so if you book them, they get all of their needs taken care of in one go. this is an opportunity for us here in the tenderloin to come together, try out these ideas to see if we can put -- get -- connect people to services in a >> welcome to our city's newest park, the park at 5m. welcome to our city's newest hub of creativity, commerce, and community. welcome, everyone, to 5m. [applause]

>> this is an exciting day that has been more than a decade in the making, but it's just the start of great things to come for the people who live, work, and spend time here at 5m. when we broke ground, we were surrounded by four acres of mostly parking lots. today, brookfield properties is proud to announce the completion of its development commitment. the first is the parks at 5m. about the size of five basketball courts, this is the city's largest privately owned open space. it has been wonderful to see just the immediate reaction that we've had to this open space from the neighbors that have come in today. this stage directly connects to the dempster building. children from all ages will be able to play in our play area, which is right behind the

camline building, and our lawn areas, as well. dog owners used to walk their dogs here in the parking lot because there were so few places to go. now, they can chase their tails in an area made just for them. this here is 415 natoma. it is a 25-story office building designed by k.t.f. 5m opens into a courtyard of terrace spaces. to my left, right here, is the george apartment building, with 302 rental units, which is now

leasing. it includes 98 middle-income units, including housing units for seniors and formerly homeless individuals. finally, the two historic buildings were also renovated: the camline building that is earmarked for retail and nonprofit uses, and the dempster building. new tenants, programming, and residents will bring energy to the site. beginning this spring, community programming for the parks at 5m will feature a mix of events, performances, art, and food curated by brookfield properties. our long-standing community members will be on this property. off the grid will return with popular weekday lunch markets.

cast will take its programming outside of the walls through that door and host a series of arts and cultural programming featuring its tenants and partners. we are incredibly proud to have worked with so many individuals and organizations to help create this transformation. this is a testament to our sponsors and collaborators, and we are very, very happy to have completed this project without a delay through the pandemic, and it's a great testament to the tenacity of our team that we were able to do that. residents are moving into the george. we have some residents right now. the dempcenter is now home to push dance company and women's audio commission, and soon,

we'll be home to restauranteurs, nonprofits, and community. i'd also like to thank ann topier, judson true, former supervisor jane kim, and laura cressemata, and the architects for their incredible design of 415 natoma, among others. and of course, i'd like to thank our incredible team, current and past. a special thank you to mayor

breed for your support of 5m, your leadership and relentless efforts to create more housing for all income levels in the city. we appreciate your efforts to help all people of ages, background, and income in the city. please welcome mayor london breed. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: hello, everyone. i am so happy to be here, to see the almost completion of this beautiful project, 5m, which has been going on, jack told me, for 14 years, and we just broke ground in 2019, and here we are, just a few years later, and look at the magic that can be created as a result of us coming together to push projects like this in san francisco. i can't even believe it.

i was here for the topping off ceremony of the george. not the george in washington, d.c., the george in san francisco, and when i think about what this project means to this community, the fact that we have this open space, this building that supports artists, and artists performing here, the community, the people, this project and what it will do for this community will be something that we can all be proud of. we've worked really hard to ensure that this project, we worked hard to make sure that we implemented neighborhood preference. now, when i was on the board of supervisors, we got neighborhood preference passed. it's been very challenging to implement because of other state and federal laws, but we got it done, and as a result of our work, 40% of the affordable

units built in this project will go to people who live here first. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and before neighborhood preference, that was not happening, and the community was asked to support projects like this, and they fought for projects like this, and now, they're a part of projects like this. and i see rudy walking through the crowd from united playas, like they're coming to do something on the stage. they put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project, facing opposition to this community, and united playas fought to make sure this

happened. and none of us could have thought that the pandemic would set us back, but the 1200 people who helped to make this project possible, their jobs continued as a result of our work, and they got this project done. just imagine if we didn't do that. just imagine the number of people who would not have housing because we delayed it due to the pandemic. we knew that we could build housing safely, and that's exactly what we did. and now, as a result of waiting five years, this project, after breaking ground in 2019, is done. what year is this? i keep forgetting, because i don't count 2020 anymore. i stip that year, but the work that we're continuing to do and

