what the city has been asking for and the planning department has been asking for. they're normally affordable, so they're small and kind of a way to get housing in the city.

somebody talked about the people in the area not being reached. if this project wasn't build, they got the short end of the stick. people in the area are often looking for improvement or another place, and this will change it up and provide that opportunity. it's an affluent neighborhood. this proposal's not displacing anybody. it's a vacant lot, so we should take advantage of this opportunity and build the homes on this land, and we'll be better off for it. so thanks for your consideration.

that's all. [please stand by]

>> i hope this project gets approved. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we had previously ahead of continuances shared our petition in support of the project and looking now, there are 193 signers who have expressed support. a number of things about this project, the parking and the housing. encouraging alternatives to driving. really trying to maximize a transit oriented location, the combination of below-market rate homes. and happy to hear that the neighbors are supportive of the proposal. similar to the previous comment, i would love to read some of the

personalized messages from our petition. they said this would be a perfect place for new housing, new community with shops and stores. tom is a long-term resident of north beach and strongly supporting the proposal. kate lives eight blocks away and is in full support. alex lives a block away and is in 100% support of the proposal. nicholas lives in north beach and says we need more housing. charles means housing means more diverse, more equitable and vibrant cities and protects the planet from harmful urban sprawl. more people who can support local businesses. more homes for people struggling

would be great. kyle wants more housing. even says it's a great niche for the project. more neighbors means more support for our iconic local businesses. we need more ridership for our transit lines. i'm sure you get the vibe. please support the proposal. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, i'm with tri-town community development center. i'm here to show support for the project as we have been able to work things out with the project sponsor. initially we were very hesitant in supporting this, and we are glad that the project sponsor has been able to listen to the s.r.o. residents next door at

401 broadway. we've been supporting them in the process of trying to negotiate and adjust the plan so they wouldn't be affected as much as they are, mostly mono lingual older adults who have lived in the building next door for a long time. but now that there have been changes made in the light wells and the addition of a facility in the building, the residents now feel more comfortable with 425 broadway moving forward with the revised plans. so, thank you for your time. >> hi, my name is eric kaplan. i live in north beach about half a block away from the project site. i cannot emphasize enough how much i support this project. i cannot wait for it to be built. i'm disappointed that it's taken this long to even get to the

point where i can give comment in support of it. you know, we have on the broadway corridor, we have so many different vacant lots, parking lots, that are all just eyesores that cause conflicts between cars and pedestrians and just generally make our sidewalks less pleasant and less safe. a few years ago they built 88 broadway nearby and now that's the nicest block this side of the broadway tunnel. so i think that this is exactly the kind of project we need. we need more of them. we need them faster. and i just am so excited to see this get approved. please approve it. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robert. i live in district 5. i'm calling to express my support for this project. i think that we're placing parking with dense multi-family housing, especially with a project that does include three-bedroom units is worth supporting. i'm glad to see an agreement was reached to include a laundromat onsite. i think that's a great amenity for the neighborhood. in district 5, they're an important part of the neighborhood here, too. so i'm happy to see it here. >> hello, i live in district 11. i support this 425 broadway street project in san francisco's north beach

neighborhood. look, i lived in trailers and moved home to home in california, where i grew up with my family most of my early life. being able to see myself in -- i see s.f. residents say 100% affordable housing, that's not attainable in today's landscape. wherever possible, there would be ways to reduce the number of units even though 100% it's technically affordable housing. take the compromise by one particular supervisor. i especially care about affordable housing. this can help with affordable housing homes. this project will help including affordable homes, and parking spaces, which people like. bike parking spaces which is great. and then these homes are places i can move in and not displace

someone else that used to represent how it was when i grew up. over long term, this can filter to other groups long-term, assuming we're having them built across s.f. i support this project. moreover, i hope you're all having a good day and happy holidays. >> hello, my name is christopher roach. i'm principal of studio r architecture in in san francisco. i'm also the chair of the housing action coalition housing review committee. we reviewed this project earlier this year and were -- i'm speaking in support of it because we found it to be a very excellent project for this neighborhood that has not built a lot of new housing for our residents in recent years.

we found it to be a great use of an underutilized piece of property, converting parking into dense urban housing. we found it to be a very creative and innovative urban design in addressing and activating it and making a better customer experience. we're glad to see it's using the state density bonus to get more housing. and, you know, it's a transit-rich area. we're happy to see that it has more than one to one bike parking and a great, you know, opportunity for transit demand management strategies so that it is very much oriented towards the kind of transit oriented development that we'd like to see. we think it's going to be a positive impact on the

community. we like to see that the kind of mix of uses with office space and community space. it all creates a great project, so please support this project. >> okay, last call for public comment on the item. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> this is sue hester. the last speaker talked about how the happ was contacted by the project sponsor earlier this year and they support the project. the project sponsor didn't call the people who lived in the -- next to the project, surrounded by the project in the s.r.o. they didn't contact chinatown until the past two months when i raised raucous.

this is a site for 100% affordable housing. pushing office space into broadway in this area is one of the concerns that has been a concern of chinatown, because it's going right up to chinatown. what is the excuse for the developer not contacting anyone in chinatown or anyone in the building that the building literally surrounds until they're forced to do it? there is supposed to be social equity in the planning department. what kind of social equity is it when you don't contact low-income people and the organizations that represent them. that is a thing that the planning commission really should struggle with. i don't think the planning commission has a project right now before it that has had the luxury of a time with input from

affordable housing community. four s.r.o.s on the four corners of this lot. pardon me, this intersection has four sros on the four corners and there are lots of s.o.s on broadway. thank you, good night. >> okay, commissioners, that concludes public comment on this item. i take it back -- late request to speak. anybody else who would like to speak on this matter, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. go ahead, caller. >> hello? >> jonas: yes. >> i just like to talk to this number 16. >> jonas: go ahead, sir, your time is running. >> excuse me? >> jonas: go ahead, sir, your time is running.

>> yeah. i am business owner of next to this project 435. and this one is going to be just what this business district needs because this is an empty lot which has problems. and this one is just great -- >> jonas: sir, you need to mute your computer or television. >> yeah, i'm supporting this kind of project 100% because that would be the best for this district. and we've received numerous

correspondence and we responded positively, so i don't know who those people are talking about. that's all. i'm supporting 100% for this particular -- thank you. >> jonas: thank you. okay, commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> so i do think that the project sponsor did request a couple of continuances between now and when we were previously supposed to hear them. so, i think that was an honest move to get more community outreach and i'm supporting the project today. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a couple of questions. mr. vettel, are you around? >> yes. >> commissioner moore: thank you. since this laundry business is

coming actually pretty late, i'd like to ask a couple of qualifying questions just for the commission to hear. who operates laundry? who owns it? and who will be responsible for maintaining it? >> the project sponsor will build the laundry facility and probably solicit a laundromat operator to operate the facilities. it will be operated like other public laundromats in the city. >> the only different, this is in a building, retrofitting a building. the safety of the building, are you concerned that this is publicly accessible through a back alley. how do you ensure safety for the residents that are using it? >> it will be accessible during

business owners. it requires members of the public to access through the alley or the public street. that will be approved as a pedestrian street with lighting and landscaping. so it will be an attractive area. >> commissioner moore: so other people can use it, too? it will not be just for the benefit of --? >> that's correct. >> commissioner moore: my next question. is the building you're proposing, are they going to be rental or ownership buildings? >> this is ownership project. >> for both buildings? >> both buildings are ownership buildings, right. >> commissioner moore: which means as we go into years and years of operating laundry, h.o.a. will be footing the bill for maintaining and operating

the laundry. >> this will be -- this is a mixed use building so there will be 42 members of a residential association and then a project sponsor or buyer will own the commercial space and have a separate association. and that commercial condominium will be the one that is responsible for the common-area expenses of the commercial space. about 23,000 -- 22,000 square feet of commercial space in the building including the laundromat. >> usually offices does not operate laundry. i'm curious, you have to -- there are a number of logistics questions, because i have a hard time believing that a residential h.o.a. will want to take on the financial

