>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us today. we're happy to host this event with mayor breed and our iconic downtown partners to show our support and commitment to the economic recovery of the city. we are committed to this effort and are thrilled to welcome back people to downtown. i'm honored to introduce our steadfast leader during a challenging time, but we're turning the corner. mayor breed, we look forward to the continued partnership of the downtown recovery plan, and welcome back to s.f. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, neela, and it's great to

be here at selhurst park in the city, let me tell you, if you don't live here, you would want to. this is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and it's great because the weather is nice, but there's been something missing for sometime, and that's the people. yes, the diversity, the folks from all over are what make san francisco so amazing. so when i reached out to members of the business community and asked them to work with me and join us in returning to work from march, so many businesses stepped up and said yes. so part of what we know is

businesses don't just open up, and restaurants open up, and people move about, we've been cooped up for two years. a global pandemic has kept us apart like never about, and now that we're emerging, we have so much to do. we were the first country to shutdown, san francisco, and we saved thousands of lives because of it. and now, 83% of san franciscans are vaccinated and counting. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so we have something to be proud of, but no one likes to have a good time more than san francisco. no one takes fun more seriously than san francisco, and so part of the fun means when we come

back, we need to see some amazing gatherings. i welcome our salesforce and c.b.d.s and others who came together with places like the flower mart to say basically that not only are we coming back, but we're going to come back. if you have not been to club fugazi and have seen the show, boy, are you missing out. that show is extraordinary, and so we're bringing a little

sneak peek out for everyone to see and enjoy. make sure you go and see the bigger show because boy, it makes you feel good about san francisco. it makes you feel good being a part of this extraordinary city. thanks to lyft -- to lyft who are providing free bikes and scooters to get around the city, and make sure you visit places in the city that are going to host some of these activities because we are back. we are back, and now, it's time to appreciate life like never before. thank you to so many of our partners, and now, i want to

introduce kip to make some remarks. he has put a lot of this together, and we welcome his advocacy and his leadership and answering the call when we needed it. before i do that, i just want to give a shoutout because i know what's been on the top of everybody's mind. our community ambassadors in the orange jackets all over the city, we have retired police officers who are working as ambassadors, and so we are going to do everything we can to make sure that san francisco continues to be this extraordinary place that keeps a smile on your face, and thank you all so much for coming here today. and with that, i want to

introduce kip from east cut. >> thank you, mayor breed, and thank you to you and your team for your tireless efforts in trying to bring people and businesses back to the city. so what i thought i'd do is just share a few remarks about how our group came together and why we came together, and it's really no secret that covid has been a huge challenge cities. there's not a lot more that can be done to encourage people to come back to downtown, and if you recall, we started the process at the end of last year before omicron, and the

chronicle had an interview with a small business owner, and he said it's great that restrictions are being lifted, but we need to show that things are different, and it was that concept, that don't just tell me, show me, that things were different to bring this s.f., this bloomsf at the end of march. and so in conjunction with the mayor's recovery team, we sat down and said what can we do to help? and the decision was let's put together a celebration, let's give people a reason to come back downtown. and a vibrant downtown is not only critical for our recovery but for the long-term health of this city. this is where serendipity

happens. these things happen unscripted and unplanned when we're down here, and this is where we come to eat, to shop, to be entertained. we know that precovid, technology can serve to isolate us, and covid has exacerbated that, so these events are so critical for us to be together. so bloomsf at the end of this month will be a celebration. our group determined that that event would be more compelling. we'll see a wine walk, outdoor deejays. we'll have the launch of the outdoor cinema at the crossing. that'll be complemented by art installations at b.a.r.t. and

muni stations. it's going to be a really fun weekend, so if you're a business, don't just encourage employees to come back, encourage them to come out. if you're a worker who's hesitant, come back and rediscover what it is you love about your co-workers and what you love about downtown. we hope you all come back this weekend and help in getting downtown back on its feet. with that, i want to introduce robert tibbetts with an architecture firm, one of the businesses that's committed to bring people back in the month of march. rob? [applause] >> thank you. i do just want to take a moment

to thank the mayor for her leadership. two years ago, you made a difficult decision in the face of fierce opposition from other levels of government, and steered us through this, and i don't know that we've said we appreciate you for that. all right. coming back to work, we're all going to wear pants and shoes. we have 200 people coming back to work, and we're a design firm, so we need to work together. we need to see each other. there's a certain magic and collective creativity that just isn't possible on zoom, and that's just real exciting. on the way to work, we'll stop and get coffee and doughnuts, and on the way home, we'll stop and get our shoes repaired, get

soup and salad for dinner, and we'll start to gather. we are going to be making our community a better place, and we are committed to doing that. we have a great city, let's make it even greater. thank you. [applause] >> all right. next up, going to recognize and introduce -- just say as a san francisco native, i'm proud to introduce denise tran, owner and founder of a small business

eatery in san francisco. [applause] >> hi, everyone. i just want to thank mayor breed for this opportunity to speak on small businesses in downtown. i am the founder of a bhan-mi sandwich eatery, two locations, one at the airport, and one on market stleet, just a few weeks from here. i have to -- street, just a few weeks from here. i have to say three of my locations have reopened, except for the one on market street. the small mom-and-pop businesses in downtown san francisco that make san

francisco so unique desperately need folks to come back to work. my shop, my little sandwich shop, relies on catering and office business and office lunches, and unfortunately, we're still closed, so i'm so excited for this opportunity today, for the mayor to call businesses back to work because this gives us an opportunity to open our shop again and do what we love best. san francisco, we're all, under the leadership of mayor breed, have done such an amazing job of keeping everyone safe during such a hard time. let's continue to work together to bring back tourism to our city, to bring back conferences and businesses. let's bring back all the great

things that we love about this city again, so thank you for this opportunity, and i look forward to what's coming our way. thank you so much. [applause] >> all right. next up, we're going to have the mayor come back and introduce one of her favorite groups. >> the hon. london breed: i am? >> yeah. >> the hon. london breed: okay. well, just to top it off and give you a bit of a little bit of a taste of what you can expect from all of the great activities that we're going to be adding to san francisco, right now, we have a performance from seven finger circus. they perform at club fugazi, and here's just a tidbit of

here's san francisco. [♪♪♪]

[applause] >> the hon. london breed: big round of applaud for seven finger circus. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: whoa! goodness, doesn't that make you nervous? do i clap? i don't want to mess them up, right? well, this is what you're going

to be seeing all over san francisco, and we want to thank all of you for coming, all the businesses who committed to bringing their employees back during the month of march. i've already seen some of the lines at some of the businesses downtown, so we want our businesses reopened, we want our economy going again, we want to be out and about, enjoying our beautiful city, so again, it is not too late. it is still the month of march, so bring your folks back two, three, four, five days a week or bring them back for dinner, bring them back to see san francisco at club fugazi, bring them back to the flower mart. it is time to takeoff those pajama pants and go down. we are open for business, san francisco. thank you all so much for coming today. [♪♪♪] [applause]

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language]

[♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

>> there is a lot of unique characteristics about visitation valley. it is a unique part of the city. >> we are off in a corner of the city against the san francisco county line 101 on one side. vis station valley is still one of the last blue color neighborhoods in san francisco. a lot of working class families out here. it is unusual. not a lot of apartment buildings. a lot of single family homes. >> great business corridor. so much traffic coming through here and stopping off to grab coffee or sandwich or pick up food before going home. >> a lot of customers are from the neighborhood. they are painters or mechanics. they are like blue color workers, a lot of them.

>> the community is lovely. multi-racial and hopefully we can look out for each other. >> there is a variety of businesses on the block. you think of buffalo kitchen, chinese food, pork buns, sandwich. library, bank of america with a parking lot. the market where you can grab anything. amazing food choices, nail salons. basically everything you need is here. >> a lot of these businesses up and down leland are family owned. people running them are family. when you come here and you have an uncle and nephew and go across the street and have the guy and his dad. lisa and her daughter in the dog parlor and pam. it is very cool. >> is small businesses make the neighborhood unique. >> new businesses coming.

in mission blue, gourmet chocolate manufacturing. the corridor has changed and is continuing to change. we hope to see more businesses coming in the near future. >> this is what is needed. first, stay home. unless it is absoluteliness scary. social distancing is the most important step right now to limit spread of virus. cancel all nonessential gather everythings. >> when the pandemic litly land avenue suffered like other corridors. a few nail salons couldn't operate. they shut down. restaurants that had to adapt to more of a take out model.

they haven't totally brought back indoor seating. >> it is heartbreaking to see the businesses that have closed down and shut because of the pandemic. >> when the pandemic first hit it got really slow. we had to change our hours. we never had to close, which is a blessing. thank god. we stayed open the whole time. >> we were kind of nervous and anxious to see what was going to come next hoping we will not have to close down. >> during covid we would go outside and look on both sides of the street. it looked like old western town. nobody on the street. no cars. >> it was a hard eight or nine months. when they opened up half the people couldn't afford a haircut. >> during that time we kept saying the coffee shop was the living room of the valley. people would come to make sure they were okay.

>> we checked on each other and patronized each other. i would get a cup of coffee, shirt, they would get a haircut. >> this is a generous and kind community. people would be like i am getting the toffee for the guy behind me and some days it went on and on. it was amazing to watch. we saw a perfect picture of community. we are all in this together. >> since we began to reopen one year later, we will emerge stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> when we opened up august 1st. i will not say it was all good. we are still struggling due to covid. it affected a lot of people. >> we are still in the pandemic right now.

things are opening up a little bit. it is great to have space to come together. i did a three painting series of visitation valley and the businesses on leland. it felt good to drop off the paintings and hung them. >> my business is picking up. the city is opening up. we have mask requirements. i check temperatures. i ask for vaccination card and/or recent test. the older folks they want to feel safe here. >> i feel like there is a sense of unity happening. >> what got us through the pandemic was our customers. their dogs needed groomed, we have to cut their nails so they don't over grow. >> this is only going to push us forward. i sense a spirit of community and just belief in one another. >> we are trying to see if we can help all small businesses

around here. there is a cannabis club lounge next to the dog parlor to bring foot traffic. my business is not going to work if the business across the street is not getting help. >> in hit us hard. i see a bright future to get the storefronts full. >> once people come here i think they really like it. >> if you are from san francisco visit visitation valley to see how this side of the city is the same but different. the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was

launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there.

>> clerk: -- hybrid hearing for thursday, march 24, after two years of remote hearings. we are requesting that those persons in the chamber to distance as much as possible, taking seats if possible in everyone other row. you must keep a mask on while you were in these chambers and also while you are attending. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation remotely, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment on each item on today's agenda. comments or opportunities to speak on today's agenda are available by calling 415-655-0001, and entering

access code 2493-375-3876, then press pound twice and press star, three to enter the queue. when you hear the prompt, that is your indication to begin speaking. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is up, we will take the next person lineup to screen. we will instruct the members attending in person to lineup on the screen side of the room and then we will be taking people calling in remotely. best practices calling in from a remote location, call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your

speakers. again, i will remind people in the chambers to be respectful of one another by distancing appropriately. everyone must keep their mask on, and we have arranged for an overflow room if you prefer to wait in there. it's room 408 on this floor. you can wait in room 408 and then enter this room when your item is called. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]

>> president tanner: thank you, mr. clerk. before we go on, we're going to start incorporating the land acknowledgement into our hearings in the beginning, and so it's my honor to read this first, and welcome other commissioners, if you'd like to have turns doing about, but i'll also be happy to do that. we at the planning commission acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, the original inhabitants of the san

francisco peninsula. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homelands. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2019-022830-ahb, at 3055 clement street, a request for home-sf project authorization, is proposed for continuance to april 21, 2022. also, under your discretionary review calendar, item 16, at 1503 delores street, a discretionary review, has been withdrawn.

i have no other items proposed for continuance, and so we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the items to be continued. seeing no requests to speak from any members of the public -- i take that back. go ahead, caller. you have two minutes. >> yes, my name is alfred [indiscernible] and i have a question on the 3055 clement street. are there any recent developments regarding the project? the project was on your calendar a little over four months ago, back in november.