to revitalize this downtown corridor, we are trying to make this feel like a neighborhood, that there's a dog run and there's open space, and there's family that can interact with our senior. there's so much amazing things that is happening in san francisco, and this is a testament to what happens when we work together with the private sector, with nonprofits, with the board of supervisors, with my office. anything is possible, and my commitment to eliminate bureaucracy is someone that i will continue to push for so

that bureaucracies do not stop projects like this. people are counting on us to make it easier to do business in san francisco. to cass, to united playas, and i know that rudy is going to work hard to make sure that filipino seniors are going to get in this housing. they said mayor, don't forget about us. when we get through down the street with that housing, we are going to make sure that they are up there.

last but not least, before i leave, i want to take a moment to really recognize someone who has been in the news world for over 30 years. i remember watching him on ktvu when i was a kid. today is rob ross' last day on ktvu, and we just want to let you know how much we appreciate you, your objective reporting, your commitment to san francisco, sending your kids through the public school system, your love for the city, but also, your ability to bring the news to us in a way that we would understand and sometimes be concerned, but more importantly, be excited and feeling good about san francisco, so we appreciate your reporting. we wish you a wonderful

retirement. thank you so much, rob, for your work in san francisco. and with that, thank you so much all for being here, and i think i want to turn it over to -- i'll turn it back -- okay. supervisor haney? i'll introduce supervisor haney. so supervisor haney and i have been working around the clock, sometimes fighting with each other, but more importantly, making sure when the time comes to do the important work, that we are aligned, that we work together, because we know that people are counting on us to deliver for them. so i really enjoyed working with them on this project, but a number of housing in his district. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the supervisor for

district 6, matt haney. [applause] >> supervisor haney: all right. it's on. well, first of all, welcome, everyone. this is a beautiful day to open what is an incredible beautiful space, and i want to thank mayor breed and her team. she has been working so hard to get more housing built in our city. she has a piece of legislation called cars to houses, which turns areas like what used to be a parking lot, like what we have here, into housing, and seeing this transformed into a beautiful form of housing, this is what can happen when we listen to the community. thank you, brookfield, for the

way that you've gone about this. we are here in the middle of the filipino cultural district, for a long time, the home of filipinos here in our city, and to be able to sit here and say that the filipino community, united playas, were a part of this since the beginning and helped to shape it is a huge testament to what is possible in our city. contrary to what people may say, san franciscans want more housing. they want more housing. they just want to make sure it's housing they can access. they want to make sure it's housing that includes community and open space. they want to make sure when we build housing, that we do it with them and for them, and that's what we've done in this project. this is a very happy day in our city when we're building more housing. it's an even happier day for

our city when we're building more housing, and for the south of market neighborhood, you deserve to have more housing in your communities, but you deserve to have open space, you deserve to have places for young people to come and grow, and know this is a place that they can live here and thrive here for many years to come. i don't see her here, but i want to thank my predecessor, jane kim, for her leadership. she really stormed this through the process, and i get to be here to espouse what it would mean for our future, so thank you to everyone who was a part of that, to our city departments, rudy's here, to all of the architects, the funders, to the hearst corporation, thank you. the future of this neighborhood

will be bright, and this will be an important central part of what makes it so. thank you. >> thank you so much. i'm jocelyn, community engager for brookfield properties, and i grew up just a block away from 5m. 5m was created from a decade of partnerships with the community and the city, including organizations that truly make a difference in soma, and those partnerships made this project possible. those partnerships made 5m better. they are relationships steeped in the history of this neighborhood, especially the filipino community, and because of community participate, we

learned what was important to the neighborhood. it's why there's a playground right around the corner, adorned with screens inspired by filipino textile patterns. it's why we provided support for the filipino cultural heritage district. neighborhood incubators, senior housing, women's programs, and youth in arts and cultural programs. 5ms community d.n.a. was created by groups like united playas and cass, and for those members of the open space advisory board, which was created to ensure that we rely on community input, thank you. we built a park that made sense for the neighborhood now and in the future. this is a special day. these relationships will