responsibility and the insurance responsibility for a publicly operated laundry. safety concerns and other issues make it very difficult for the residential portion to do so. i also question that it's realistic for the commercial to take on a laundry. i think it's the -- of land use, sharing the responsibility and cost i feel needs to be further worked out and better described in order to make this a really -- a real win-win for everybody. for example, machines. who will replaces the machines? after how many years will the entity responsible say i don't want to be in the laundry business and basically close it off? we have seen that all along. and this could happen here as well. i think there are certain legal and institutional questions that i would like to see clearly

spelled out while i like the idea overall, i think the number of gaps in how this is being brought forward today. what made you determine the number of four washers and five dryers or five washers and four dryers. i see nine, i don't know what is what. can you explain that? >> what we're committed to is 360 square feet of retail space that will be dedicated to a coin-operated laundromat. we haven't got into the details of how it's designed. i think it needs to be designed in consultation with the laundromat operator. they've taken on the responsibility and the obligation to make sure that a laundry operator does lease this space and does operate the facility as a public la laundromat. this will be a retail space, not

an office space. there are three other retail spaces in the building. it will be managed the same way the other three spaces. >> commissioner moore: i'm just reacting to what normally commercial laundry facilities have a back room where cleaning equipment is kept. i see here nine machines. that's just a sketch, just a suggestion. i think we all have the right to go out if this really works. so thank you for your response. i will first listen to what the other commissioners have to say with regard to the project. thank you. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, commissioner moore. i am -- i do have questions in terms of the -- i think my biggest issue here is, one, what commissioner moore raised, the

implementation of the laundromat service. what i just learned it's going to be a retail space, not just for the residents, but to the other community members in that area as well. however, it looks like the -- in terms of like the nine machines and who is going to be the operator, i hope that's something that was already discussed or negotiated. i mean that would be helpful for me as a commissioner to look into the details of the laundromat. we do recognize here at the planning commission, you know, the need for more laundromat services. as to how it's going to be implemented here is another question. another issue that i have is the office spaces in this building.

i do reiterate what was mentioned, that through the years, the office space has been issue around -- especially when it's going toward chinatown, because of, again, we don't want it to be an extension of the financial district. and so this is my question to the staff. as we are looking into the, again, to the racial social equity and this issue has been raised before, you know, in this particular broadway neighborhood, is that something that we don't consider in terms of like, you know, this kind of issues are always brought up. so instead, again, this is the issue of office space, you know, so if someone missed -- if

someone could explain or perhaps give us a background on these office spaces in this building, for this first building. >> thank you for the question, commissioner imperial. these are designed professional office spaces, so they're not general office spaces. and the project -- these are principally permitted, so they're allowed. the only thing that is unusual and needs a cu and the concession is the supply, because it's exceeding 2099 square feet. so basically these are just land uses that are principally permitted. so, therefore, i mean, you know, in terms of the racial social equity as we're trying to push for this, you know, i'm wondering how we can have this kind of conversation with developers in terms of the -- this has come up before.

and it's always repetitive. so i understand that it is principally permitted, but i wish we could be more intentional in terms of the racial and social equity. and i think that is the main issue for me here is the design office spaces that is around this area. and thank you for answering that question. this is what i -- i am not approval of the concession for the office space and at the same time, too, i do believe that this should be -- as we have heard from last week in terms of automobile services, again, reiterating, we need land in terms of building multi-family buildings, affordable multi-family buildings and this would be the right place, or this right area.

like, i wish there could be more community facilities, more child care and senior care in the surrounding areas. there is school and other community services around, too. and more of a commercial space rather than an office space. i mean this is what i would like to see for this particular building. even though it's a parking lot and it's not really displacing anyone, but, again, being intentional in how we're looking to the land use. and reminding ourselves about the racial social equity framework we've been trying to push. so that's my comments. thank you. >> >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i'm in favor of this as much needed housing, including six

onsite bmrs. i think the design changes worked out with the neighbors are helpful. i like the changes to the light wells. i think the inclusion of the onsite laundry is an important community benefit. i think the details that relate to the location of the laundry can be worked out after. they don't need to be done before our approval of this project. so, i am making a motion to approve the project. >> second and i will call on commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i have a few questions and comments. i'm glad to hear the agreement was reached with the neighbors, particularly the residents. one thing i could ask if they could include in the findings that the laundromat would be accessible to the residents of the surrounding community. i think having it in the

findings, which i think will help make this more explicit is what we understand in the commission as heard today. i have a question for the architect or the project sponsor. so from reading the public letters, the residents have their fire escape and given there might be an unfortunate incident such as a fire, i'm wondering if the project sponsor or the architect can talk about if they've checked with the fire department to make sure that fire accessibility safety won't be impacted here? >> this is the architect. >> yes, i can hear you. it's a little faint, but, yes, go ahead. >> okay. nothing in the alley is going to impact the current usability of

the fire escape from the rear of broadway. so what they have right now is not going to change. it will stay as it is right now. so the building gets inspected by the fire department and by building department, that they've approved the existing conditions and we're not changing them. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you. >> commissioner chan: i just want to preface that. >> i wanted to add -- [indiscernible] the parking garage -- the alley will be approved as a pedally, with limited vehicular access of emergency vehicles, but it will be a pedestrian alley. >> if necessary for a fire truck

to access, then that alley would still be accessible? >> that's right. >> commissioner chan: i also wanted to ask given that there are 50 residents primarily non-english speaking, if the project sponsor would provide community liaisons that speak chinese and provide the construction information in an appropriate language, is that something that the project sponsor would be open to? >> we'll certainly have a project liaison during construction. and we'll look into whether that liaison will be bilingual. we haven't thought about it, but that's a good idea. many of the residents are not native speakers. >> commissioner chan: i think it's important to provide the language so they're able to understand and respond to any issues that might come up during

construction. that's concludes my comments. thank you. >> commissioner moore: just speaking for myself as i try to sharpen my focus on what racial and social equity could mean for planning commissioner, i feel obligated to really look very closely at the context in which this building occurs and ask as to whether or not it's a relevant building? does this building recognize context? and i would actually say, no, it does not. on the west end of broadway we have supportive housing, large numbers of high density, how housing that that been refurbished for the communities and it has been done a great job to anchor the east side of broadway. on the west side of broadway.

on the eastside, we have built on property to provide affordable housing and then we have several -- there are two buildings at battery and samson on broadway who just do the same. this is an ideal site for affordable housing and nothing else. the building, instead, is upper end housing. it could be built -- somewhere else in the world. i think that the project misses the mission of what i think we are obligated to provide in this corridor. broadway in the center is basically the red-light district of san francisco. you can call it the entertainment district, the red light district, it doesn't matter. it's a fragile area that tries to define and redefine itself. the argument that this complements the district is a stretch. it doesn't really have anything to do with the jackson square district which is characterized

by older brick buildings. it's characterized by small design supportive services and some architectural design professionals say it's office space, but this particular building is not anywhere near to be a part of that district. i have personally a hard time to see that i can support some of the findings i'm asked to support in the motion and it is for that reason -- and a few others, i will not vote in support of this facility. >> commissioner fung: two questions for the project sponsor. the proposed retail off of broadway, does the project sponsor have a direction as to what type of retail services?