>> clerk: sir, i'm going to interrupt you for a moment. we are only taking up the matter of the continuance. it's not on the merits of the matter. >> well, i'd like to know why we're continuing this case the last couple of hearings, so just curious what's going on. >> clerk: right. >> it's perhaps -- i know the commissioners could explain the reason. >> clerk: okay. sir, i would encourage you to contact the planner, chris may. he can help you. >> okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and the items

proposed to be continued are now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items as proposed. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue item 1 as proposed, i believe commissioner diamond is still having trouble -- i'll ask. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0, and will place us under your consent calendar.

all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, 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 event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 2 at 830 eddy street and items 3 at 3737 jackson street. members of the public, this is your chance to pull any item off of the consent calendar, and members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to these matters. seeing no members of the public wishing to comment, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you,

commissioners. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to approve items 2 and 3? >> commissioner koppel: second. >> president tanner: i do see that commissioners fung and moore had raised their hands, but i don't know if they wanted to speak. >> commissioner fung: i was just going to make a motion. >> vice president moore: same here. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0, placing us on commission matters, item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 24 and march 3, 2022. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on either sets of minutes by pressing star, three or members of the public present in person, by lining up on the podium side of the room. >> president tanner: commissioners? commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: move to approve. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: thank you,

commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0, and places us on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president tanner: any comments from commissioners this afternoon? i want to call on vice president moore? >> vice president moore: i'd like to ask that we close in memory of commissioner kathleen dewitt tonight. she unexpectedly passed away. she was a commissioner on the small business commission, and for years and years, she was the voice of small businesses working with this commission on a number of pieces of legislation, including formula retail as it affects small businesses. i ask that we close in her memory tonight. >> president tanner: thank you for that. that's indeed a great idea.

we're certainly sorry for her loss of her life and to her family and friends. any other comments from commissioners? certainly good to be back with you all in person and in hearing. to those members of the public who are here in person, good to see you here, as well. to those on the line, we are also glad to have you. we might have our difficulties, but we will do our best.

>> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there are no further comments from the commissioners, we can move onto item 6, director's announcements. >> director hillis: good afternoon, directors. nothing specific. i don't know if aaron is going to mention in his report, but gabriela ruiz was approved to sit on the commission, and i think we'll see her next week in place of commissioner chan. >> clerk: aaron starr, manager

of legislative affairs. it's been a long two years. it's good to see you all in person. we've had a lot of fun over the last two years. it's also director hillis' first in-person meeting as director, as we went into shelter the week after he got the job.

supervisor mandelman, safai, and mar's ordinances that would create density exceptions in rh districts are also pending in committee, and commissioners, you recommended approval of supervisor mar's ordinance back in november and disapproval of mar's and safai's ordinance earlier this year. after a lengthy hearing at land use on the items, all three items were continued to the call of the chair, with supervisor peskin suggesting that the three supervisors lock themselves in a room and come to an agreement before coming back to committee. as of this time, that has not happened, and it's not clear when this will happen again.

this week, two items passed their first read, including the landmark designation for the tropadero clubhouse, sponsored by supervisor mar, and [indiscernible] the clubhouse designation was submitted by supervisor mar, and the clubhouse is historically significant for its association with the development of recreational facilities in san francisco and is one of the earliest buildings in the district and is architecturally

and historically significant as an example of stick style east lake architecture and is the last example of a 17 century roadhouse. commissioners, you heard this item on september 30 of last year and recommended approval. of note, supervisor walton's resolution instituting interim controls passed out of the board this week and is pending for the mayor's signature. as user interim controls, they did not come to you for review and action, however, you will be hearing the resolutions, sponsored by eight other supervisors. the board also heard the appeal for 1838 eighth street.

it would demolish a single-family resident and create a building for 18 units. the adjacent neighbors appealed the project and sought more concessions to provide light to their properties. what resulted was a hearing where the appellants nor sponsor were happy with the planning commission's decision. in the end, the board agreed with the planning commission's decision, and the project can now move forward. lastly, but not least, although director hillis stole my

thunder, the board approved gabriela ruiz to sit on the commission, and that concludes my report.

on how you're going to result when the developer refuses to lop up the story and they did it. they were do, their best and supervisor mandelman really

dug in on what supervisor diamond moved. second thing is you also had [inaudible] and there should be some report about the board of supervisors and the project. thank you very much.

>> i've already spoken under public comments. >> caller: my name is francisco decosta and i want to speak on quality of life issues. as you know, in the last two years, because of the pandemic, our city, whether it be the financial district or the neighborhood had been adversely impacted. and we need a needs assessment as to how we are addressing quality of life

issues. to go to the financial district, you see the many restaurants and buildings, skyscrapers and yet we are talking about development and not paying attention to something that is well known. that we have over 40,000 homes [inaudible]. we need a needs assessment. as a planning department, you are supposed to uphold quality of life issues. you can talk about this, that and the other thing, that's fine. and you oppose quality of life issues and while we're at that, we need to address water. we cannot be using water, treated water to flush our toilets. we need to address that issue. my name is francisco decosta, thank you very much.

>> last call for general public comment. again, members calling in remotely need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed. and we can move on to your regular calendar commissioners. for item 8, case number 2022-0549pca for the electric vehicle charging planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, planning commission. aaron starr, with me is sarah ohn from the mayor's office and i'll continue with my presentation. >> i'm here to present an

overview of the mayor's proposed legislation to accelerate permitting of electric vehicle charging. the transportation sector is responsible for majority of san francisco's greenhouse gas emissions which are primarily from private vehicles running on fossil fuels and a key strategy of our klie mat action plan is to switch. from being a car-dependent city to using sustainable modes of transportation. however, to rapidly reduce emissions in those cars that remain on the road, we need to help them transition to being zero remissions and all electric. the conversion from fossil fuel to electric vehicles already happening with nearly all major automobile manufacturers committing to an all-electric line-up by 2030. over the next few years, e.v.s will become more affordable, go further on each charge and become more ubiquitous in both the new and used car markets. for those with convenient access to home and workplace charginging, making the switch to electric is easy.

but 70% of san francisco's residents live in multiunit dwellings and many of them have no access to home or workplace charging and they park their vehicles on the streets. to convert some fossil fuel to electricity, these residents must have access to a convenient, affordable and safe public charging network. thankfully we have a good idea of what that public network should look like. under the best-case scenario, san francisco needs a total of 1400 public level two chargers and 3s 50 d.c. fast chargers by 2030. to date, we have 1016 public chargers of which 104 of them are fast chargers. to meet our public charging demand, we need at least another 488 level two chargers and 246 fast chargers. currently gopers of public charging projects are experiencing delays in san francisco. this is because the san

francisco planning code in its current form does not directly allow for these promises. e.v. charge projects are required to comply with registrations written for gas stations because it does not provide an explicit category for stand-alone e.v. charging locations. therefore they urge developers to work out a permitting pathway on a case-by-case basis. using planning code divisions used for gas stations. mayor breed's legislation is a common sense update of san francisco's planning code to expedite the creation of a more robust e.v. charge network for san francisco's residents, businesses and visitors. the legislation revises land use zoning to move san francisco from a fossil fuel-based transportation to an electric future by creating clear zoning pathways for sites with existing automotive uses. the legislation creates

pathways for public charging locations and fleet charging that are currently not auto use which is aaron starr will get into in more detail. this legislation doesn't change the way e.v. stations are currently allowed to be installed as an accessory use at other locationings such as parking lots and streamlined facilities that exist for such installations. our intents this legislation reduce delays and additional work flow for the planning department. we've heard in the past 24 hours there's been some concerns raised by certain fleet operators about the impact of this legislation on fleet charge. we're happy to talk more about fleet electrification with those operators and they need only reach out to us directly to discuss. e.v. charging and fleet charging is an area where there is a lot of movement and growth and we always have the option to come back at a

future time to make the land use more permissible. but for now this legislation strikes a balance of supporting vehicle electrification while not creating significant high-impact new auto uses in san francisco. in closing we know that e.v. are coming and san francisco needs more stations to drive down emissions. to get ready for 2030's charging demand and the billions of dollars available from both state and federal government, san francisco must update its planning codes to accommodate public e.v. charging. we see this legislation as one piece of the larger puzzle on electric vehicles and it is by no means the last thing that we'll be doing in the space. passage of this legislation is a meaningful step in our efforts to reach our 2040 net zero emissions goals. thank yous for your time. i will be here to answer

questions. >> thank you. the item before you is an ordinance to establish two new uses in the planning code, electric vehicle locations and fleet charging. the intention is to allow the partial or full conversion of an automotive use to e.v. charging locations regardless of the zoninging district. e.v. charging locations not utilizing existing auto infrastructure would then be regulated as follows. they would not be permitted in our residential districts, china town districts, residential eastern neighborhood districts or residential districts. they require conditional use in our r.n. enabilitied commercial districts and would be principally permitted in our c2 downtown p.d.r. and other eastern neighborhood districts. fleet charging is a more intensive use especially when autonomous vehicles are deployed and we don't know what the future holds for fleet charge. therefore, those controls are stricker. fleet charging would not be

principally permitted if commiting [inaudible] regardless of the zoning district. fleet charging would not be permited in residential districts in china town and also not permited in our neighborhood commercial districts. fleet charge would require conditional use downtown and our industrial buffer districts and principally permitted in the other p.d.r. districts are. however, fleet charge would be allowed as an accessory use and all e.v. charging locations. meaning that up to one-third of the charging stations could be dedicated solely to fleet charging. of course, fleet vehicles could access any e.v. charging location like any other electric vehicle. the intention behind this ordinance is to make it easier to establish e.v. charging locations and to help us convert from a carbon fuel-based nofk electric-based infrastructure. it has been set up in a way to encourage the use of existing auto structure over the use of new locations in

san francisco and is more permitted when it comes to fleet charging. two of the modifications are in your case packet and the first is to require c.u. in all outof our c3 districts for all of our e.v. charge locations . they are intended to encourage the conversion of existing auto structure like parking lots and garages over the establishment of new locations. we're also seeking to rationalize our gas station controls in the downtown with this change. the second modification is to except the conversion of existing automotive use of e.v. charging from the planning code's screening requirements for auto uses. planning staff have found it is difficult for existing auto uses to meet these requirements so this is in line with making it easier to convert existing auto uses to e.v. charging and we have two recommendations that came out

after the case packet was printed. the first is amend the ordinance so it is prevented in our sea districts and it was not our intention to allow fleet charging in our c-zone neighborhoods including the tenderloin and van ness corridor. they are made for supporting commercial uses and staff doesn't believe that fleet charging fits that charging but e.v. would be a benefit to nearby neighbors if they have an e.v. that needs to be charged. the second amendment is to add a new section to the code that specifically allows the conversion of existing auto uses to fleet charging. this was always our sbhention in crafting this ordinance. however, it does not explicitly state this in the ordinance so we're proposing the following language to be added. i'll read that.

it would be section 202.13 conversion of automotive uses to e.v. charging locations. not with standing any provisions of this code, a change of use from an automotive use in defined to section 102 should be principally permitted regardless of the underlying zoning district. further, such a change in use will not be subject to notification requirements outlined in section 11. this is always our intention that based on feedback we received after the case report was published we felt it necessary to add the language. age finally this ordinance was unanimously supported by the commission of the environment this week and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. starr. at this time we should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. for those in the room, please line up on the screen side of the room. for those members following remotely, you need to press

star 3 to be added to the queue. you'll each have two minutes and when you hear that your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> i'm hoping to take any public commenters in person first. so if you want to comment on this item and in the chamber please come now and go to those who are calling in. >> thank you, commission president. >> you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is judy lee and i'm a member of the government affair team. i'm here to respectfully ask for a continuance on this item and ensure that, one, this commission send forward a policy that doesn't have unintended consequences. two, doesn't deter from meeting our city's stated climate action and electric vehicle expansion goals and, three, doesn't jeopardize new, green jobs for organized labor and community members across san francisco.

crews of san francisco founded and based zero emission self-driving vehicle xaefnlt as you all know, transportation is one of the biggest contributors to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and if we're to meet the city and state's environmental goals, we needed to carbonize transportation and pursue widespread he can trification. but given the steps proposed amendments to prohibit fleet charging in r.c. districts will have some well-intended consequences that could unmine the city's progress on green jobs and clean transportation. as written, the policy could unfortunately codify geographical inequities that would lead to fleet charging stations being concentrated in only select few neighborhoods. the proposed policy severely limits fleet charging mostly to the southeast portion of the city. at best, this means that clean, zero emission fleets will have to travel extra distance through the city to provide their services. at worst, the nicer row zoning could delay or

hinteder the adoption of e.v.s for the city's fleet leading to greater air pollution and already overburdened communities. the policy as written could undermine a geographic equity and be a barrier to creating new, green jobs for organized labor and all san franciscans. our proposed fleet charging and r&d center in district 10 is formally endorsed by the building trades and construction council because we have committed to 100% labor and that is just -- >> thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> thank you so much. i appreciate your time. >> any other member of the public in the chamber that wishess to speak to this matter? you need to line up on the screen side of the room. okay. seeing no members of the public in the room wishing to speak, we'll go to remote callers. remote callers when you hear that your line has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking.