continue to help us provide programming for the parks and ideas moving forward. thank you to our partners for your passion, commitment, and per severance, and your continued partnership. one of our great partners, cass, the community arts stabilization trust, and you see the building right behind me, they are housed right there, each day, they make it possible for more arts and artists, creative entrepreneurs, and arts and cultural organizations to continue to inspire us here in the city and the bay area. their inspiration of arts and culture in the dempster building is critical to the development of arts in the

building. so please welcome their executive director. [applause] >> i have to put on these sexy reading glasses. thank you, jocelyn. as she said in her introduction, her very kind introduction, i'm the executive director of community arts stabilization trust, otherwise known as c.a.s.t. i want to thank the mayor, supervisor haney, brookfield properties, and the entire neighborhood for your support. c.a.s.t. is a living laboratory that creates permanent, i said permanent, affordable space for artists, creative entrepreneurs, and arts and culture organizations in one of

the most expensive regions to live and work in the u.s. we use financing and structural models to make and steward space to secure opportunities for the future and the present. we believe, as i think do you, arts and culture play a role in preserving the fabric of a neighborhood. arts and culture such as women's audio mission, w.a.m., push dance, who you just saw open the ceremonies, have a new home right behind you in the dempster building. they are pushing the boundaries of creativity and equity while also creating community cohesion. c.a.s.t. wants to make sure

that artists have an opportunity to grow in the community. now you may be thinking, what additional new programs are happening, so let me give you a little preview. among the prospective developments this year are a community mural for the building's exterior and a chance for the arts and culture neighborhood to create a new name that captures the resilience and energy of the region. we want to thank hewlett, foundation for the arts, start small, mobile coin foundation. it is this day that reinforces

all of our commitment to the arts, to bolster our commitment to this area, the bay area. thank you. [applause] >> and now, another community partner that we have. i'd like to introduce rudy corpus, jr., a long time leader for youth advocacy and has been a resident of soma, whose whole family has been here for decades. an organization that is rooted into ensuring safe places for youth and young children to shine. >> we here, y'all. first of all, i would like to say thank you to 5m,

brookfield, the hearst family, london breed. you know, i'm from the city just like you from the city. i'm born and raised in this neighborhood, so when they asked us to come, we walked here. and when we're done, we going to walk back because guess what? we belong here. this is our neighborhood, this is our community. our motto is it takes the hood to save the hood. what does that mean? that means all of us collectively, the mayor, the homeless people, the drug dealers, everyone in this community makes collectively this neighborhood happen. now, one important thing that i want to say is the mayor -- the late mayor, ed lee, who was a big -- who made a big impact in

this process of happening, may he rest in peace. he was there and fought, and if there's one thing we like, you know that, london, we like to fight. one thing that i understand and i know about community building with one another, that we can only be stronger when we work together, so when you see all of us as part of coming together, these are the things that happen. this right here was a parking lot that was dilapidated. it had rats, it had homelessness, it had nothing up in here. so for the project to be built and be full of people that you see in front of you now is a win-win situation, so i want to see this lastly. what made this project happen was the tremendous women that made this happen. this is women's month, right?

march 1. like misha, like carla, like jocelyn, like jane kim. there's so many women -- like alexa, who used to work for 5m. there's so many women who helped make this happen, that you should see the strength of the women that helped make this right here? we're here, and we're going to continue to be here. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, rudy, and thank you to all of our speakers. we're looking forward to seeing all of you on thursday, march 3, at 4:00, for our larger grand opening celebration event. i'd like to call my fellow speakers up to the stage in

order for our ceremonial ribbon cutting photo. if i could have my colleague jocelyn step up to the stage, and then moi and rudy. supervisor matt haney, as soon as he's done with the photo, and then, mayor london breed, as well.