>> i can respond to that. yes, can you hear me? >> go ahead, steve. >> yes, we are -- we are talking with clients that potentially could use this as a restaurant, eventually two restaurants. we're trying to revitalization that area especially about [indiscernible] -- >> commissioner fung: is that possible that an entertainment use would go in there? >> i'm sorry, i couldn't understand. >> asking if it's possible

entertainment could go in there. these are quite small. so that seems unlikely. >> yes, they're quite small. we're looking at restaurant, cafes, bakery shops. >> commissioner fung: okay. my second question is if the laundry facility is considered a community benefit, is there any restrictions or limitations there on what the costs will be for someone to use that facility? >> in our agreement with the broadway neighbors, we've also agreed to subsidize the laundry costs of those residents for quite some time. so that is in a private agreement between us. it's not part of the condition of approval, but in the situation, we do have an agreement to provide subsidy for

those residents going forward. right now, that building has no laundry facility whatsoever. so this will be a benefit to them to have a laundry facility immediately adjacent to their homes as well as have financial support for the use of the facility. >> commissioner fung: can you provide what the level of subsidy you're talking about? >> it's $20,000. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> commissioner diamond: commissioner chan, did i understand you correctly, that you wanted to add a finding related to the laundry? >> commissioner chan: yes, that's correct. i wanted to include the findings, what we heard today

regarding the laundry and the access, the public. >> commissioner diamond: mr. vettel, was there some language you wanted to proposal about that finding? -- propose about that finding? >> i think you can make a finding that the project sponsor's office to provide a facility is a community benefit for the benefit of the community and the commission applauds that modification of the project. something along those lines. >> through the president, this is deputy city attorney. what we usually recommend, it appears in the preamble findings as a statement made on the record by the project sponsor. in this case, you can reference the project -- the updated

project drawings which i believe respect the location and -- reflect the location and other modifications of the proposed laundromat. that would kind of firm into the record exactly where and in what manner the laundromat is going to be included in the project. >> commissioner chan: if i may, i also would need to update the motion to illustrate the change in the use sizes. that will also be included as a totals have changed as a result. >> i think the significant aspect of that finding would be that the laundromat will be publicly accessible. >> exactly. thank you. >> and i would -- my motion would reflect that the findings, the preamble be revised consistent with comments from ms. jensen.

>> very good. we do have late request for public comment. shall we take that person now? >> yes. >> i'm actually for line 17, i'm the d.r. requester for that line. >> jonas: my apologies, commissioners. if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project as proposed with conditions adding a finding related to the laundromat, that it be publicly accessible. on that motion, commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president koppel: aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against.

commissioners, that will place us on the discretionary review calendar. for items 17, case number 2019-0222601drp. 628 shotwell street. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you ready to make presentation? clare, you're not audible.

>> jonas: commissioners, given the technical difficulties, staff is experiencing for the discretionary review, i'm wondering, clare, have you fixed your audio? we still can't hear you. i'm wondering, commissioners, we did have an item pulled off consent. maybe we can get that item out of the way now. clare, why don't you figure out your microphone, computer

issues, and we will call item 7 i believe it was, 2021-3601cua, 724 head street. conditional use authorization. gabby, are you available? >> can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> okay. i'll get started. good afternoon, president and commissioners. department staff. before you is a request conditional use authorization for the residence. for that a combination of the six bedrooms within the oceanview special use district. the horizontal addition will be 12 feet in depth and expanding that residency by 662 square

feet. 3,333 square foot property is located on the east side of head street between holloway avenue and garfield street within the rh-1 and oceanview special use district. the immediate neighborhood includes 123 residential development, including multi-and single-family resident. the item before you is required by planning code section 209.1, 249.3 and 303 to allow expansion for the creation of five or more bedrooms within the district. prior to this, the listed conditional use authorization, the project sponsors did conduct a pre-application meeting on march 22, 2021. two members of the public attended the pre-application meeting. at the meeting, the public

members discussed concerns regarding construction. the department recommends approval of conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. they find that the project is on balance and consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets applicable planning codes. it will accommodate six bedrooms and the needs of the property owners and the growing family and multi-generational family. enhancing and preserving the neighborhood character and scale, the project will be developed to provide property owners with the flexibility to meet their evolving family needs. the project will also provide a compatible zoning district in the immediate neighborhood and the proposed expansion will be

compatible with the development pattern, density and size of the neighborhood. this concludes the staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. i believe we should also have the project sponsors on the line. >> jonas: great, thank you, gaab by. unfortunately, i don't see the contact information for the project sponsor as provided to us, but there is a person raising their hand, so maybe we can unmute them and that will be -- no, i take it back. i see them now. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. this is the project sponsor for 724 head street. i'm here with the owner. he's here on the line. the project in front of you, 724 head street, it's a two-story single family.

we're requesting for conditional use for oceanview residence and rear addition to accommodate six-bedroom, three on the ground floor and three on the second floor. the principal for the project when the property owner approached us is to design a home that will accommodate the extended family. the homeowner and his wife. and their extended family. we had in the past worked with them to see if we could avoid a conditional use authorization requirement at the end. their intention is to continue and then apply for a conditional use permit because they do believe that the family will -- extended family will stay with them. and then they do need additional bedrooms to house their family.

james is here with us. i'll let him talk about the uses of the bedroom and the intention behind it. james? >> good afternoon, can you hear me? >> jonas: yes, we can hear you fine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is james burke hart, the property owner. just wanted to provide a little context on why the design is important to us. so, my wife and i moved into the house approximately a year ago with our then-3-year-old. the proposed six-bedroom design is important to us because it will give function to undeveloped space on the first floor and provide us with much needed room in the growing family. in addition to the fact that we're a growing family, we also need room for remote work. my wife and i both have been working remote due to covid and space for my east coast parents

to stay with us. they're both going to be retiring in the new year and it's important that we've got space to house them so they can see their grandkids. so with that, i'll end my comments here. short and sweet. i wanted to thank everyone again for their time and consideration. >> yes, we're here to answer any questions. thank you. >> jonas: excellent, thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. i've been living out here -- my family has been living in this neighborhood since the 1920s. i was born in the 60s. there is absolutely no parking. i don't have a problem with the guy building out for his family, but we have a problem. the homes on the street are

illegal units. the house at 779 was an illegal unit. the people that live up there by 724 already have to park down here at the other end of the block. when people get home from work, there is no parking here. so i have a concern whether this is actually going to be a family home or turn into another apartment building. right now, there is no parking on this street. and for six bedrooms for the size of that property? you know, it's out of control. these people can't even open their garage doors on the street because they've turned the garages into a park. i question about the parking and whether it's going to be a single-family home. thank you very much. >> hello? hello? >> jonas: yes, go ahead.

>> i was going to make a comment, but on 628 shotwell, but i have to go and i know it's a different item number. >> yes, it's a different item number. so you have to wait, i'm sorry. last call for public comment on this item, number 7. for 724 head street. seeing no additional requests to speak, the members of the public, public comment 0 is closed and this item is now before you commissioners. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: -- >> jonas: before you start, there is another member of the public requesting to speak. >> let's hear from them first. >> yes, i had a question. is there a guarantee this won't turn into like an inlaw rental

unit. >> you already spoke and this isn't a question-and-answer period and i don't believe there are any guarantees in life, unfortunately. go ahead, commissioners. >> commissioner moore: i had a question on the staff report. how are we doing with required rear yard with the expansion of the building with the extent that we're seeing it? >> yeah, so this project is going to provide the 30-foot required rear yard. this is reflecting the latest revision to the district and the requirements. if you recall, the requirement used to be the 25% and now it's 30%. which is what this would satisfy, yes. >> with that many people, rear yard smaller than what is required, that's unusual, but

that aside, i appreciate the project sponsor explaining his intent. the one thing i don't really see is family of one small child, i do not see space dedicated to office. i see three bedrooms, each with a bathroom, i find that is unusual, despite the fact that i appreciate seeing the in-laws coming and living with the family, the extended family idea is a great idea and i do not have anything against that, i still find the layout of the building a little bit unusual, but that is more -- this is more question to which there is probably no answer. >> jonas: if nothing else, i

would accept a motion. >> commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner imperial: i would like to hear what the project sponsor, because commissioner moore pointed out in terms of the -- it looks like two bedrooms with bathroom or -- just elaborate on that. >> yes, the design -- it's an office on the ground floor. it's for the use of the owner. yeah, in terms of the bathroom, the idea behind it is when -- when james and his wife, they're expecting another daughter -- i'm sorry, children, maybe in the future. for them to be independently staying in a room where they can

access to a bathroom. and then also when his family from the east coast, they can use the bathroom in their bedroom without exiting. in terms of design, that's the story behind it. yeah. >> yes. it looks like on the -- there will be four beds. yeah, one master bedroom with another -- okay. yes. and thank you for the explanation and i will move to approve of this -- of this -- thank you. >> jonas: thank you. if there is no other further deliberation, there has been a motion made and seconded to approve the project with conditions. on that motion, commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye.