>> caller: good afternoon. zack wisenberger with young community developers. we're in agreement with the overall environmental goals and the need to expand city-wide access to e.v. charging stations but this legislation falls short as it does nothing to ensure equitable distribution of e.v. stations across the city. for allowing something to code will not result in an equitable distribution of these charging stations. and it puts working-class jobs at risk. we encourage you to keep a conditional use for all sites with blue collar workers and jobs. we can't put jobs directly at risk. this will have an impact specifically on districts 9 and 10 where our city's p.d.r. space is located. fleet charge stations will be concentrated in these districts as a result of this legislation. this legislation limits where fleet charging stations would be allowed but permits in p.r. zone where they would be

directly replacing blue collar jobs. why not put them in existing parking garages across the city in they're essentially jobless and dedicating existing p.d.r. spaces to >> a direct attack on our working class bipoch communities. the city needs to consider the potential jobs that will be lost and the populations of those who hold these jobs. i urge the city to reevaluate the proposal and take more time to assess the negative impact this legislation would haves on our working class communities of color. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. this is alex lanceberg with the san francisco electrical construction industry. calling in to broadly support seeing this legislation heard. i think it is really important. to provide, to be able to enable the electrical

infrastructure, the e.v. infrastructure that we need to electrify our transportation system. that being said, i don't think this legislation is ready for primetime and i want to echo many of the concerns relayed by ms. lee over at crews. taking a slightly different tack, i think it is really important to recognize that swapping out existing parking spaces for e.v. charging is -- provides no additional impact on neighboring communities. it's a one for one replacement. we're talking about an existing parking use and now it is just going to be for charging. even when you take a look at fleet uses, focusing on existing parking lots and places where we already have vehicular traffic seems like smart policy rather than a

what is being proposed by planninging staff which, as has been noted, is actually going to concentrate the impact of cars and all these activitis in just a few. we shouldn't just expect one neighborhood to carry what is really a low-impact use when it's dispersed. we are also speaking with members of the board of supervisors about a couple of additional amendment -- [bell ringing] >> thank you, sir. that is your time. >> caller: ok. thank you.

>> caller: good afternoon, president and commissioners. i want to start by saying we strongly agree with the goals of this proposal, making substantive environmental steps is critical at this time and we're pleased to see that the city is looking at ways to speed up our move away from fossil fuel through mechanisms like incentivizing electric vehicle charging stations and fleet charging stations. we want to make sure we're doing this with an equity-first approach and make sure these charges aren't inadvertently placing a burden on communities of color. to that end, we have discussions that we wanted to make. we are concerned that incentivizinging automotive service stations without a c.u. or means for appeal would be putting at risk blue collar jobs, such as technicians that [inaudible] and have been historically important in our bipoch communities and it has been a source of better-paying jobs without a diploma for our immigrant families.

and disincentivizing them in other areas of the city doesn't allow for geographic equity that i think we want both for environmental justice reasons and for our overall total of making san francisco's number one greenest economy in the country. i want to get to a few suggestions, which is we'd like to see c.u.s retain for spaces that have had blue collar jobs in the last five years. we'd also like to see that c.u. in place in p.e.r. spaces for a fleet charging station. it's opened up to other areas of the city and finally we'd like the see the yearly report implement -- >> thank you. that is your time.

>> caller: hi, there. it shows that our city is looking wholistically at our broader goals and addressing barriers to them. i'm grateful that community advocates were part of this conversation from the

beginning and look forward to this respected commission, arresting this so that san francisco continue to address our urgent, our urgent climate and electrification goals. we don't have time to lose. this is urgent. and i want to thank the mayor again and the commission and the rest of the environmental and community stakeholders that have been a part of these efforts. thank you. >> caller: greetings, commissioners. we need more electric vehicles in the city and the item before you today is an important first step in that regard. in fact, nothing i've heard so far about unintended consequences precludes future actions to address what the others speakers have talked about. and two days ago on tuesday, the commission on the environment heard a presentation on this proposed legislation and voted unanimously to pass a resolution urging the board of supervisors to adopt this ordinance and our policy committee has heard that it's in detail as well. we need to aggressively electrify our scepter from public transit to private electric vehicles. we need to change that dynamic. these issues were not -- the separate issues that have been brought up by other speakers have not been brought up on the commission and the environment and i'm hearing about them today.

but to be clear, we are deeply supportive of environmental justice, geographic equity and good paying jobs. these are bodies for the department. and as with any legislative process, there may be future language to work out. but a continuance is a step too far. you know, having consideration of this ordinance is important today and passing sit a logical, appropriate and needed next step in this planning commissioner. so i hope you'll join me and the commission on the environment with your approval today. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. daniel hertson here with the san francisco chamber of commerce. i do want to start by thanking the mayor's office and planning department. the goals of this legislation are really great and we obviously need more e.v. charging opportunities. i do want to say that i think in order for the proposed legislation to have the greatest impact possible on the teenaged equity and

inclusive growth, we need to create opportunity, not barriers for electrickfication and i hope we continue to have conversations with our e.v. providers and make sure that the regulations that we're setting are suitable to [inaudible] thank you. >> those calling in remotely need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> caller: hi, i'm in favor of this but i must correct one person who spoke in front of me. there are some neighborhood areas, like ours, where the

sfmpa is taking out over 200 parking places and we can't afford to lose one more parking place for these facilities. we do have public garages that are available for them. but i want you to consider each neighborhood that fits your current situations before you blankley make a rule for any neighborhood. thank you. >> hello. any name is sarah greenwald. i live in district two. this measure seems very sensible. and it can be tweaked and amended, if needed. so i urge you to pass it. thank you.

>> ok. sounds like we lost that call kerr. any other member of the public wish to speak again? last call for public comment. need to press star 3. seeing nothing additional request to speak, i take that back, commissioners. sorry. go ahead. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is oscar. i live in san francisco. the last 20 years, went to s.f. state and finished up and now i'm a father of two kids. traffic and parking has made it difficult for families to get around and i think we need more housing with parking spots and iensed a lot of families and friends and other families that have less and headed out to the

east and [inaudible] the opportunity [inaudible]. really appreciate it. thank you. >> with that, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i'll open the dialogue for commissioners if there is comments or questions you want to ask. commissioner koppel? >> yeah. a question ors two for mr. starr. glad to see this in front of us. i'm thoroughly excited that we're the city accelerating industries like this to address greenhouse gases and transportation issues. seems like we're accelerating a lot of these items but also being very restrictive on them at the same time. could you maybe go down a quick list of all the areas that this is going to be, that the fleets will be prohibited in? >> you want specifically fleet charging you are talking about? >> caller: yeah. >> so, it is not going to be

permitted in our r.h. districts, r.m. or c districts, at least that is the recommendation we have in the ordinance. also our r.t.o. districts. those are all our residential districts. it will not be permitted in our neighborhood commercial districts. there is a high pedestrian count in those. also china town and our downtown residential and eastern residential commercial districts. it is permited with conditional use in our c-2 and downtown districts, in our pdr1-b district, which is the buffer. so some comments are talk about how it will impact people on the southeastern part of the city. we develop the pdr-1b as a buffer around single-family neighborhoods so it requires a conditional use there because it is an industrial use but it is a more sensitive area so we wanted to have a conditional use with that. also our mixed use

residential neighborhood and the eastern neighborhoods and then all other nonresidential eastern neighborhood districts. so a big swath of that part of the city. and then it will be principally permitted in the other p.d.r. districts, pdr1d, pdr1g and pdr2. >> thank you. again, it seems like we're being a little restrictive on this, seeing as though it is something that we're trying to promote so much. i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners are thinking. >> if you don't mind me responding, we're trying to encourage e.v., electric vehicles. electric vehicle charging. fleet charginging is different. it's going to be autonomous vehicles and there is a lot of unknowns with that right now. it is known to be an intensive use so we're proceeding with caution with that. in the future, we can loosen controls but it is much

harder to tighten them once the cat is out of the bag as you say. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner? >> i do have questions to mr. starr. for overall this legislation, i do like the objective of this legislation in terms of moving to energy efficient. however, my main thing here is that especially looking into the racial social equity analysis that has been given to us, i felt like there was a lack of efficient study in terms of the -- who's going to be impacted. also analysis on the [inaudible] of where it will be. i think for me i would like to have a further finding in terms of what are the impact of it in terms of child loss. and then another thing, too,

is like where will be the anticipating areas where it might happen. one of the public comments said it might impact d9 and d10 heavily. so, that is something that, ghen, this legislation needs a lot more analysis on how it will be impacted. one thing, too, is that in terms of the fleet charging, again, the p.d.r. that looks like it is going to be principally permitted on the p.d.r. areas, that's my understanding -- that's correct, right? >> yeah. >> and it felt like there needs to be analysis on that as to what are the areas that are going to be impacted on this. so, in terms like i do feel like this needs more analysis and i would actually support for a continuance. but with the social and equitable lens analysis on it. i would be happy to hear what other commissioners have say. but those are my comments

from now. >> do you want mr. starr to address any of your comments? >> yeah. >> sure. i mean, the p.d.r. districts are industrial districts. this is a highly intensive use. you feel they are in part of the city where a lot of our disadvantaged communities live but we did go through a huge p.d.r. zoning effort, i don't know, 15 years ago. to establish those distributions. that is why we came up with pdr1b and the goals we have there and protections we have for industrial uses. the more intensive industrial uses, we tend the allow as of right in our industrial districts. that is why they're there. i think the e.v. charging locations, are going to be fairly evenly districted throughout the city. there are automotive uses throughout san francisco. so it will go where the needs of -- those needs are.

not every ordinance is -- can be weighed in that. but i appreciate your comments on that. i am certainly learning on how to do that analysis better. and so i will take that into consideration. thanks. >> thank you. >> i'm going to call on commissioner moore and so on video. >> i would like to hear a little bit more of what fee charging means. i always understood fee charging to be in groups of vehicles owned by a hospital taking staff from one hospital to another, schools, kindergartenen, self-help for the elderly where one organization has vehicles from the proof of [inaudible] different locations.