>> clerk: planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday march 31, 2022. we are requesting those persons in the chamber to distance as much as possible taking seats in every other row. you must wear a mask and keep it on while in the chambers as well as while you are speaking. hybrid hearings will require everyone's attention and most of all your patience.

if you are not speaking please mute your microphone. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment on each item on the agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment for those calling in or remote are available by calling (415)655-0001. access code, 2487 760 3186. when we reach the item you're interested speaking to, those calling in remotely must press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. those here in the chamber, we ask that you line up on the screen line of the room. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds

remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i will announce that your time is up and take the next person. we will -- best practices is to call from a location speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. i like to take roll at this time. [ roll call ] first on your agenda is consideration items for continuance.

item 1, 1937, 17th avenue continue. item 2 so proposed to continuance to april 21, 2022. item 3 el camino del mar proposed to continuance. item 4, 460 vallejo proposed for continuance april 28, 2022. item 5, for the pg&e power access acquisition project is proposed for continuance to jul.

further commissioners, under your consent calendar, items 6 mission street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to april 14, 2022. under your regular calendar, item 13, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance -- proposed for indefinite continuance. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed to be continued. those calling in remotely need to press star 3. those in the chamber please lane upside of the room. seeing no member from the public. public comment is closed. these items are before you now

commissioners. >> vice president moore: anybody calling in for comment? >> clerk: no. i asked for public comment, i'm seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue. >> clerk: on that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote] that motion passes audiencely. audiencely -- unanimously 6-0. your consent calendar items has been continued. we can move to commission matters item 7. >> i like to start off our land acknowledge that i will be

reading today. the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. 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. any other comments or questions from commissioners. commissioner moore?

>> vice president moore: i like the planning department to acknowledge the following. last week, three times i noticed visually impaired person struggling up the sidewalk. port bodies were on the construction site which was clear passage on the uphill sidewalk. as stewards of the streets, somebody needs to grab the ball and deal with these unacceptable constructions. i'm looking for the planning department to with work others to address this. i ask for the commission support and ask the department to address the issue.

thank you. >> president tanner: thank you for bringing that tour a attention. i think it's something we all observe on our day-to-day life. i'm not sure if went to reach out to m.t.a. or public works or with d.b.i. or other partners to limit impact of scooters and some of other things taking up room on the sidewalks. >> what i can do, president tanner and commissioner moore, put this on a future agenda of our director's working group. i will include that on the future agenda and report back to you all. >> president tanner: thank you. other commissioner questions or questions? seeing none. we're moving on to the director's report. >> clerk: moving on to department matters for item 8, director's announcements.

>> very quickly, i wanted to highlight that the housing element information item is booked for next week. the information has been posted on our website or s.f.housingelement.org. it's there. it's been there for the past week. i wanted to let the public know that it's there for review. we'll have at hearing next week. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. item 9, review of past events. actually, we don't have a board report because they were on recess. they did not meet yesterday. we can move on it general public comment at this time. members of the public -- >> president tanner: i want to do and update. able new commissioner will be joining us for next week. her swearing in is next tuesday. >> clerk: general public

comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission that are within the subject matter jurisdiction except agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number speaker exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment maybe moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public in the chambers please line up on the screen sign of the room. those calling in please press star 3. >> caller: good afternoon. i sent the commission and staff an e-mail with attachments on march 29th around 6:00 in the evening which i hope you will read. the main point of the e-mail was to show how the demolition calculations can be and have been manipulated by developers because the calculations has never been adjusted under

section 317b2d. the example in the e-mail was egregious. if the commission reads the screen shots, it is obvious the project avoided the rules not once but twice to manipulate the existing numeric values. this is the loss of speculation of all houses that is considered more financially acceptable. i think any person using common sense would say regardless of this manipulation by a project sponsor, this is a demolition and now the an alteration. i've been reading the 760-page fact for next week's informational hearing on the housing element. on page 163, there's a new policy to eliminate conditional use for demolition, which is

shocking but not surprising given the fact there's never been a discussion about adjusting the demo calcs. on page 525, there's lots to say about the assumptions and statements in this paragraph. interestingly, the ability of the commission to adjust the calcs and reduce the value is not mentioned as a way that has been preserved. the words demolition and calculations are not used the word gymnastics is used to describe how project designed in such a way just under the numeric threshold. this is what the projects did. section 317 has never been apply by staff or the commission is intended. now it is going to be eliminated from the code for being ineffective. >> clerk: that's your time. any other member of the public wishing to make general public comment. this is your opportunity to do