>> president koppel: aye am . >> jonas: so moved, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and will place us now under your discretionary review calendar for the final item of your 2021 hearing schedule, number 17, case number 2019-22 of 1, 628 shotwell street. this is a discretionary review. ms. feeney? >> can you hear me? >> jonas: loud and clear. >> wonderful. okay. thank you, everyone, for your patience with those technical difficulties. good afternoon, commissioners, clare feeney, planning department staff. the item before you is discretionary review request for building number 20191196609 for a change of use from residential

care facility to residential. located at 628 shotwell street. the proposal is for a change of use from residential care facility to two dwelling units. the existing building is vacant and fire-damaged. the last legal uses are an abandoned residential care facility on the ground floor and dwelling unit on the second floor. the residential care facility will be vacated and a single dwelling unit will be re-established on the first and second floors. a new two bedroom dwelling unit will be added. the project includes restoration of fire damage, interior improvements, facade work and a new rear deck. the building footprint and massing will not be altered. the project is code compliant and residential use is principally permitted. the project site has changed numerous times since the house was built as a single-family

home 130 years ago. in the 1950s and 60s, the home was subdivided into apartments. in 1984, only the first floor was converted to a residential care facility. by 2015, the house was the operating residential care facility on site. it appears that the lorne house had expanded operations to both floors of the building possibly the rear yard without the benefit of permits. in 2015, a fire severely damaged the building and all patients -- all patients were relocated by a care provider, golden gate regional. the building has been vacant and in disrepair since and there have been nine complaints reported to d.b.i. and issues such as blight, debris,

trespassers. however, when the project sponsor filed a preliminary housing development application pursuant to the housing crisis act of 2019, sb330, interim zoning control 201901765, file number 191085 was in effect. this legislation specifically applied to care facilities that had closed within three years. since the lorne house closed four years prior to the application being submitted, the project is not subject to legislation and cua was no longer required to change the use. in summarizing public outreach, i will include comments since the d.r. requester also participated. the project sponsor created a pre-application meeting on june 18, 2020, which one person attended. the attendee was a reporter. the department has received 11 messages in support and 44

messages of opposition to the project. support for the project is centered on restoring a dilapidated building, revitalizing housing, preserving a historic resource, and the intent of state laws to expedite housing construction and improve public safety and streetlights. multiple neighbors referenced disturbing encounters with people trespassing or illegally squatting on the property. concerns were raised about losing a facility that served and housed senior citizens. the size of the dwelling unit and the nature of the housing only for tenants. 20 of the opposition e-mails were prewritten templates. broad concerns were raised such as the general lack of facilities that serve senior

citizens. the need for medical treatment facilities in san francisco. and the general importance of affordable health care options. in response to public comment, the project sponsor hosted three meetings, two of which were facilitated by supervisor ronen's office as well as site visits with the non-profits. a grant right of first offer was sent to these groups in april 2021. to date, no offer to purchase the property has been submitted by any parties. [please stand by]

>> we are ready to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear you.

your slides are up. you have three minutes. >> think you. we are here today to oppose the project. we are here because the planning commission has the power to deny this project. next slide, please. we are experiencing many crises here in san francisco. the displacement of low income folks from their homes, gentrification, the loss of 40 care facilities, and all of this during a global pandemic. the san francisco planning commission has the opportunity and the power to preserve this so it can be restored as housing for elderly and/or disabled san franciscans. at this rate that we are losing these facilities, which is more than 30% within the last six years, it is wrong to allow housing to become luxury housing

in the mission. as a look -- as a neighbor who lives two doors down, i walked by the building every day. at least five of our neighbors have written to you and oppose this project. we want this housing to remain coric -- community oriented housing not market rate luxury housing. next slide. it is the planning commission's responsibility to deny the project. we have an operator who tried to speak during line number 7 who is interested in running this. he would like to discuss this with the owner and with the city. we don't want to go backwards by demolishing housing for disabled and elderly folks that are low income folks in the mission. we do not need more luxury housing in the mission. if it becomes the proposed project, it will harm community

members, including low income and latino folks who continue to be pushed out by projects such as this. if you go to slide number 4 you can demonstrate that this project contradicts many of the stated city goals like preserving housing for people of all income and preserving the mission in san francisco. if you go to slide number 5 you will see how the mayor and the supervisors also have expressed that they would like to preserve this. the commissioners should preserve this as a board facility. here is your opportunity to do the right thing. six to eight shot well is the perfect model to do what the city is supposed to do, which is to maintain housing for disabled

and low income folks, as well as elderly folks, instead of turning housing into luxury housing. the city has the resources to make this happen. the city passed legislation to protect these facilities and we should not let a loophole stop this legislation. >> thank you. that is your time. you will have a one minute rebuttal. project sponsor, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, president and commissioners. if you could just display the slides, perfect. following a catastrophic fire in 2015, the subject building has set a vacant and dilapidated for the last six years. they purchased the property in 2019 and have diligently pursued this rublev tatian project ever since. the project provides as much housing as possible, where none

currently exists by creating a new five bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit, all without substantially altering the existing building envelope. slide two, please. the d.r. requester has reduced housing. this is false. the property has not had any occupants are provided any housing at all since the 2015 fire. the d.r. requester asserts that the project could result in the loss of the residential care facility. the planning department has determined that the property is not a residential care facility under the recent ordinance. slide three, please. moreover, the city's own analysis demonstrates that establishing a new small-scale care facility is not economically feasible.

the current owners made a good-faith effort to find a nonprofit interested in creating a new community facility at the site. the owners granted a right of first offer, sir, -- first offer in april, may the property available for inspections and reached out to community representatives numerous times. non-- no nonprofits have expressed serious interest. the owners wish to move forward with their application, consisting with the -- consistent with the housing accountability act. slide four, please. this project restores the building's historical single-family use while also adding a second unit, which is a principally permitted use. it should be noted the third unit would not create additional housing capacity because this would require more hallways and stairways that would reduce the number of bedrooms and change the project's occupancy classification, which would require major upgrades. ultimately, the added cost of complying with these regulations

would make the housing less affordable and providing less residential capacity. the architects are available for any questions. i would like to note i did speak with the operator who sent a letter a couple days ago. i'm happy to tell you about that conversation. it is pretty important. i hope he is able to speak today. the project provides as much housing as possible within the existing envelope and will benefit the community by revitalizing a derelict and vacant building. a number of immediate neighbors signed letters of support. we appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes our presentation. we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star three. through the chair, you will each have one minutes. when you hear your line has been on muted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. >> hello, i live in the mission district. i calling in to ask commissioners to oppose the change in use to residential use so it may become just another mansion in the city. we don't need any more mansions in the mission. it is very clear. san francisco has left 38% of its board and care facilities in the last two years and we can't afford to lose anymore. it is time for the city to address this crisis. i asked the planning commissioners to deny the conditional use permit and retain its place as a board and care. at the very least, it should be an apartment building and not a luxury home. thank you. >> hello, commissioners.

i have spoken before some of you many times. i have worked in affordable housing and as well as in tenant's rights. i calling to oppose the project because in the time that i have been here, i have seen the problem of homelessness, especially for seniors and disabled folks, get worse and worse. i have had many, many clients come to me who have wound up on the streets as a result of being pushed out. i have seen fewer and fewer affordable options for the community to move into and it is just very clear that there's not enough affordable housing in the city. people across the city -- the last thing we need is to turn units that were affordable housing to low income seniors into housing for the rich. that is just obvious. in terms of the law -- they are saying this because it has been

more than a certain number of years. these units don't qualify for these facilities anymore. we need to preserve these units. if we look at -- >> thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> hello, fellow commissioners. i a public policy manager at home rights. it's a permanent, but supportive housing provider throughout san francisco. i'm also a member of the band coalition which is a group of community organizers working to improve access to mental health. i calling to ask that you oppose the change from a board and care facility to residential use. we know that san francisco has lost over 38% of its care facilities over the last 10 years and we can't afford to lose anymore. taking care of these facilities does a huge disservice to the community that needs it.