i'd like you to repeat what you -- how do you define fleet charging? >> hard to know where to look. so fleet charging could be that and could be for hospital or school or even muni has a fleet of buses. but what we anticipate this use coming to are autonomous vehicle fleets. so automobiles that roam around the city, electric powered and don't have a driver in them but act as an automatic uber or lyft to take people around the city, that is the fleet charging that we see coming in the next few years. >> reporter: but that is the only definition for fee charging. it is not hospitals having their own car which is need to be [inaudible] somewhere. obviously sfmta has their own vehicles and how they fuel

the vehicles is up to them. however, this is for independent electrical cars. >> yes, it could be for any fleet. but it's -- but the future looks as if it is going to be autonomous vehicles doing that. >> ok. i just want to make sure that we're not removing where the fleet is from the place of [inaudible] where it's being used. and gets to the point of racial and social equity and analysis that [inaudible] examine where at this moment the primary owners of electric vehicles. electrical vehicles are still quite expensive. base price over $40,000 if i understand that correctly. the second point in that has stopped something that you are aware of but shouldn't take into consideration is

are we looking at electrical vehicles as beinging the answer to climate problems particularly when we have to look at vehicles being charged, either being charged with electricity generated by coal. which is still the majority of places in the u.s. as well. we are not really using fully green energy to charge our electrical vehicles and if that is the case, you'd have to drive 78,000-plus miles to reach parity with a corolla that has like a fuel efficiency of 33 miles per gallon. that is not the case, not distributing electrical charging stations and looking where the owners. -- owners of the stations are is not creating the environmental benefits that we're looking for. and it is a question because

i would like to see where the concentration of electrical owners are and what type of electricity we are using or requesting to be used in these electrical charges. >> thank you for the question. i understand that 60% of california's electricity comes from renewable sources and we don't haves coal fire burning plants. so as for the cost of e.v.s, yes, they are expensive. but the cost is coming down. the anticipation is that as time goes on, more people will be able to afford them. the distribution and the need for the location of these, we hope -- we think should be widely dispersed. particularly with people who live in multiunit buildings who don't have their own private garage, to have their own plug in for it. but where they are located and where they're needed, we

anticipate the industry to figure out and put them where they're appropriate. >> ok. thank you. >> mr. starr, i realize it is a little bit odd in these hybrid hearings, but she can't see you. >> do you wants me to look at you. [laughter] >> if you face forward, you are speaking to her remotely. yes. [laughter] >> commissioner fung? >> i have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. if we do this with

anticipation and allow enough flexibility for adaptation in the future, then i would raise the following question. the fleet operations are electricity-intensive in use. there is nothing in the ordinance here that talks about their use of renewable energy. is that going to come from one of the other agencies? >> thank you for the question. this legislation doesn't lay out a specific requirement for the use of renewable electricity. however, in san francisco,

our clean power s.f. is on track to get to 100% renewable electricity by 2025 and the state also has renewable electricity goals that align with that transition to electric vehicles so certainly statewide and in san francisco, the vision and the goal is that, as we transition to electric vehicles, that goes hand in hand with the transition to renewable energy because definitely we're mindful that the benefits of using electric vehicles are only in as much as running on a fossil fuel-free system of electricity. >> the question is then there will not be any type of specific requirements for that particular use. >> that is correct.

>> you know, if you look at what the commissioner said, it's true. although we heard it perhaps a little different percentage, i've heard it from anywhere from 30 to 40% of the electricity generated in california to still come from gas-powered turbines. so it is going to be a while before energy is totally renewable and green. if that was the case, i would hazard a guess that automobiles are not just owned by homeowners. homeowners can put in the superchargers to be able to power up and run the appropriate electrical lines as needed.

it was referenced earlier about the e.s v. makers and what they plan to do. well, we have an overall goal, but don't have the specifics in terms of where they're going to be putting it in and the fact that then those who are tenants, where do they then charge if there is nothing in their building? and if [inaudible] specifically near their place of residence, if i was to look forward, i would think that these fleet operations, at least to some extent, especially those that may be in a mixed neighborhood such as the one that is were mentioned, could be a potential source.

of renewable charging or for tenants because the tenants are in those areas. it is not in the p.d.r. districts. the last thing i would bring forth is that every time we bring a zoning change forward, at least in recent times, this commission has looked for ways to be able to transition into it.

which means some level of grandfathering and i would be supportive of that. >> thank you. commissioner diamond? >> this is a critically important ordinance but i view it as a first step in a much broader program. we want to do everything, i believe, to encourage people who are currently driving cars that run on gas to switch to electric vehicles. in having e.v. chargers and stations that are easily acceptable in all of our neighbors and i think we should be removing the obstacles that stem in the place of that. the question about -- i would also say that i strongly agree, commissioner fung, private residences can put in their own fast chargers. it is the apartment buildings and the multiuse occupancy buildings that really need these path chargers in the building which is something else that we should be considering as a minimum requirement.

that is a separate issue. but these are critically important and we need to do it sooner rather than later. the questions that were raised about the appropriate locations for fleets strikes me as an important area that would benefit from further study but shouldn't stand in the way of us moving forward this ordinance as-is for now. i, too, would be open to grandfathering if staff wants to offer any thoughts about that. >> thank you. do you want to respond to the grandfathering proposal? >> i could be wrong and perhaps corey can chime in. we don't need to grandfather anything. there is no application that is going to be squashed by this ordinance. >> are you able to verify that? is there anything to be challenged by this legislation?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. to my knowledge, we have one application that is moving forward for the retail e.v. charging and the e.v. version of a gas station if it were to move forward and we have one project that has received permits as a utility installation, which is what we landed on for a fleet charging facility. the key distinction there are those being not public, not open to the public. these are for private organizations or groups to have for their fleet to charge and to both of those are ongoing and would not really be affected by this and without this legislation we would continue to move forward considering fleet chargeinging permitted across

the city and for the retail locations for the e.v. charging locations proposed here. those would ao*et better a gas station under the current code or auto service station if they provide enough actual services on top of the fueling as well and those would continue to move forward and be permitted as are used currently in the code. >> i'll make a few comments unless you had a follow-up question. >> no. i'm prepared to support the legislation as proposed with, you know, clear caveat that there is a significant amount of additional work that needs to be done expeditiously to address the fleet question separately. >> certainly i would support that as well. i do have a few questions that i want to clarify and make sure that we're all in the same page, especially since there was some amendments created. so, i'm not sure who will be the best to respond. but i want to make sure that

-- and i think some of commissioner moore's questions got this question as well. for existing automotive uses, there is a gas station and parking lot and those will, as you clarify with the proposed amendment, be able to convert to e.v. charging, which up to 30% of those spaces that are converted could be used for vehicle fleet, is that correct? >> yes. that's correct. >> and so if an organization has a fleet today, which i think the commissioner's question is a good one. if they have a fleet of vehicles and they say you want to turn this over to an e.v. fleet, wherever they're currently parking that fleet, could they make that their e.v. fleet charging or would that be prohibited depending on the location of it. if it is currently where they're parking if that is where the fleet is going sleep at night. could that become electrified and charge their vehicles? >> state law doesn't allow us to prevent someone from

putting an e.v. charger in any parking space. i think the distinction would probably be that if it's on the facility of like a university and the cars there and the electrifying, then we consider that an accessory use to the university. but if it is just a stand-alone facility, that's only for fleets, then it would probably fall into the e.v. charging -- e.v. fleet charging. >> at least that is an area to inquire more alberta and it is important to hear that part about state law, which is like if somebody has a parking space today and want to put an e.v. charger there, then we're already not in the way of that type of activity. correct? >> correct. in fact, they can do it right now. and corey, the difference between fleets and e.v. charginging location is really the private versus the public. is it open to the public or is it not? >> so, even the places where, for example, the 30%, it's like anybody could drive it and park their vehicle.

i'm assuming they'd pay for their parking space, but it is generally open and maybe 30% could be reserved for that private fleet to park there as well and charge their vehicles. >> cex. -- correct. >> and i want to understand. i think my overall comments align pretty close with commissioner diamond. but i also want to address some of the comments that you made around the and yule reporting and the question about jobs and being the case of who uses this legislation and where are there are gaps and any impacts to the workforce because of it. but i wonder what you think about adding something like to the annual reporting. >> about job loss or gain from each? >> and maybe just job loss and gain and what types of sites are turning over.

whether they substantially changed or just in addition. >> i think tracking what was there before and what is going to be there is probably fairly easy to do. we do that all the time, presumably. the job loss might be a little more difficult because it is not information that we can really get from people and if that building has already been sold and jobs are already gone, we may not be able to find out what was there. >> ok. what do you think? >> i'll have commissioner koppel speak first because i also put my name in there. >> let me go to -- all right. we still have three queues and i'm still going myself. it's like a little circus here and i'm the ringleader i suppose. all right. and so anything else is -- ok. thank you, mr. starr for answering the question. i think that the time is really of the essence when it comes to the greening and i think the legislation is

really trying to, in a wide range of areas, we received a map of different automotive uses across the city. for the e.v. charging in particular, there is a wide range of locations that can become e.v. charging. i think the fleet charging is a question. i am concerned about the concentration. if this does go to the board, we need to be adding some recommendations around for their research into that distribution. some more specific mapping around the p.d.r. uses but in terms of displaced jobs, i wouldn't want a building to become a parking lot and just charge fleet vehicles. that is not anyone's desire or ability to have this. it's certainly anticipating autonomous vehicles a good thing to anticipate. we do have existing fleets, though, that are also being electrified and they should have an opportunity to have a place, to be served and so i think we're taking an incremental approach and we want to move quickly and understand that. as far as the amendments that

have been proposed, i'm supportive of those amendments and would be supportive of adding reporting around trying to get at the job loss or gains and whether it's through the actual construction and maybe it's an estimate that we can use based on use types, it may not be exact. that would be something that i'd like to see in the reporting. and though grandfathering may not be needed i'm always concerned about folks that get caught in the middle of legislation where they're thinking of doing something and apply and suddenly something goes into effect and we don't know when the board will hear this and when it will be aproved. i think some grandfathering could be important because i don't think it should be anyone's fault that they got caught in between the change. so, those are my comments. commissioner moore? >> do you have anything in response to what the commission is saying?

>> thank you very much, commissioner moore. i actually did. i just want to make the distinction because it is nuanced and relative to some of those comments that were just made that the fleet charging uses and the e.v. charging uses really are for uses where the primary purpose is for someone to, you know, come to the facility to charge and leave. if it's -- if the primary purpose of the facility is to park and that parking facility also has e.v. chargers in their spaces so you can charge while you're parking, then that is a parking use. and not an e.v. charge use. so, for example, if you have a company now that has a fleet of vehicles and they charge that somewhere, i'm sorry they park those somewhere in a private parking lot and wanted to electrify that and add in

e.v. charging stations, that would still be a private parking lot. it would not become an e.v. fleet charging location, because the principle purpose would still be to park. it's just the e.v. charging is kind of accessory to that. what we're really talk about and seeing this being proposed is facilities that are purely intended to fuel the vehicles and then for them to leave and not to be used as a parking use. i wanted to make that distinction because it is a bit of a nuance. but it is relative to kind of which land use kalt gory it would fall under. -- category it would fall under. >> thank you so much for that distinction. >> that answers my question. i wish to ask a technical question. lithium batteris are not fully exployered particularly how to dispose of them and there is an issue of fire safety. have you consulted with the fire department in the discussion about large-scale

electrical charging stations in one room that requires specific attention to fire safety, materials in garage, etc., etc.. is there any technical discussion that's being had? there is definitely writing on the paper where complete houses have burned down because certain batteries charging electric vehicles did not properly work and the house was gone the next day. is that a discussion you've had with anybody? >> that is not a discussion we have had at the planning department. but any e.v. charging location is going to have to abide by current building department rules that regulate life and safety issues in san francisco. and also point out that cars are filled with highly combustible fuel right now. so, the -- i'm not sure the fire danger is any different with electric as opposed to gas-powered cars. >> and it's a little different. but i think something that

you need to keep in the back of your mind. the second question is the security over large theft of catalytic converters with electric cars parking on streets, particularly when the [inaudible] in one open lot where you have the larger numbers of vehicles charging. we should be aware of site security, not that we have already the measures. just want to throw that out as a consideration. >> thank you. i think ms. owens has a response or something to add. >> yeah. i just wanted to address the fire safety. we have shared this legislation with the fire department and as aaron starr mentioned, everything that would be installed would be in compliance with all electrical codes and safety requirements. thank you. >> thank you for answering that question. >> thank you.