i think that we need long-term solutions proposed by the public and by the department of public health and commissioners to address the high need for folks who are looking for services, such as treatment and substance health. thank you so much. >> hello. my name is tom. i currently live in bernal heights. i currently displaced from the mission. we do need more affordable housing. we need more care facilities, and we cannot let fire take away public serving uses of buildings. this happens too often, and then when people come in, seeing they have a profit motive that is there for them, they take advantage of us. i believe it is the planning commissioner's rolled to stop that and keep things in a public

serving space. thank you. >> hello. my name is jackie. i the d.r. requester. you can skip me again. >> hi, my name is peter. i work in nonprofit eviction offences. i'm calling to remind the commission that the association of bay area governments is failing to maintain and uphold its 114,442 commitments to affordable care facilities as determined by regional housing needs allocation from the state. we should be prioritizing projects and allocating resources and energy into products that increase the amount of affordable housing and board and care facilities in the bay area and the city of san francisco. not just prioritizing projects

for those who can afford to be the most influential and have the money to give the loudest voices. thank you. >> hi. i flow kelly. i live in district nine. i work with the coalition on homelessness. i asked them to deny the conversion of the area and retain the space as a board and care for a community serving use. neither community members, and certainly not the free market can be expected to solve the issue of flippers converting desperately needed spaces into mansions and driving up the land value and driving out our residents in need and the jobs of those who support them locally. we need the city to step in and start solving this crisis today. the project sponsor took a

gamble in speculating on this conversion. if you grant this conversion into a mansion, this will continue to push land costs up in the neighborhood and encourage more of this kind of predatory speculation. thank you. >> hello, i have lived in the mission for five years. i also work in rapid rehousing of homeless families in san francisco. i am calling in opposition. we know how difficult it is to find properties that can be used for board and care facilities or permanent supportive housing. i know this is the wrong choice to take a property that was being used to serve community members in need and convert it into something that serves only the very rich, single-family or two.

and i urge you to take advantage of this available property and find a use for it that continues to serve the community, which is so badly needed for so many of our residents in the mission. thank you. >> hello. thank you for your time. i calling in to oppose the project at 628. the last thing we need in san francisco is to turn housing that was for disabled folks and seniors into luxury housing for the rich. that seems totally obvious. we need more board and care facilities in our communities for disabled folks and seniors. i ask you to reject the project that benefits no one except the developers. thank you for your time.

>> hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> my name is richard. i'm interested in the building at 628. i believe it should continue to be a board and care. i have been a licensee for over 25 years. i'm also a certified administrator. [ indiscernible ] i believe that san francisco is in a position to keep another board and care facility and also increase services for the elderly and mentally ill. san francisco consistently talks about increasing affordable housing, but they have not addressed places to care for the increasing populations. 628 has a possibility of providing much-needed senior housing in san francisco.

for the systems and community advocates, 628 can thrive and continue to be a stable and viable business entity that provides service to low income seniors and adults with disability. thank you. >> hello. i calling from the coalition on homelessness. i also a neighbor around the corner from 628. i calling in opposition to the proposal. this kind of -- i wanted to bring to light some of this. the board and care facilities have played a really critical role in our safety net in san francisco, and many callers have mentioned that we have lost a large percentage over the last few years, but that went way back. if you go back even to four

decades ago when we started this, it is really dramatic just how many people were stabilized in board and care and who are now homeless and out on the street. we have an aging homeless population. the population is having increased acuity in regards to mental health. supportive housing is not often in a position to help folks successfully with high acuity, and reimagining board and care or turning property into a co-op for folks with mental health issues. these are all possibilities that have been explored and there is funding to do it. thank you. >> hello, i live on the same block as 628. i believe that we should preserve these community facing spaces. i don't think we will be building any new ones. they are desperately needed at

this time. creating a five bedroom luxury mansion will not help anyone except for the person who sells that house. rich people have plenty of other options and the vulnerable population does not. please oppose this revised proposal. thank you. >> hello. my name is jeff. can you hear me? >> we can hear you just fine. >> thank you. i live down the street on 25th, just over half a mile. i have been there 20 years. i also oppose the project for a lot of the same reasons people have been saying. one thing i want to address, first of all, you are the planning department. you have the power to zone this. it has not been a board and care for a while, but the city itself, the mayor, people talk a lot about how much they have

prioritized this. this is the chance to save one. it hasn't been one for a while. so bringing it into a mansion that is over 3,000 square feet is not advised. the developer said we will have less residential capacity because it will be a mansion and it is so many bedrooms, that is ridiculous. rich people love to have extra room. three units would house more people. it is so disingenuous. i was pretty disgusted to hear that. >> thank you, that is your time. >> hello? my name is scott kendall. i live in the mission. i oppose the project for all the reasons that was mentioned before.

i also want to speak as a disabled veteran. i can see with my own two eyes. we should all be disgusted by this. we should do everything in our power to preserve all of our board and care facilities. i also want to state to the five bedroom unit, that is a mansion. it will be two people who are very rich. and it is not housing for regular people in the city. we have an opportunity to preserve a much-needed board and care facility in the mission and i urge you to stand up to this. thank you.

>> hello. my name is olivia and i work at the coalition on homelessness. today is my day off. i'm still calling in because there is never a day off for affordable housing to fight for it. i calling to oppose turning 628 into this developer's plan, i also want to agree with jeff. that could at least be an apartment for, you know, a dozen or more people, so i agree that you are not adding housing to the neighborhood and that is disingenuous when you do use some funding that you guys have to put your money where your mouth is. that is all. >> hello. my name is emilio. i'm asking the commission not to blame nonprofits and housing

groups for the inability -- [ indiscernible ] we should return this to a board and care facility. disabled and seniors folks who might be living on the street that you are all trying to clean up, please oppose this mentioned -- this plan and support the rehabilitation of the board and care facility. thank you. >> hello, i'm calling to support this and urge you to deny the conditional use authorization. we are in a pandemic. there is a vast closure of board and care facilities. [ indiscernible ] this is why it mayor breed asked these facilities to form.

[ indiscernible ] this must take a backseat to support elderly and low income residents. please support this discretionary review. thank you. >> hello. i a resident of the mission district. this commission has recognize the problem of the loss of board and care facilities and the rise of monster homes. this is an extraordinary circumstance and need -- needs to be protected. please oppose the change. thank you.

>> hello. i represent united save the mission and also countless members who cannot be here. i calling in opposition to conversion of 628. mainly on the grounds of speculation. right now we are making an active mashup -- effort to incentivize this. i have been part and spoken at this commission before and have been told a few times that previously for buildings that were single homes, converting them to multi- home units has been the priority. this goes everything against what the planning commission has stated. at some point or another, sometime this decade, this commission has to be serious about making changes. this is something you can do right now at this moment. it goes against everything in

this city. it is against the goals that we have safe affordable care for those who are in need. this goes against the fabric of what the mission is about and it should be denied. thank you. >> hello. my name is larissa. san francisco has lost 38% of its board and care facilities in the past 10 years, and in the context of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the impacts on the mission community in the last two years, it is abundantly clear that we cannot afford to lose anymore. conversion of the property will reduce the amount of properties zoned for board and care use and actions should be taken in addressing the crisis by taking the discretionary review and

preserving the building for board and care use. this city has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in proxy revenue today and will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars more next year and can use these funds to rehabilitate this facility. there is one board and care operator that you have heard from that is interested in running this space. and if the city is truly willing to do more than they will lament another loss. thank you. >> hi, this is sarah short. we are a permanent supportive housing provider. we could also coordinate the treatment on demand coalition. i wanted to talk about what could happen today.

we could see a situation where we are able to create with the help of the city, the property developer, and that community, a group living situation that is community surveying and helps actually address our homelessness and mental health crisis that we see right now on the streets. we have the chance to have this in a community setting in the mission district, which anybody who knows this neighborhood knows how much we need something like that. this could happen were the owner to cooperate and consider the pricing so much or the city to take in some funding. we have an interested operator in the wings, as you heard, and this would be an amazing thing to happen in this city right

now. we all know we can use some good news. thank you. >> sasha: thank you, that is your time. >> good evening. we are joining these many voices that you're hearing from today to uphold the d.r. and deny the conversion of this property. this commission, as someone noted earlier, has spoken earlier about how critical it is that we maintain these facilities. the supervisors have spoken about it and the mayor's office. we have lost 38% of them in the last decade alone. that is a crisis and extraordinary circumstances. you have also spoken about your concern about the rise of monster homes in san francisco. this is not a choice between a so-called blighted building and a mansion. we would like to see the

property owners and officials sit down with an operator who just called in and discuss how it can all work to discuss this and make this a great use for our city that serves the community instead of one or two private homeowners. thank you. >> hello, my name is kandi. i a resident -- i a resident -- i am a resident. i am opposing this. we need board and care homes.

i ask you all to oppose this conversion. it is so essential to keep the board and care that we have. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i calling into ask you to oppose the change in use from a board and care facility to residential. let's keep this a community serving space. i spent a lot of time on this block. two days a week i deliver grocery boxes across the street. they have been renters for 54 years. the last thing we need is a dark and gated mansion. we have to acknowledge the 30

year history of this facility at a time where huge facilities have been lost in the last decade. knowing there is at least one board and care operator interested, we should be exploring further before allowing conversions. the sponsor took a gamble and speculating on this conversion. if you grant this into a mansion with an 80 you, it will only push up land cap -- land cost. the trust that owns the property has 25 other properties, many of which are in the mission. we have to stop the flippers from converting these spaces into mansions and driving out residents in need. we need the city to step in and solve the crisis. thank you. >> okay, last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star three to be added to the queue.

>> good evening. my name is anastasia. as a rep coalition and san francisco tenant union member, i ask you to take d.r. and deny the proposed project. it was a residential board and care housing six patients and two staff until a fire in 2015. it sat empty since then. the delpit -- the developer wants to turn into a private mansion. you have the power to not allow this conversion. board and care facilities provide supportive housing for elderly, formally -- formerly homeless, people with disabilities, and ask people experiencing drugs, evictions and have as such -- half as much facilities have closed in the last 10 years. the care provider has scent a message to the commission in expressing the interest of taking over the site, which brings us close to having it

reopened as a residential care facility. please deny the project and take d.r. thank you. >> okay. final last call for public comment. you need to press star three. seeing none, this is being closed to members of the public. public comment is closed. this discretionary review is now before you, commissioners. i take it back. i apologize. i'm getting ahead of myself. you have a one minute rebuttal, miss patton. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> we are, but we have a strong echo. you might want to -- >> there we go. can you hear me? the board -- it is zoned. [ indiscernible ]

they found a loophole and that loophole has been closed. the financial feasibility is not an argument. [ indiscernible ] this will reduce potential housing for low income and disabled folks. there is funding available should we request that the project be denied and that the board and care -- the project be denied so aboard and care facility be reimplemented. thank you. >> great, thank you. mr. patterson, you have a one minute rebuttal. >> thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson for the public sponsor. if we could please have slide number 2? it is not a conversion.

it is also not a mansion. the fifth bedroom was added in response to a neighbor request for a family size unit. this is also adding a second unit which will be more naturally affordable. there's already at least one rcf a few doors down called morningstar at 666, which is in the process of being expanded to 41 occupants. the commission received a letter from richard daley. i had an extended conversation with him this morning and he confirmed that it is simply not possible to open and r.c.f. in this facility. i would strongly encourage you to ask him about the finances. or i'm happy to tell you more about our conversation. he also did not show up at the end of october or early november for the site meeting to inspect the facility or inspect the property. we extended a right of first office -- offer. we waited eight months for

financing on offers. the money just isn't there. we are asking to go forward with the housing project. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing. it is now before you. >> while i waiting for the other commissioners, i will express my support for staff's recommendation in not taking d.r. >> i'm sorry. we have a late request for comment. should we take it? >> yes. >> hi, my name is victor.

i a community activist. i have been advocating for the mental health community and those with substance use disorders. my letter is in your package. i someone who has a mental health diagnosis and has been out -- and had been out of the workforce for about 12 years plus. as such, i don't have much of a safety net. when i become ill, hopefully it will be when i old, i will have no place to go but a healthcare facility such as these and they provide vital services. one of your mandates is according to your websites to highlight health department disparities and critical healthcare and development issues that have emerged since 2013. i-pronoun vote.

>> thank you. that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. >> thank you. i have a question for mr. patterson. mr. patterson, how much is the asking price for this building, plus the rehabilitation? including the rehabilitation? >> commissioner, thank you. we offered to sell the property to a nonprofit entity or to the city for fair market value. we believe that the value is approximately $2 million. we did not include construction costs in the request.

that would be up to anyone who is perching it, but we did offer and do walk-throughs of this site so that anyone interested can see what work needs to be done. it is very extensive. i think that is the main part of the problem of why financing has not been available from the city or elsewhere. >> at minimum, it is 2 million, and it looks like there is a big amount of rehabilitation. [ indiscernible ] i just want to see if you have those kinds of estimates? >> i will defer to the architects on the line. my understanding is the cost is probably significantly more than that. maybe in the multiple millions.

i just the lawyer. i'm happy to refer to the design professional. they have better numbers than that. >> there are some questions i have regarding this see you. first, in our packet, it says that the previews does not have permits or may not have permits. it also mentions that the interim zoning control also applies to whether it has benefits of the permits or licenses. so can you clarify that? can you clarify why this is not a cv -- see you? and what that means?

>> i'm happy to clarify that. the interim zoning control that the property is subject to specifically states that it applies to permitted or unpermitted facilities that close within three years. this facility closed three years prior to the submitted -- to the submittal so it does not apply because all of the criteria had to be met and this one wasn't. when the cua was withdrawn, this project became a normal building permits. every decision the planning department makes is discretionary. so anything can be d.r. even though the project doesn't require public notice, while the planning department had it, and it was a normal building permit in those few days, and d.r. was

submitted. that is how we had the cua. it did not meet the three year requirement. it became a building permit and the building permit had d.r. >> this has been continued in the planning commission. my question is, at one point -- at what point is the planning department staff part of the discussion when it comes to residential care facilities and the funding around this? what is the extension of the planning department's in this kind of deal? >> for this particular project, planning is not involved in the negotiations. i would defer to a planning

manager or director to know if the planning department on a larger scale will go through the different initiatives involved. i'm not sure about that. >> i think you are muted. >> you are muted. >> hello? >> we can hear you now. >> okay, perfect. i with planning department staff. sorry for the technical difficulties. last item for the year 2021. the planning department reviewed the project against the planning code compliance and also make

sure the project meets residential design guidelines. we are not the experts in financing and evaluating whether a residential care facility is feasible on the size and proportionality. we have to defer to the project sponsors in terms of the numbers to come up with how much -- [ indiscernible ] >> okay. >> and in terms of, i guess, my point here, this is the d.r. now and this is the building permit. for us, here at the commission, in a way we are seeing this more than we see the d.r. it is more appropriate to that. in terms of what we are basing on this in the decision-making, because it still touches on some of the planning department's

responds and some of the general plan requirement, so that is something that i also looking into in terms of looking into the findings of this. the planning department did notice there is a 60% block -- loss of the residential care facilities. that is something that, again, i echoed many of the members of the public who came in on this, and for me, as d.r., i more prone to mean to not change the use of residential care facilities, and maintain the residential care facility use. i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say on this. >> commissioner moore?

>> i would like to pick up on the fact that we have the most important people in the crisis and we will stick to this today. it was eloquently speaking for us to take a very hard look at what is necessary. in light of the fact that there is a 38% reduction, the loss of residential care facilities, i feel pushed against the wall to see an arbitrary three year binary period mentioned in that legislation. this was brought forward in 2019. one year after the legislation. i personally cannot support the change in use.

the city can collectively muster to bring this project back to its original and intended use. that is all i have to say. >> commissioner chan? go ahead, commissioner chan. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking the public for calling in with testimony and i want to thank staff for creating the report for the working group. i found that report really interesting. i wanted to highlight a few things that i thought was interesting today. any of you heard from our public testimony.