commissioner koppel? >> i think i would support and all commissioners seem to be turning towards. thank you. >> thank you. mr. koppel? >> thank you for letting me steer the wheel with the labor issues. i think it is unrated as far as how many jobs it will be adding to our pipeline. not just the temporary install of it initially but the maintenance of these potentially dangerous high d.c. voltage producing apparatuses that i think are just going to become more and more a part of our city. so it's temporary. you know, jobs created can on the install and then permanent jobs created with maintenance and just hygiene to make sure all the equipment is clean to prevent accidents. and also i had a couple of more comments. i wanted to commend our city and what we've been doing

over the past couple of decades or so to discourage car ownership and to -- whether it is gettinging rid of gas stations or getting rid of parking garages, normally in hopes of housing going there. but also the creating of a.d.u.s is going to dramatically, over time, i think decrease the actual number of cars that people do own and i'm almost seeing this sharp decrease in, you know, car ownership but not seeing the same, like, increase in what could be the solution which is the fleet services that we're doing so much of the city to decrease carbon emissions and literally replace parking spaces, whether it is a structured garage parking or just, you know, a singular garage at the same time. but it is just a little disconcerning that we're so

prohibitive in enabling the solution to what is this is kind of like issue we're actually creating. so i'm not necessarily going to, you know, try and hold this up and i know it's got to go further than here. it is going to some subcommittees and the full board. but still, you know, it will be open to a conditional use here or there or just some type of relief that doesn't seem so restrictive because i do see this becoming more and more of a demand over time. >> question? >> thank you, commissioner koppel, and your comments and also other commissioners. in terms of the -- i think that is also my -- i share your in some aspect of regarding to the job laws and that is why i feel like in every kinds of legislation that comes here, i feel like we need to have a really good vetted process. and analysis of what will be

unintended consequences and will it be impacted. my only frustration with this legislation is that it didn't have that in front of us. and it will be -- and i will be happening after the fact. and it will be discussed in the board of supervisors so that is my only thing. i feel like we need to have that kind of analysis first and i do, overall, admire this kind of legislation. because in other countries, these are happening already in japan. really the government is pursuing in terms of the electrical vehicles and the kind of fleet charging. however, we also need to convinces the people that think there is already a lot of mistrust in if this body and the lack of analysis and lack of outreach to other communities as well as especially in the areas of p.d.r.s, i think creates

anxiety. and for me i will still be in terms of -- i mean, if the other commissioners voted to say -- to take it as it is, i would actually more in terms of leaning toward continuance because part of the planning commission here is that we reach out to the public. and that is the kind of, you know, -- this is place where they can come in here. so that is where i'm coming from. but i do admire this legislation. in terms of the unintended consequences, in terms of e.v., specifically where it is going to principally permited in other neighborhood district areas that could probably be d-9010, those are the things that we don't have analysis yet. that is where i'm coming from. i will be more leaning to

continuance. >> thank you. i'm going to go over a few comments that i heard. i'm hearing just generally broad support for the cities and i want to commend mayor breed for bringing this legislation forward and the urgency. as we know, every year the wildfires are getting worse and worse so climate change is here and we're trying to see if we can move that clock backwards and the temperature down here. i think there is definitely interest in understanding how we can create jobs lost, created, gained, sustained from the construction of these sites and that would certainly be really interesting to see and very hopeful also. some general support for grandfathering, i would suggest tend of the this year, not knowing when the legislation would go into effect and hopefully that gives the board enough time to discuss and get to the mayor's desk. some support from some members for possibly continuing in -- i think

commissioner koppel, you mentioned c.u. to have more zoning districts where it could be considered with a conditional use which does give us control that comes through the discretionary process so we can evaluate some of the concerns at that time as it's coming forward. so, other commissioners may apply and if they agree with having a c.u. for some more districts and i'll call on commissioner fung. >> yeah. i would respond to two of the comments by my fellow commissioners with respect to commissioner koppel. i would support add ago conditional use process for r.c. district with respect to commissioner [inaudible]. an equity analysis was very limited. and put in all of these uses, especially the fleet uses, over in the p.d.r., i think,

is something that requires more extensive analysis with respect to the equity issue. i would support, if you make a motion to continue, i do support that. >> i see commissioner moore and you can let us know about the r.c. -- or mr. starr if, there is any concerns that you have about adding the c.u. for the r.c. areas. >> i would like actually to use the opportunity to make a motion for continuance. while i am very supportive of many aspects of what we discussed, i was really good discussion, i do believe that we owe it to ourselves to take those aspects which we all acknowledge have been treated a little bit too lightly to give it another week or two to bring them

forward so that we fully and whole heartedly can support what's in front of us. i think there are lots of forward leaning comments. there is support, yet this one thing we committed ourselves to is missing and this is the reason why i make this motion. >> thank you. >> and was seconded already by commissioner fung. >> do you want to second that motion, mr. fung? make sure we have it on the record? >> i would second it, if it's a two-week period. >> yeah. >> mr. starr, do you want to -- while we have you as an r.c. district and continuance to have more time to think about it? >> i'm just looking at where it is not permitted in -- i mean, you -- >> commissioner starr, it's -- >> yeah, the ordinance already allows fleet charging with the c.u., that was an oversight on our part. so, if you just left it as it was, it would still be there. r.c. is the tenderloin, it's also the van ness corridor so

if you are thinking about equity issues -- >> yeah. and this is fleet charging, right? >> yes. charging facilities are already a c.u. for r.c. but the only place that's fleet charging would be allowed outside of p.d.r. is in the r.c. district which was an oversight. we didn't intend for it to be allowed in the tenderloin and on van ness. >> i think -- oh, i hope perhaps commissioner fung and also -- but the fleet charging that is principally permitted in p.d.r.s and what is being asked is to have a study on the principle permitted on the p.d.r. and perhaps to put it as a c.u. on a p.d.r. for fleet charging. >> again, if i can, p.d.r. is our only industrial district in san francisco and if it is going to be principally permitted anywhere, that would be where it is. >> we view it as akin to

u.p.s.'s maintenance facility of their fleet, which is currently permitted in p.d.r. without conditional use. we think that is the place it should go. if you want us to look, and i think this comment came up, in other districts throughout the city where fleet charging may be appropriate, maybe on a smaller scale, i think we can do that. i don't think we'd propose r.c. as that droikt do it in. we'd want to take a more comprehensive look around the city and what zoning districts may be appropriate in. currently obviously in the legislation, we're leaning toward not appropriate anywhere else. it's happening in p.d.r., but we can do that if you like and take -- look at that more equitably. like where would that put -- and we think it's appropriate in a p.d.r. district, given what we're allowing currently in the p.d.r. district. the question is, are there other places it should go? sure. we can look at that. and especially as time goes on.

i wouldn't necessarily argue for the r.c. district. i think that was clearly an oversight. >> yeah. i don't think i'm arguing for an r.c. district and i'm all for the r.c. district would also, for the e.v. charging will be also part of the conditional use already -- >> it is a c.u. >> correct. and that also will be in the areas of other neighborhood -- eastern neighborhood district. because in the legislation itself, it's principally permited in other areas of the district. >> e.v. charging is presently permitted. >> sorry. i'm fleeting from fleet charging to e.v. and i'm sorry about that. [laughter] but in terms of the e.v., it is a conditional use and r.c. but what is also principally permitted apart from c3s are other areas of eastern

neighborhood district. and i also need, i feel like there is also needed analysis on other eastern neighborhood districts that looks like may not be covered on the r.c. district. >> i think what might be helpful if this is continued is some of the mapping around the different areas where things are principally permitted and not and that might help clear up some of the concerns i'm hearing from the commissioners. in addition to the beautiful bubble map you have for all the automotive uses. thank you for that. that might help to clear up the questions that you have. and it's like the fleet charging versus the e.v. charges, distinction between the two uses. >> i think for practical purposes, what we think will happen is, you know, the most logical place for the e.v. charging stations to go will be where currently there is an automotive use in converting that from an automotive use to an e.v.

charging facility is the easiest path and one that we're encouraging. so i think that gets lost sometimes in where it's principally permitted and where it is a c.u. because that is in every district, right ? if you are currently automotive use, you can shift to an e.v. charging use and that was intentional. we think that is the easiest and most appropriate path to do this. >> you can also shift to a hybrid e.v. charging and automotive use combined, correct? >> yes. >> thank you. i'm not going to be supporting the continuance today. time is of the essence. i'm glad that if it is continued it will get clear direction. if commissioners have not given any direction to staff about what they do not have that they did not have today, i advise you to provide that now. otherwise, we're ready for a vote. >> commissioners if i may also, if i heard correctly, the proposed continuance was

for two weeks and that puts us on april 7 where the housing element is expected to come before you and i would expect that to be a very long hearing as it is. just with that one item. and there are other items on that hearing date. so i would suggest continuing either one week or three weeks. >> three weeks is fine. >> very good. shall i call that question? >>ee, please. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter for three weeks to april 14. on that motion -- [roll call] >> move, commissioners. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners diamond and tanner voting against.

commissioners, that places us on item 9 for 2022- 000546pckamap for the elimination zone s.u.d. and this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, chisingers. jeremy shaw, planning department staff. we have a presentation here before you. the item here today is an ordinance proposing a planninging code and zoning map amendment to eliminate the industrial protection zone special use district and

conditionally allow social services and philanthropic facility uses greater than 5,000 gross square feet in pdr2 zoning districts. starting in 1995, the bayview hunters point area plan has helped establish a long legacy of policies and zoning that support p.d.r. jobs and businesses, including policies targeting local and african american firms. for decades, much of the eastern neighborhoods were classified as m1 or m2 industrial zoning. m1 and m2 are historically the most permissive zoning districts. by the 1990s, office and residential uses were encroaching in the industrial areas, raising land values and displacing p.d.r. businesses and jobs. to better protect p.d.r. in 2002, the city established the special use district or

the i.p.z. that prohibits office and residential uses and refers to m1 and m2 zoning to regulate all other uses. the i.p.z. was meant to be an interim measure during the eastern neighborhoods and bayview planning processes. so this -- excuse me. the i.p.z. should have been eliminated in 2008 when those plans in pdr zoning were adopted. the p.d.r. zoning protects p.d.r. and light industry better than the i.p.z. and better than the m zoning to which it refers. in 2020, the city reclassified the few remaining m parcels that were overlooked during that previous p.d.r. rezoning. so the ordinance today proposes two measures. eliminating the i.p.z. sud which would mean the underlying p.d.r. zoning would prevail.

the second piece would conditionally permit philanthropic uses above 5,000 square feet. social service applications submitted by december 31, 2021 would be grandfathered. staff are recommending approval of the proposed ordinance with modifications, by eliminating the i.p.z., the ordinance would be consistent with p.d.r. zoning and also better support large social service uses that rely on p.d.r. activities. in july of last year, when the commission reviewed the elimination of the life science and medical s.u.d. shown here in red on the upper right, the commission recommended also eliminating the i.p.z. with limited grandfathering. to be consistent with that recommendation and this ordinance's grandfathering date of december 31, staff recommended limited grandfathering for self-storage projects if the

applications were either submitted by december 31, 2021 or submitted this year before the ordinance is effective and in the case that the application contains p.d.r. uses on at least 50% of the ground floor. this would impact two potential projects on existing private parking lots in the bay shore area and would enable the creation of 15,000 gross square feet of net new p.d.r. space on one of those sites. staph would like to clarify that retail self-storage is gendsly not consistent with p.d.r. zoning or policy but given the challenge of developing new p.d.r. space, new viable p.d.r. space in san francisco, the commission could consider the opportunity of increation p.d.r. by cross subsidizing wit other uses. they can take this today in the context of this latter grandfathering provision or evaluate the concept in our

ongoing p.d.r. work. applying ago racial and social equity lens to the recommendation and modification would have three consequences. it would support economic diversity in san francisco and ensuring better p.d.r. space and reduce the risk of displacement which impacts smaller and less capitalized businesses and support larger social service organizations which help reduce inequities in san francisco and provide diverse jobs. that the concludes the presentation. and staff are available for any questions. >> thank you for that. that concludes your presentation, we should take public comment. please line up on the screen side of the room to submit your testimony. you can go ahead, sir.

you will have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is matt stern and my firms the sponsor of two self-storage projects impacted by today's legislation. we appreciate your consideration here today. the last time the deletion of the i.p.z. came before you in july 2021, we were thankful that your commission endorsed the grandfathering of one of these two projects. that at 270 mckinnon. as a reminder, that project had been well under way at the time the i.p.z. deletion was first introduced. we had received positive feedback from planninging staff as early as november 2020, eight months prior to the proposed deletion and we submitted a p.p.a. for the project in february 2021, five months prior to thes ed deletion and received a clear and supportive p.p.a. response from the departments. we then submitted our complete project application in early july and were then very surprised by the introduction of the i.p.z.

deletion in late july. but we were grateful that you endorsed our project with a 6-0 vote. since then, we have made significant additional progress and expect to present the project to commission this summer. much more recently, following products r*if discussions with staff, we have submitted p.p.a. for a second project at 241 loom nis that incorporates 50,000 feet of ground-floor p.d.r. in contrast, this is in its infancy and we submitted our p.p.a. only a month ago well aware of the potential for i.p.z. deletion. we submitted it after significant discussionss with staff, given their support for the 15,000 feet of p.d.r. we hope that given its policy contribution you will consider grandfathering this project as well but we recognize that our timeline here is more recent. thank you for your consideration. and i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you. it's great to be back with you all. matt just articulated the position of grandfathering very well so i want to emphasize a couple of the points. maintaining the grandfathering provision that the commission voted to recommend last sumer is critical. the project on mckinnon has been processed by the planning department for nine months now and we expect to be at the planning commission this summer and i think the case for grandfathering and the spirit of equity and fairness is clear here. the commission's position was made clear last sum and we didn't hear from a word from any involved party at the time that grandfather was concerned. as for the second grandfathering provision, this is really an issue of public policy. the existing parking lot of 241 loomis can continue as-is as a private parking lot. there is an opportunity for a new 15,000 square foot p.d.r. space on the ground floor of a new building in the event deca can [inaudible] a

project with the grandfathered i.p.z. sewning. new industrial space as we know in san francisco is not and has not been pursued in any significant way in several decades so we feel the grandfathering provides a real win-win for the city and project sponsor with this respect to this p.d.r. space. we thank you, the commission, for your consideration and here for any questions. thank you. >> last call for members of the public in the chamber. seeing no additional members of the public in the chamber requesting to speak, we'll go to our remote callers. >> caller: good afternoon, again, supervisors. zack wise enberger of district 10. i'm calling in to urge you to support this project to eliminate the i.p.z. sud. other economic development groups have expressed concerns with the grandfathering clause to the ordinance that would allow self-storage projects to move forward in the development process.

self-storage is a dead use and provides no permanent employment opportunity nor does it strengthen the surrounding community. the purpose of the p.d.r. to district controls clear. self-storage is not to be permitted as it poses a threat to the already limited space available to actual p.d.r. operation. there are two pending self-storage projects waiting to grandfathered in. and combined represent almost 250,000 square feet of dead space in an important p.d.r. zone. a project approved last year will already be bringing in another 120,000 square feet of self-storage to the neighborhood. the bayview should not have to accept more of these based on a code loophole that is attempting to close and in no other neighborhood in the city would this be allowed. the area zoning rules are cleared and self-storage is not permitted. however, other projects are attempting to take advantage of this clear loophole. i support the choice ining support this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you.

last call for members calling in to request to speak. you need to press star 3. see nothing additional requests to speak from members of public, public comment is closed on this matter and now before you, commissioners. >> who wants to start? >> i have a question to the staff. hi. [laughter] did supervisor wallton's office aware of this grandfathering projects? that is proposed by the planning department?

>> are they aware of the clause or the project? >> yeah. the recommendation by the planning department about the grandfather project. does the supervisor wallton's office aware of this? >> they are aware. >> and do they support this? >> we have not had a chance to connect with the supervisor since the grandfathering clause was published last week but they are aware and we have plans to connect after the hearing. >> thank you. that's all. >> i would ask mr. shaw, while we have you, if there is any concerns you have about the grandfathering. it seems like it makes sense. it seems like it would be limited to this promise but are there other projects that would be eligible for the grandfathering. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> commissioner diamond: i believe this raises an issue for us. that doesn't seem appropriate to me. in combination with that is sort of a nontraditional use of

the grand plaza in my opinion; the second one. it's not like the project was mid process, you know, they weren't aware of the change and got caught in the middle of the process. they were aware as of last summer that we were thinking about doing that. but what i hear staff saying it will allow us to get the kind of p.d.r. that we want and that strikes me as an interesting policy issue we should be studying further. i could see supporting the grandfathering for this.

excuse me. that's my dog barking. i believe the request for grandfathering raises the bigger policy but if the other commissioners wanted to support this one project to see if it works, this grandfathering, i could see supporting that as well too. but i feel strongly about the first grandfathering because it was already approved but us. >> vice president moore. >> i want to take a completely different tact. that's something we all decided together. when i hear fail, dead use, and unemployment generated use,

that speaks to me of putting those types of uses into those communities which are indeed now our most and foremost responsibility. having said that is out of lack of further information. last year we made a tentative comment on supporting the retaining of the storage in that area. i would take a stand and say i think it is our responsibility to look at these sites for higher and better use. and since they need to repeat, self-storage is a nonwork generating dead use, i think we owe it to ourselves to allow other uses to step into its place and end the e.p.z. overlay. so i would basically not support the grandfathering and if the applicant wants to take a further step negotiating with a supervisor or not then maybe

some less important sites in district 10, then it's up to the applicant himself, but i believe that as a commission given the commitment we have made, we need to stick to our guns. those would be my comments. >> commissioner: thank you. could you describe for us a little bit more about the proposed project for the second grandfathering. i think the 15,000 square foot to me like commissioner diamond. but could you describe the totality of the project? >> permanently, they've submitted a preliminary project so it's not official project yet. but it has been submitted as a self-storage so without the

15,000pdr, but they have offered to submit a ground floor with that. so it's about a 50,000 square foot parcel and the total self-storage would be in the vicinity of 150 and then half of that ground floor as discussed would be pdr use. >> president: okay. and if we were to approve the grandfathering today, what would be the insurances that the 15,000 square-foot of pdr becomes part of the project? >> well, if the grandfathering were approved today, then that would be the requirement. assuming board approval. >> president: okay. right. any comments from other commissioners? i see director hillis. >> director: i just wanted to clarify where self-storage is currently permitted. it's permitted in cus which we talked about under the previous

item in c2 which is kind of the northeast water front. it's not permitted in chinatown and it's not permitted in pdr districts. >> president: thank you for that. >> president: any other comments? commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: i feel i talk a lot. just to kill time. thank you. i actually support this legislation as it is, however, i do not support the recommendation by the staff in terms of the grandfathering with the self-storage. i do share the sentiment with commissioner moore in terms of looking again. i hope when we do grandfathering, it's not because of exceptional for specific projects, but because there is a policy objective to it and, again, looking into the

-- if we're looking into social equity, what does it bring to that district. so as far as i know, this is authored by supervisor walton and i'm sure he has an idea and objective of what he wants to create in his district. so i will be supportive without the planning recommendation. >> president: thank you. from my part, i do think our grandfathering is consistent with what we had previously done and it seemed like for the first project in particular, this decision by the city attorney's office to go at a different direction on how the legislation and the ipc was changed and so i think that makes sense. so i am intrigued and i think pretty supportive of the idea of having new pdr on the ground floor in addition to self-storage. a lot of self-storage in my neighborhood on one hand does have some of the down sides we've talked about kind of

activation standpoint. at the same time, every time i've moved, i never could do it in one move. so there is a role for the storage units in self-storage in the life cycle of our city and its residents. so looking to see if any commissioners want to make a motion or if they have other questions. commissioner diamond has raised her hand again and commissioner moore. i have to watch the time stamp that you guys all have. commissioner moore and commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to approve the legislation minus staff modifications. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the

proposed legislation without staff's modifications. on that motion, [roll call] that motion fails 2-4 with commissioners diamond, fung, koppel, and tanner voting against. is there an alternative motion? >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to approve the project with the recommendations listed in the staff report, both of them. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to approve with staff's modifications, [roll call]

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners moore and imperial voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item ten for case number 2019-023037env for the waterfront plan. please note written comments on the draft will be accepted at the planning department or at the e-mail listed on the agenda until 5:00 p.m. on april 25th, 2022.

good afternoon president tanner, members of the commission. i'm sherry george, planning department staff and e.i.r. coordinator for the waterfront plan project or the proposed project. joining me in person is my colleague joy nuret and the project sponsor of the port of san francisco is also present. the item before you today is the public hearing on the waterfront plan project draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r.. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, accuracy and the completeness of the d.i.r. of the environmental quality act or ceqa and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this

time. the public review period for the proposed project draft e.i.r. began on february 23rd, 2022, and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on april 25th, 2022. i will now provide a brief overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft e.i.r.. as a reminder, the port presented this project to you at an informational hearing november 18th, 2021. the area encompassed by the water front plan includes approximately 800 acres along 7.5 miles of the property's owned and managed by the port from fisherman's wharf to india basin. the waterfront plan area is bound to the north and jefferson street in fisherman's wharf and includes peers in the property adjacent to the embarcadero including oracle park, peers adjacent to terry

a. francois boulevard and south of mission bay. the water front plan governs the use, design, and improvement of properties under its jurisdiction which include historic piers, shoreline, and upland properties. in 2015, the port conducted a comprehensive review and identified changes in the condition and the need to update the 1997 plan. as a result of that multi-year public planning process, the waterfront plan provides goals and policies for the waterfront. nine port wide goals each of which are supported by policy. each of these goals are new and many policies in all nine categories are new or have been updated from the 1997 plan. each with their own set of objectives to guide planning,

development, leasing, and stewardship with an each sub area. the draft e.i.r. of the waterfront plan is programatic. its assessment of environmental impact is based on the likely physical changes that would result from implementation of the waterfront plan's components that would facilitate the plan's goals and objectives. since the waterfront plan is a policy document, its approval would not directly result in physical changes. however, the e.i.r. analyzes the impacts of future leasing development and waterfront improvements that could occur. the analysis of physical impacts is based in part upon land use assumptions and gross rejections by the planning department in collaboration with the port. the analysis conducted for the draft e.i.r. determined that the water front plan would result in significant and

unavoidable impacts to transportation and circulation and air quality even with implementation of the feasible mitigation measures. the initial study and the d.e.i.r. determined that all other impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. the draft e.i.r. studieded two alternatives to the proposed project. the no project alternative represents what would reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the updated policies are not implemented. the lower growth alternative assumes the water front plan results in less in field development than analyzed for the proposed project as a result of excludeing policies to target certainty and financial feasibility of structural repair and rehabilitation of historic bulk heads and peers. today, we are conducting a public hearing on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft e.i.r. for members of the

public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. we have a court reporter today to record your comments. when it is your turn to speak, please state your name and spelling if you'd like. and we ask that you speak clearly and slowly so that the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to answer comments today. comments will be tribed and responded to in writing in the responses to comments document which will respond to all verbal and written comments received during the public comment period and make decisions to the draft eir where appropriate. those making comments by writing or mail or e-mail, may submit their comments to sherie george eir coordinator by 5:00 p.m. on april 25th, 2022.

we anticipate publication of the response to comments documents in mid 2022 followed by the eir certification hearings soon thereafter. and this concludes my presentation and department staff are available for any questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes staff presentation. members of the public, if you're interested in submitting your comments today in person, please come up to the podium and line up on the screen side of the room. again, we're accepting comments on the accuracy and adequacy. go ahead, sir. >> okay. afternoon, commissioners. my name is bill wygant. i'm a multi-term past president of the south end rowing club and we do believe it's insufficient and we plan on filing comments by the

april 25th deadline. i guess my appearance here is informational. some of our concerns were, you know, we were not part of the sourcing. i don't represent the dolphin club, but there's two clubs at aquatic park with virtually over 100 years of experience and use of that park and, you know, members and we feel that we could of had a positive effect on the creation of the deis had we been consulted. and some concerns are what quality. we're more concerned with disturbing the sentiment that's underlying the water because if it's contamination possibilities maybe even health impact on our members if they use aquatic park and while the deis kind of cut it off at hyde street, we use those historical recreation every month, twelve months, during the winter. an example is one of or largest

fundraisers is a swim to the public from alcatraz. that cuts right through the area where this dis is supposed to be relating to. we feel that we'd like to be part of this process and we plan on providing our comments by april 25th. thank you. >> secretary: okay. seeing no additional members of the public in person requesting to speak, we'll go to the remote callers. through the chair, you'll have two minutes. and when your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hello. i'm the dolphin club president of the next door neighbor to the circ and bill wydant very well spelled out our concern as well. our concern is based on the

fact that between the two clubs, we have approximately well over 3,000 members and more than half of them swim in the bay in a good part of the other half are rowers in the bay as well. so i just wanted to let you know that we've raised our hand and want everybody in this process to know we're there and we're watching and we appreciate being included in discussion. thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you. i will remind members of the public that we're only taking public comment on the accuracy and adequacy of the environmental impact report. >> caller: this is sue hester. the eir i'm going to submit written comment, but it's a great opportunity to provide information on the scope of the city. i found how to that even the planning department doesn't have a total comprehension of

it. east of montgomery street. south of market, and so having that information in the waterfront eir available in the waterfront plan eir, i think it's important to for people that are really trying to understand why street level and why ground water in the mission district. and people could really understand that better if there was something in the planning department that was readily available about how the city

historic clay built it. thank you very much. >> secretary: okay. last call for public comment for those persons in person or who may be calling in remotely? seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. >> president: i see commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: i just want to take a moment to commend staff on chapter three of the eir. it is an incredibly sesynced and clear of the that affects decision making on the bay and i have worked with many of the statutes that are described there and have never seen it

presented in such a clear manner before especially the interactions between the different staff sheets. so i really just want to take a moment to thank you for having explained that so clearly. >> president: thank you, commissioner diamond. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner: i also agree. our environmental review staff is top notch always. i'm nothing but supportive. >> president: vice president moore. >> vice president: i would like to comment on the comprehensive and thorough document that's in front of us. also bring it in the context of the significant work that has been done for decades on the waterfront and now expanding into the southern part of the waterfront. i would echo some of the public comments that were made regarding border quality and

recreational uses. i do believe that public health in addition to the dolphin club and the south end not included deals also with public health and border quality relative to people who do informal water and swimming in aquatic park and other parts of the waterfront. i think we owe it to everybody to have that part addressed because for many people, also visitors being able to physically touch the water on all the waterfront is a very important part. i'm not just waiting or if you are canoeing or doing anything else, hanging our legs over into the water, we need to know what happens as changes occur and how this long-term plan as described in theeeir will affect the water quality.