[ indiscernible ] what stuck out to me is the client has been primarily in these types of small facilities. they have traditionally been more affordable and accessible to lower income properties. [ indiscernible ] the availability of these facilities is critical for seniors and people with disabilities in order for them to live independently in san francisco. for me i'm thinking about this in terms of a public health issue and this year need for this type of housing. it seems to me the city doesn't really have a shortage in availability and parcels that are zoned for single-family homes. i don't have the exact number, but i think it is something like one third of plants is

available, but the city does have a shortage of available parcels for the care facilities. these are facilities for low income individuals. [ indiscernible ] i finding that there are extraordinary circumstances. i would like to deny the use. by approving the change of use from residential care facilities to residential would directly reduce the number of available parcels that could be developed for residential care facilities and, therefore, the loss of however you measure this by parcels or square footage that can get built would actually be meaningful to the public health and safety, especially with an aging population and persons with disabilities. [ indiscernible ]

>> i sure commissioner chan made a motion, but i would make a motion to take d.r. and deny on the basis that these are extraordinary circumstances and for the public health's safety. >> i second the motion. >> if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and disapprove the proposed project. on that motion... [ roll call ] that motion fails 3-3. it was split, though,

commissioners. unless there is an alternate motion against adopted or an alternate motion for continuance, as this is a principally permitted project and not a conditional use authorization before you, it is a discretionary review, and therefore would need for votes to take discretionary review to get the project approved. i would be interested to hear if there is any alternate motion. either to continue or otherwise. did you have a comment? >> thank you, jonas. i do want to mention that this project is proposing two residential units and it is

truly code compliant and does not require a variance. it is principally permitted on the site. >> thank you. commissioners, again, if there is no alternate motion, and with the split -- split vote of 3-3, the building permit application would ultimately be approved. >> jonas, may i comment as well, please? >> sure. >> commissioner chan, your comments that the facility is already zoned for a residential care facility and -- i was hearing that you were saying that there may be limited opportunities for this. residential care facility is principally permitted in all

districts. if properties -- properties don't already have to be a residential care facility to become one. so there are other parcels that are available. >> commissioner imperial? >> question to mr. patterson. >> happy to answer any questions, commissioner. >> mr. patterson, will you still see if there is the delay on who expressed the willingness to be the operator, and there are fundings that are coming down the pipeline. would you still willing -- would your client be able to work with mr. richard leon with other committee members? >> thank you. as i told mr. daley this

morning, if the project is approved today, i'm happy to continue talking with him, but he did make it very clear to me and i will quote directly, there's not going to be any money, and this will not be a sick bed facility. it is just not possible. so if something changes, absolutely. very happy to continue talking, but we have given eight months and i would hope that the city would have put together the funds by now. it simply hasn't happened, but to answer your question directly, yes. i'm happy to continue talking. [ indiscernible ] >> supervisor ronen's office was involved in some meetings earlier and i have not been made aware of any agencies

participating or arranging funds. if it has happened, i do not know about it. >> i would be willing to continue this for a number -- another few months, especially that this is the need for r.c.f. i would like other commissioners to -- [ indiscernible ] >> i would like to call on others to see if whether or not they in their own capacities and being interested in the subject matter can rally forces for this to become a larger discussion. i'm not sure if they are still in the audience or if they can pick up their forms and express

ongoing support for this. it would be great to hear from them. otherwise i would suspect that members in the audience who are still listening could reach out because this requires a much broader support and frontal strategizing of how to do this. >> commissioners, i think we need to vote on the motion. unless we hear another motion, i don't know how long we should continue the discussion. >> right. >> are you making a motion? are you leaning in that direction? >> i would like to make a motion. [ indiscernible ] i would like to continue this in three months. >> did you want to clarify

something? >> yes. we are at the last meeting for this project per sb 330. a decision should be made this evening. all of the meetings that happened for the conditional use authorization, all of those continuances, other than the ones that were initiated by the applicant count, so tonight is our last meeting to discuss this project because it is creating new housing units and is subject to sb 330. >> just for clarity, it doesn't preclude you from making a motion to continue, it just puts the city in an uncomfortable situation.

>> give it a shot. >> i would still make a motion to continue it to spring. >> i will second that. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this for three months, which would put us into march 17th -- the march 24th. on the motion to continue this matter to march 24th... [ roll call ] that motion fails, again with a split vote 3-3. again, unless there is an alternate motion, i would suspect in other words to not approve the project and it would still be split 3-3.

since the motion to continue fails, the project would essentially and up not taking d.r. and being approved. there is a member of the public requesting to speak. should we take that caller? >> yes. >> hi, i saw you were asking to hear from sarah short and i was texting her. she is trying to get on the line right now. >> i'm not sure what that would accomplish at this point. thank you. >> i had asked to hear from those three individuals who have credible voices in the community to see if they can rally support and find strategies to speak to the city with a larger voice about the subject matter. >> i understand that commissioner, but i'm not sure how that will change the vote today.

okay. are we done? is there -- there is another member of the public requesting to speak? >> okay. last speaker. >> last caller being taken. >> hi, this is sarah short. i wanted to respond to commissioner moore's request, and i have been trying to get back on. i missed a little bit of the discussion and i think it maybe too late. is it still relevant? >> i'm sure commissioner moore would like to hear your response. i just don't know how that will impact the vote today. >> sure. >> go ahead. >> yes, this is in relation to what commissioner imperial raised about the conversations with the city and such and the questions they were asking. i can say that there has been numerous conversations with

different departments, including mo cd and the department of public health, as well as supervisor ronen's office, and supervisor mandelman's office. there are some possibilities for funding, particularly, there is funding set-aside for the mental health co-op that would be a potential use of the site. otherwise there is funding within prop see for the purchase of a board and care. we did not have hard and fast commitments. a lot of that depends on the details, but there are possibilities still from city departments to assist with funding for the property were we to be able to keep it as a community serving facility. >> thank you. >> okay, are we done?

anymore commissioner comments? are we adjourned? >> very good, commissioners. happy holidays. >> happy holidays, happy new year, guys.

>> i view san francisco almost as a sibling or a parent or something. i just love the city. i love everything about it. when i'm away from it, i miss it like a person. i grew up in san francisco kind of all over the city. we had pretty much the run of the city 'cause we lived pretty close to polk street, and so we would -- in the summer, we'd all all the way down to aquatic park, and we'd walk down to the library, to the kids' center. in those days, the city was safe and nobody worried about us running around. i went to high school in spring valley. it was over the hill from chinatown. it was kind of fun to experience being in a minority, which most white people don't get to experience that often. everything was just really within walking distance, so it

make it really fun. when i was a teenager, we didn't have a lot of money. we could go to sam wong's and get super -- soup for $1. my parents came here and were drawn to the beatnik culture. they wanted to meet all of the writers who were so famous at the time, but my mother had some serious mental illness issues, and i don't think my father were really aware of that, and those didn't really become evident until i was about five, i guess, and my marriage blew up, and my mother took me all over the world. most of those ad ventures ended up bad because they would end up hospitalized. when i was about six i guess, my mother took me to japan, and that was a very interesting trip where we went over with a

boyfriend of hers, and he was working there. i remember the open sewers and gigantic frogs that lived in the sewers and things like that. mostly i remember the smells very intensely, but i loved japan. it was wonderful. toward the end. my mother had a breakdown, and that was the cycle. we would go somewhere, stay for a certain amount of months, a year, period of time, and she would inevitably have a breakdown. we always came back to san francisco which i guess came me some sense of continuity and that was what kept me sort of stable. my mother hated to fly, so she would always make us take ships places, so on this particular occasion when i was, i think, 12, we were on this ship getting ready to go through the panama canal, and she had a breakdown on the ship. so she was put in the brig, and i was left to wander the ship until we got to fluorfluora few

days later, where we had a distant -- florida a few days later, where we had a distant cousin who came and got us. i think i always knew i was a writer on some level, but i kind of stopped when i became a cop. i used to write short stories, and i thought someday i'm going to write a book about all these ad ventures that my mother took me on. when i became a cop, i found i turned off parts of my brain. i found i had to learn to conform, which was not anything i'd really been taught but felt very safe to me. i think i was drawn to police work because after coming from such chaos, it seemed like a very organized, but stable environment. and even though things happening, it felt like putting

order on chaos and that felt very safe to me. my girlfriend and i were sitting in ve 150d uvio's bar, and i looked out the window and i saw a police car, and there was a woman who looked like me driving the car. for a moment, i thought i was me. and i turned to my friend and i said, i think i'm supposed to do this. i saw myself driving in this car. as a child, we never thought of police work as a possibility for women because there weren't any until the mid70's, so i had only even begun to notice there were women doing this job. when i saw here, it seemed like this is what i was meant to do. one of my bosses as ben johnson's had been a cop, and he -- i said, i have this weird idea that i should do this. he said, i think you'd be good. the department was forced to hire us, and because of all of