otherwise, i feel it's a really well done document. >> president: thank you, commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i do want to highlight the importance of what the staff did when it comes to the air quality and in terms of the mitigation. i mean i appreciate this study that is being done and the hazardous impacts it may have, but also the kind of mitigation measures. usually, we don't talk about air quality, especially when it comes to rezoning and i would like us to really be more when it comes to the health and hazard of projects that come through us. so i just want to emphasize that. so thank you. >> president: i'll just add that it's a thorough job by our staff. i want to thank them and the floor as well for all the time and energy they're putting into this, the eir and also to the project overall. i don't see any other commissioner lights up. so i think this item might be

concluded. >> secretary: we do have a late request from a remote caller. >> president: let's take the call. thank you. >> caller: hello. >> secretary: ma'am, you need to mute your television or computer. >> caller: yes. i'm trying to do that. there we go. sorry. my name is jean allen. i'm a san francisco native and long-term bay swimmer and kayak paddler. i'm a current member of the dolphin club as well as a former member of the south end and in addition to accessing the waterfront boundary waters, i've also accessed the planned included waters via the access to the aquatic park to the immediate west of the boundary area. the two swim clubs are over 100 years old with the combined

membership of over 300 members. also lessees of the city and the port. it doesn't appear their use of the waters within the boundary area were considered in the initial study and there are numerous other small swim organizations and unaffiliated members of the general public who use small human powered water craft in the area. so swimmers and boaters including those in flighting seat row boats, stand up paddle boards, kayaks routinely use the water ways within the boundaries of the fisherman's wharf sub area of the water front plan and, yet, there's no mention of the existing swimming or human powering small water craft activity in the over 500-page long draft and environmental impact report. there's no mention of the routine swimming in the boundary area up and down both

sides as well as inside and outside the fisherman's wharf break water. or analysis on the impact in the form of changes and currents. for example, when pylons are removed and/or replaced. similarly, there's no analysis in water quality on swimmers fully immersed in the water, for example, when construction related grudging occurs. so the draft is currently inadequate. and inaccurate to the extent that it doesn't analyze these current uses. >> secretary: thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> caller: thank you. >> secretary: okay. commissioners. that will conclude public comment. and now we can move on to your next item. item number 11, case number 2021-007709enx. for 1298 howard street.

this is a large project authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. alex westoff, department staff. the item before you today is to request a large project authorization previously granted by motion number 19867 on march 2nd, 2017, pursuant to planning code section 329 to allow additional exceptions to the planning code requirements for off street parking planning code section 151.1 and mid block alley controls. the previously approved project

includes 128,650 square feet for residential use for 129 dwelling units and 13,850 square feet of ground floor office and retail commercial space located at 1298 howard street. that's 198, 199, 200, and 201 in the block 3728 within the regional commercial western soma mixed use general, residential enclavz, 45x and 55x. includes the conversion of eleven parking spaces from nonresidential to residential accessory parking. [please stand by]

>> we currently have ten units under contract, and the very first unit is scheduled to close tomorrow. so the first item and first request involves the mid block pedestrian alley. the sponsor is very excited to have the alley, and how we will benefit not only the project residents but also the general public. the building main lobby and 14 of the main units have direct entrances from the alley. so people who looked at some of the ground floor units have asked a lot of question about safety and security. and as of now, we don't have any of those units under contract, and several people are actually watching to see what the outcome actually is. here, you see the alley itself.

on both sides of the pedestrian path is landscaping, and slightly lower from that in elevation is the unit entry. during construction of the project, it became quite apparent that there are many safety concerns for this area. the alley became an attract for homeless and other people in the area. we included an incident log on the types and frequency of incidents that required attention. the log only requires 11 months when the situation became unmanageable, and the project sponsor needed to hire security, as well.

so security has found needles, drug use, theft, and some people have gotten aggressive with the construction staff. as excited as we are for the mid block access, we are asking for nighttime gate and security. we believe that it is necessary here and warranted here in order to ensure safety but also to ensure that the units are sold and occupied. on the overhead, i'm going to show you a few additional images. here is the howard street entrance to the alley. this is the natoma street entrance to the alley.

there's still a little construction equipment left there. the natoma street gate both when it's opened and closed, and an image of the howard street gate both in open and closed position. we worked closely with david winslow and planning department staff on the design. the other request we are ask is to convert the 11 existing commercial parking spaces into residential spaces, and we need the approval in order to exceed the principally we are --

permitted amount. even with the 11-space asking, we would still only provide the 71 underground spaces, which is what's allowed by requirement i'm running a little bit out of time, but i would like to add that our entire project team is here, including the architect for the gate, so we're happy to answer any questions, and overall, we ask for your approval on both items. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. seeing that that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission, now is your opportunity to do

so. through the chair, you have two minutes. >> thank you much and good to see all of you in person. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we've not had the chance to review this project and there aren't a lot of details, but anything that we can do to ensure this becomes a reality is essential, so given that, appreciate your thoughts. thank you. >> clerk: okay. seeing no other persons in person requesting to speak, we'll take remote callers. again, you'll have two minutes, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your signal to begin speaking. >> hi, commissioners. my name is laura, and i live close to the building.

we need more parking in general, under building and on the street. please approve more parking and help us have a safe san francisco. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name's matthew gordon, and i just wanted to voice my support for installing the security gates. i think, by my understanding, there's over 100 units in think building, over 17 market units, which is great, and i think we need to make sure it's safe for everyone to live there. thanks. >> hello. my name is josephine, and

[indiscernible] the project is already built [indiscernible]. we constantly preach about how we need more housing. if we need more housing built, i think we should work together and think about ways to get small units built in san francisco. thank you. >> hello. thank you, commissioners. my name is daniel ho, and i

have the same request as another speaker. adding so many units with such little parking will only make this worse. enjoying the city, it has more space for residential parking, so please approve the request and make living in san francisco a little more easier. thank you. >> hi, planning commissioners. my name is josh. i'm a long time resident of san francisco, and i'm calling to support the project, as well. i just think we need to make it easier [indiscernible] if we don't add more family size units [indiscernible] i ask you to please approve this project from the developer to create more family friendly housing in

san francisco. >> patricia voy. i'm the person who passed the law years ago, one parking place per unit, and the reason why i'm going to support the gates for sure, but i want to put something in your mind. when you have families, once the children get to certain ages, they're in different school, and the way that the school board is done now, you have one in one neighborhood and one in another, and you're going to need a car, and you can't get them to twos different schools if you have both that start at 8:00. when you have more parking, you have more emissions from people driving around and around and around, and i want you to consider the ramifications of

raising parking on any of these units. i also want to add, jonas, when we come up to item -- my items of 2055, i think i'm going to request a continuance because i've been denied the right to come to this hearing personally. but please notify me when it comes up. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is nate, and i live in the area. frankly, i don't see why we're making this an issue. it's an issue of safety and

security for the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is maria, and i've lived in this city for almost three years now. traffic and congestion seems to be pack to prepandemic level. why don't we make it more easier for housing to find parking? therefore, i agree with the request to convert more special parking spaces to residential. thank you. >> hi. i'm calling about the mid block crossing. i'm a little concern that the public benefit that was negotiated before this project broke ground may be losing access to the public after this

hearing. i'm wondering if the architect or the sponsor have created a way for gates to not block the alley? for instance, gates to the doors themselves rather than gates at either end of the alley so that people can have access to the alley at all times. thank you. >> hello. my name is [indiscernible] and i work for the carpenters union in san francisco. we have an active labor dispute with this general contractor for nonpayment of very standard wages and benefits for carpenters, and i would be

against giving them anything, all right? nothing. thank you for your time. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. again, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. we'll take the next caller. >> hello. my name is mary, and i've spent a lot of time in soma. the [indiscernible] use is very rich and can make me uncomfortable, especially in evenings. i would not feel safe with

[indiscernible] thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is terry, and i live nearby. i'm calling in today regarding the need for families who use their cars and to have parking in san francisco. as a parent myself possibly unloading the strollers, i could not take my infant around the city by public transportation. it's not safe to assume that every family wants to do this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is now closed, commissioners, and this

matter is now before you. >> president tanner: thank you. i see vice president moore is in the queue to speak. >> vice president moore: this project was heard in 2017, had full support from the commission partly because of its response to where it is and what it was actually emulating. that is mid block space and to create a new community in the district. however, 2017 is not 2022. after two years of covid and a lot of other very unfortunate incidents in the city, i can see a gate is feasible. i am in full support of the gate since the gate is an open

design, and the parking space conversion is not in opposition of the project. >> president tanner: thank you. i am also in full support. i wonder if the gentleman could go through, did you look at any type of gates for the units themselves? how did you look at the gate for the entire alley versus any other measures that could have been placed? >> yeah. if you see the one image, maybe you can show it on the overhead now. maybe i can scroll it. if you could show the overhead now. so for the residential units, they're located kind of behind the landscaping boxes.

yes, the residential units are recessed, and you could put them there, but any gating or anything that would come out to the landscaping boxes would obviously eat into the mid block alley, as well. so -- >> president tanner: can you explain how that housing will be managed once the h.o.a. will be taking over? how will i know that i walk by at 6:00 a.m. that i'll be able to take that passage versus having to go along the long

way? >> yeah, that's beyond my authority. >> there is a security guard that's going to drive around the building four or five times every day. >> president tanner: so what i understand, though, from the presentation is that the security guard is unsustainable, so is the h.o.a. going to provide for a security guard to come and unlock the gate every morning? >> yeah. california law provides that the h.o.a. will provide for security services. there's significantly staff people to take care of the building. >> president tanner: i'm very supportive. i walked by this the other day, and i was so excited for the mid block alley and our

planning department to take care of that. i think the only thing that, as things go on, things change -- i know with you can't really monitor things. it's more for the public to keep an eye on things. if the gate is closed when it's not supposed to be or people can't have access when they're supposed to be -- our city changed a lot since 2017, and unfortunately, i think this time of measure is really needed. and i will call on commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. thank you, president tanner. actually, i would like to echo -- i have an office on 7 and tower, and i always pass

this way, and i've seen the construction in progress, i will let you know if i see the gate closed at 9:00 a.m. >> president tanner: commissioner koppel, and then commissioner diamond is on the line. >> commissioner koppel: i was going to make a motion for approval. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: did i miss something at the beginning? did you say it's a condition for only five years? >> it's a condition of approval in the motion, so it's good for five years. >> commissioner diamond: so what is good for five years? >> the gates themselves are good for five years. >> commissioner diamond: and what happens at the end of five years. >> it will be on the project

sponsor to make that decision. they can, of course, come back to the commission if they do want to extend that, but the commission would then need to sort of assess the project at that point in time, decide if that extension would be granted. >> commissioner diamond: so question to the project sponsor. can you explain the five-year limitation? >> president tanner: i don't know if you can see that. they are conferring and will approach. >> once the project comes to the five-year mark, it is up, then, to the h.o.a. residents to decide if they want to ask for a continuance, and they would have to come back to the planning commission to ask that. >> commissioner diamond: okay.

and is your client okay with that? is that okay with the residents? >> we would prefer a longer period, so if that's up for discussion, a longer period would help. >> so i'm curious to know what that is going to do.

>> the e.i.r. concluded that a project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a historical architectural resource because the project would demolish the 1120 sutter street building because the building is eligible for listing in the california guide of historical

resources. all the other impacts were found to be less significant. this slide presents key dates in the environmental review process. on december 17, 2020, the planning department issued a notice of preparation of a draft e.i.r. and availability of an initial study for the project, with comment review from december 17, 2020 through january 22, 2021. comments received were addressed in the draft e.i.r., which was published on august 18, 2021. the public hearing on the draft e.i.r., the historic preservation commission was held on september 15, 2021, and at the planning commission on

september 30, 2021. the public comment period concluded on september -- october 5, 2021. responses to comments on the draft e.i.r. were published on february 18, and it provides information to the public about ceqa. we request that the planning commission adopt the e.i.r. before you. this concludes my presentation on the e.i.r. certification. i will be available for questions, and now i'll turn

over the presentation to my colleague, kevin guy, who will produce the additional items. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm kevin guy with current planning staff. the item i'm presenting you today is a request for conditional use authorization for 1101-1123 sutter street. the project includes a child care center and approximately 40,000 square feet of ground floor commercial uses. the project is using a state density bonus to maximize density on the site.

two aspects of the projects require c.u. authorization. first, a c.u. is required to allow development on a lot over 25,000 square feet. while the project is relatively tall compared to the immediate context, the project uses setbacks and discreet material to divide it into sections. a c.u. is also required to allow nonresidential uses greater than 2,000 square feet. the project includes two ground

floor retail spaces. the retail spaces are not excessively large in the context of the greater polk l.c.e. child care facilities are rare in this neighborhood, and this would provide a necessary service in this neighborhood. the program allows sponsors to

request incentives and waivers for the bonus project. revising the project to be fully code compliant would preclude construction of the density bonus project. the first portion of this finding should be amended to read, the planning code -- or excuse me, the project complies with all relevant requirements and standards of the planning code with the exception of the incentive and waivers requested under the state density bonus

program. so in conclusion, approval of the project will create dwelling and on-site child care and ground floor services are included in the project, providing needed services and activating the streetscape. staff recommends approval of the project with modifications. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, project sponsor, you have five minutes for your

presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is patrick mcmurray, and i'm the president of martin building company. we are a design and construction development firm with over 33 years of experience almost exclusively in san francisco. we are dedicated to creating high quality projects that embrace the urban fabric and its density while respecting the city's valuable history. martin building company has completed dozens of projects over our 33-year period, including historic renovations and many projects that were ultimately listed on the national listing of historic places. again, just as a reminder, these are all projects that have been before the commission in the past.

1101 sutter represents the culmination of our experience in mixed-income housing. we're also integrating 44 below market rate units at 40% a.m.i., on-site early childhood care center, all while creating our uniquely characteristic, functional, and extremely popular loft style units. i'll now turn it over to david baker for the architectural presentation. thank you. >> hi. i'm david baker, 1101 sutter. so the history, this was an auto repair facility that was built that way actually in the 20s. there were four items that we studied in the e.i.r.

we got through that. one of the -- that involved suggesting the height zones. there's a historic building that it faces, and there's a 130-foot height limit there, and even though vertical additions are not frowned upon, we decided not to do that. we modulated the massing for the context, next, and we kind of tugged and pushed down the various towers to break up the mass. next. so this is the existing view of the neighborhood, and there is the building. next. so this is looking on sutter street to the west. you can see the historic building in blue. so this is ground level, and

i'll go through the various uses on the ground area. first, there's a common area, gym, lobby, that goes with the common area. then, there's commercial spaces that's slated to a restaurant. this backing up a little bit shows the heald automotive college, and this is expanding the sidewalk a little bit by recessing the storefronts. next. and then, there is an early childhood development center, which the type is covering up, but there's an outdoor play area. there's a bit of gray drop from

sutter down to hemlock. next. this shows kids coming in on sutter, a shelter where they don't have to wait in the rain. next. that puts the child's play area up a little higher, which is really kind of fortuitous. hemlock, we have a garage entry and some service doors there, but we're proposing artwork that will be lit behind by the lights. next. one of the cool things, we're -- do you want me to stop? >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >> okay. 30 seconds. lower polk vision plan, this

shows hemlock. it's a fitness and community movement alleyway. next. this is the residence levels. going up, terracing, next, and then, the roof deck. so we have some other things, but i think sue diamond had some questions, so i don't know if you want me to do it now? >> president tanner: we'll have a question-and-answer portion, and we can have you answer -- >> so i can save that for her? >> president tanner: yes. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public in person, please lineup on the screen side of the room to present your testimony. please come up, sir, and again, you have three minutes to speak to the certification of the final environmental impact report and the project itself. >> thank you, commissioners. good afternoon. my name is danny campbell. i'm a business representative with the sheet metal workers

local 104 here in san francisco. we're here to represent the metal workers union -- that include health care and retirement benefits for the sheet metal workers and the other construction workers on the project. and more importantly, for san francisco residents, i wanted to emphasize that it'll ensure sustainable career pathways into union construction, apprenticeship and training programs for local youth here, as well as united states

military veterans. the project sponsor, martin building company, was open to discuss our concerns very early on, and has committed to partner with our local union on this. we look forward to you approving the e.i.r. and moving forward with this project. thank you, and good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is [indiscernible]. my group looked at this building when it was on the market back in january 19. i'm very happy for the current owner because i think it is a

great addition to the neighborhood. >> good afternoon. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. lots of homes for people. we certainly are excited about that. subsidized affordable housing on-site. hopefully getting some homes on them quickly. the fitness center and the child care space, i talked to a lot of different people all over the region on housing. there's no other thing that can be said to be so positive is

on-site child care. the ample bike parking and the transit rich location, obviously, additional benefits, as well. i additionally shared a benefit that we had cohosted with yimby. it had about 150 people that signed. when we do this sort of outreach seeking support for these projects, we always make sure that reaching out to neighbors first and foremost, so there's strong support for this project.

edwardo, i think that might have been the same edwardo, also, asks for your support. oscar thinks we should be doing the same thing and approving homes everywhere. gerald says we're in the middle of a displacement and housing crisis. lint say says that we are in desperate need of more housing.

ryan points out that the affordablity percentage with the child care center seems like a no brainer, and then, the number of new housing, yes, yes, yes. thank you very much. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pete, and i just moved back to the city, and it was a real struggle for me to try to find housing. it took almost six months, almost, and with people moving back, especially with a lot of the tech companies that are going back to work, i think we really need to do what we can to garner housing support. so thank you. >> clerk: okay. so seeing no additional commenters in person, we'll go to the remote callers. again, you'll each have three minutes, and when you hear that

your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. my name is michael, and i currently live in the mission. i used to live across the street from 1101 sutter and 1121 sutter. i had a clear view of them from my bedroom. i had to leave the neighborhood due to a lack of availability, and i wish there were more housing in the area. while i was there, i witnessed multiple accidents at the corner, and i think its proximity to the downtown and jobs, i think it would be a viable means to take public transportation to work. i myself have never had a car. i bike, and i wish i had greater choices to live closer to work. i just also want to address the character of the area. i think the current plan,

definitely people have concerned about the mortuary, and the -- concerns about the mortuary. i used to, but i think we need to do what we can to preserve that. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john corso. i'm a long time member and currently a business representative for the local 38, the plumbers and steamfitters union in the city. 44 low-income affordable units, child care, that's the kind of thing we need along with our housing in the city, so on behalf of the leadership and the membership of local 38, we

ask you to approve this as is. thank you. >> yeah, hi. my name is peter white. i live across the street at 1080 sutter street, and i'm in big support of this project. as everyone else has said, i think we definitely need more housing in the city. this one seems like a no-brainer. it's a great site to build housing on. it's not used for anything functional today. as a resident in the area, my wife and i walk from our building to downtown, and we do have a parking garage in our building, but the average kind of, you know, number of cars in there is about 50 to 60% of the total capacity, so even less parking than units in the building right across the street, we still have extra parking in our building, so if

there's any concerns on that, i would feel strongly that i think this is a great area where people can use public transit and people can get to where they need to go. lastly, i have a six-month-old child, and i think the child care is great. just overall, i think this is a win-win for people in the city and people in the area to have more housing, so thank you. i hope you'll approve it. >> hi. my name is christopher nayland, and i'm a resident. i think san francisco has a brutal shortage of housing supply, which is affecting the cost of units.

>> my name is melanie, and i'm calling in support of the project as designed. it goes without saying that this is going to bring so many benefits to the community. 200 units with 44 b.m.r. is a fantastic addition, and as a mother of a baby, being told that i need to start looking for child care once my first trimester was over was a shocking realization, and the community is going to benefit from something like this. i strongly encourage the

commission to approve this. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. my name is kayla barnes, and i've lived in the city about seven years. i'm excited about the number of units going in and i hope that you'll approve this project today, and i thank you for your time. >> hi. my name is dave, and i've been living in san francisco since 2019, and i'm calling in to support this project. i would hope and courage everybody to approve it as is. i think it's incredibly important that we don't want housing to reduce the housing

deficit and increase supply. that's all. just affirming my support and hoping that you will approve as is. no further delays. >> good afternoon, president tanner. my name's dan flores. i'm a business representative for sprinkler local 419. i stand before you to show my support of this project. coming out of covid, we need to get those unions jobs back out there, and who better to install the sprinkler safety systems than a union sprinkler fitter. i thank you for your time. >> hi, commissioners. my name is emerald.

i'm speaking in support of this project. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. no additional requests to speak from members of the public,

public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. in the order of proceedings, you should take up the certification of the final environmental impact report first before you choose to certify, and of course, there is a late request to speak. should i take that now? >> president tanner: yes. >> clerk: hello, caller. you have three minutes. >> my name is brett, and i'm calling to support 111 sutter project. this project has the unique ability to tender both neighborhood stabilization, offering both revitalization and support for local business. it also [indiscernible].

>> president tanner: we'll take comments on the e.i.r. before we move onto the discussion. commissioner koppel? >> no comments, just in full support. >> president tanner: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes, i move to support the e.i.r.

>> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: there is no -- commissioner moore? >> president tanner: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i just wanted to express my full support, as well, of the e.i.r. this project was better known to us than many others. >> president tanner: thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that's been seconded to certify the e.i.r. report. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0, and now, you can take up

the adoption of findings. >> commissioner diamond: my understanding is this project has a number of nested bedrooms. i wonder if you could tell us how many, what the design is, and your thought process about why nested bedrooms versus bedrooms with windows? >> i just happen to have some slides on that. we have done some nested bedrooms, but, you know, patrick is -- that's his -- he's very -- he's developed that forum, and it's -- i think

it's really great -- can we go back to the plans? these are different plans showing how this nested bedroom works. we think it has a number of advantages, and basically, they're all done this way. if you see the ones on the right, the corner bedrooms tend to be twos you get a spatial space. the number one complaint is

people open their bedroom windows, and there's garbage trucks, there's motorcycles, there's people doing all these things that they do in these neighborhoods, and the number one complaint, i'm not kidding, is noise from the street, and this really mitigates that. this is a picture of one of martin building group's nested bedrooms. there issy another -- there's another picture here that shows the bedroom. it's not your regular apartment, but what we do, with audiences, it's very popular. they all have high efficiency stacking washer dryers, and

really, all the units are this way. >> commissioner diamond: so you're anticipating my second bedrooms with the laundry, but i want to stick with the bedrooms. you have glass in the bedrooms, and how many nested bedrooms are in this project? >> how many are nested? >> commissioner diamond: mm-hmm. >> the majority. i