the posters, and the big recruitment drive, we were under the impression that they were glad to have us, but in reality, most of the men did not want the women there. so the big challenge was constantly feeling like you had to prove yourself and feeling like if you did not do a good job, you were letting down your entire gender. finally took an inspector's test and passed that and then went down to the hall of justice and worked different investigations for the rest of my career, which was fun. i just felt sort of buried alive in all of these cases, these unsolved mysteries that there were just so many of them, and some of them, i didn't know if we'd ever be able to solve, so my boss was able to get me out of the unit. he transferred me out, and a couple of weeks later, i found out i had breast cancer. my intuition that the job was killing me. i ended up leaving, and by

then, i had 28 years or the years in, i think. the writing thing really became intense when i was going through treatment for cancer because i felt like there were so many parts that my kids didn't know. they didn't know my story, they didn't know why i had a relationship with my mother, why we had no family to speak of. it just poured out of me. i gave it to a friend who is an editor, and she said i think this would be publishable and i think people would be interested in this. i am so lucky to live here. i am so grateful to my parents who decided to move to the city. i am so grateful they did. that it neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>> the hon. london breed: good morning, everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i want to thank you all for joining us here today to talk about public safety on a whole other level in light of the challenges that our city continues to face. you know, this has been a problem that has persisted in the city for sometime now, and the fact is that things have gotten worse over time, and i want to thank a moment to appreciate our public safety officials today, some of whom you will hear from in a short moment, but thank you to our police chief, bill scott, for

being here, our fire chief, jeanine nicholson, our sheriff, paul miyamoto, our director of public health, dr. grant colfax, our department of public works director, shireen mcspadden, and our district supervisor, ahsha safai. in recent months, we've not only seen a rising number of criminal behavior, especially in the tenderloin that has become far too normal and cannot continue to be

tolerated. all of our workers, our residents, and everyone who visits our city should feel safe no matter what part of town they're in, and i know that san francisco is a compassionate city. we are a city that prides ourselves on second chances and rehabilitation, but we're not a city where anything goes. our compassion should not be mistaken for weakness or indifference. today, we're announcing a series of public safety initiatives to create a city that is safe and turns the tide on what we have recently seen in san francisco. and to be clear, what i'm proposing today, and what i will be proposing in the future will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but i don't care. at the end of the day, the

safety of the people of san francisco is the most important thing to me, and we are past the point where what we see is even remotely acceptable. the first of these initiatives is the tenderloin emergency plan, which is already underway. during covid, we showed what this city can do when we unify our efforts and we work together collaboratively. tlou our emergency action, we protected the health of the city, and san francisco was a national model for addressing covid. we saved lives. and let me say this: the tenderloin needs an emergency response, period. i spent a lot of time going to the tenderloin and have seen what's happening.

we made a significant difference, but now, what i see is far, far worse. while there are still issues of needing to get people off the streets and into housing, and there are also very important urgent safety issues. last week, i met with families from the tenderloin. their stories are heartbreaking. just imagine if you had to walk your kid down the streets of the tenderloin every single day with people shooting up, selling drugs, and because the sidewalks were so packed with people, you had to walk out on the street in incoming traffic on a regular basis. you've got these brand-new playgrounds where you don't even feel comfortable walking

your kids to play in them because of everything they see around them, where you don't feel safe. the unsafe streets, and the dirty streets, and when i say dirty, i mean the feces in the streets that department of public works will clean and have to come back just hours later. we can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. we need to be different, to act with urgency, and to be aggressive in countering these problems, and this is why i've

directed mary ellen carroll, the director of emergency management, to lead our multiagency coordination on this effort, bringing the coordination and urgent responses that we brought to covid this year. in essence, a covid command that will be a public safety command that will be specifically targeted at the tenderloin community, and i'm going to have mary ellen carroll walk-through the details of what this means. our priorities are focused on issues of drug dealing, private crime, public drug use, safe passage and accessibility for the people who live and work there, neighborhood cleanliness, housing resources, emergency medical calls, and we will be tackling illegal

vending. in the short-term, that means taking actions like fixing the lights, adding additional lighting in very dark areas, dealing with the trash all over the neighborhood, but it also means coordinating with the police and sheriff's office on felony warrant sweeps, which have led to the arrest of 23 individuals so far with outstanding warrants. these are some of the people who have been holding this neighborhood hostage, and our criminal justice system has a responsibility to hold them accountable. when the police make an arrest, the residents of the tenderloin should not see that same person back on the streets the next day dealing drugs right in front of their neighborhood. the next stage of this plan will roll out next month and continue for at least two months after that. the second stage will continue

the progress made earlier on the law enforcement but interventions and connections of services to people facing evictions and other challenges, but to be clear, we're not giving people choice anymore. we're not just going to walk by and let someone use in public daylight on the streets and give them choice of giving them to the location we have identified them or going to jail. this will involve outreach workers, social workers, police, and community workers working together, offering wraparound services at a new linkage site where people can start treatment, meeting people where they are, being the compassionate city that we are, but not tolerating the mess that we've had to tolerate.

the final phase of this project involves keeping the streets safe for everyone who called the -- who call the tenderloin home, and promoting safety and neighborhood support. this also includes long-term partnerships with community organizations and residents to maintain the improvements made during the crisis operations phase. the key will be to never let the tenderloin go back to what we are seeing today, to not go backward, to move forward, to feel and see a difference. but public safety isn't just about the tenderloin. we know that there are issues all over this city. our second initiative is targeting the illegal vending on our streets that is

incentivizing the break ins and robberies like the ones we have seen at stores and small businesses throughout the city. and you know what's the sad reality before i was even an elected official, everybody knew whatever they stole for cell phones, laptops, anything you steel in the city, you take it down to the tenderloin, and there's somebody waiting to give you cash for these items. i want you to know, these are not just victimless crimes, and these are not just property crimes. we're seeing stolen vehicles, physical violence, and the use of weapons. today, i'm introducing legislation to disincentivize theft by making the resale of stolen goods on the street more

difficult. it will mandate highly visible posting of approved vendor permits to make it simple and easy for inspectors for proof at any time and if they can't produce it, we will take action. it will allow the department of public works to associate with law enforcement. if there is a need to move an individual who's not complaint and the ability to confiscate goods. these are basic but important actions, and i want to thank supervisor safai for cosponsoring this legislation. we also need know that we need to give our officers more tools to effectively do their jobs. in 2019, the board of

supervisors passed a law that effectively limited officers' use of camera feeds for certain situations. for what happened in union square, they could not. when there were multiple robbery crews hitting multiple stores, they could not access those cameras, which is ridiculous. think about that. you're in an incident of severe looting, aurofficers are not able to use that other jurisdictions -- our officers are not able to use something that other jurisdictions use. we need amendments to clarify that officers are allowed to access these cameras when needed to address critical public safety issues. there is a balance to be had, i know, but right now, if our

officers cannot use cameras during a mass looting event, then that policy is out of balance. we are actively working on those amendments, with plans to introduce it in january, and my hope is that the board will support changes. lastly, we're increasingly asking our police department to do more. they're working overtime to address these challenges, including responding to the rash number of retail thefts, and expanding a number of deployments through our tourism deployment plan so when come here and support our economy, they feel safe, and they want to return, and we change the

narrative about what people say about san francisco. and focusing on auto burglaries to make significant arrests on prolific crews. they've done all of this -- our officers are committed to doing the work, and they're committed to keeping us safe, but everything they've been doing over the recent months and everything we've going to ask of them in the coming months before we pass a new budget is going to require more overtime funding, and it's going to require more police officers.

my budget office is currently working with the san francisco police department and the chief to understand what the needs will be to get us through 2022, and i will introduce a supplemental to ask this board for the resources that we need so that the deployment that exists now will not end after the holidays. the deployment that we're starting in this city needs to be permanent. as we are preparing for our budget, we will ensure these resources occur, including academy classes and overtime, are in place as part of the budget, and i will introduce that as part of that budget in may, but we cannot wait to continue some of those actions now. some of those actions are underway immediately, while others require significant action and legislation, and