so. if not we'll go to remote callers. >> caller: my name is theodore randolph i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm usually at work on thursday afternoon but today i have spring break. my comment is to ask, what are you doing here? you are not planning. you are planning the commission for pulling your duties according to the planning code. the word planning is semantic here. i see discretionary use two ceqa item. all items are reactive, project by project busy work. at best opportunity for backseat architecting. who hired you to be architects? you are the planning commission. work on plans. this is not planning. our problems with inequality, climate change and so on are too

urgent to be bogged down. we need more projects to move according to plan. i urge you to be a planning commission. thank you. >> caller: yesterday, before noon, documents were submitted to the secretary of the commission which should be in next week's packet. the documents are from a report by the california state auditor published on march 17th of this year. titlelied, regional housing needs assessment. department of housing must improve processes to ensure that communities can adequately plan for housing. municipalities throughout the state has seen double or triple increases in the rena numbers.

current increases have nothing to do with carryover. i urge the department and the commission to read those documents, prior to next week's hearing on the housing elements. as the audit is highly critical of a.c.d.s methodology. the website was known at the outside lens. because the developers thought they wouldn't build on sand dunes. has the department done any marketing research to determine if tens of thousands of people actually -- [ indiscernible ] or is the housing element and extension of ideology. do those supporting identifying the outside land believe that building on the outside lens will lower prices in other

neighborhoods where they do want to live? thank you. >> caller: i agree with theodore's comments earlier, it's kind of ironic that the planning commission is called that. you don't really -- i spend most of your time reducing zoning -- [ indiscernible ] rather than planning for the city. next week housing element is the most important thing that we're going to do. it's the most important thing planning commission work on. i hope you get it right. i'm worried it's way too low. i disagree --

[ indiscernible ] demolition does little to protect affordability. we should have protection against tenant but protection doesn't help anybody. that's all i had to say. thank you. >> clerk: last call for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from member of the public, general public comment is closed. commissioners regular calendar. item 10, case number 2019-01416. this is environmental impact

report.

>> good afternoon members of the commission. i'm julie moore, planning

department staff and environmental coordinate for the lake merced west environmental impact report. e.i.r. was published on februar. the item before you today is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r. prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the california environmental quality act or ceqa in san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. in my presentation told, i will provide you with brief description of the project site and the proposed project. the project significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures and alternatives that will reduce the project significant impacts. project site is located on approximately 11 acres of 520 john muir drive on the southwest

side of lake merced. it city and county of san francisco under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission, sfpuc ownsment project site. the san francisco recreation and parks department and sfpuc manage recreation activities at lake merced. the former site tenant, built and operated facilities at the site from 1934 to 2015. during these activities, led shotgun pellets and other debris fell on to the site and into the lake. after the gun club vacated the site, the sfpuc implemented the pacific gun club which included extensive swell remediation under the oversight of the san

francisco bay water quality control board. contaminated soil was excavated to depths 10.5 feet. because most of the buildings and structures are more than 50 years old, the entire site was evaluated for a cultural landscape. it's a resource that can include buildings, structures and natural elements that are significant as a grouping. the historic resource evaluation determined that the site is a cultural landscape that appears eligible for the listing in the national register of historic places in the california register of historical resources at the local level of significance. for this reason, the project site is considered a historical resource is defined under ceqa. this figure shows the existing site following the soil remediation and the contributing

features of the historic cultural landscape, the rifle range building, shell house, clubhouse and caretakers building. rec park proposes the lake merced project create a facility at the site and manage through the selection and oversight of a section to operate the facility. based on their conditions, the existing buildings will be demolished. a new community building, restaurant and outdoor patio will be built near the center of the site along a playground, multiuse court, basketball court and picnic area.

a new boathouse, boat dock and water craft soft landing area are proposed adjacent to the lake. arborist office proposed that the southeastern end of the site, new restroom and skate park are proposed on the west side and the facility would have 80 parking spaces. the recreation facility would operate primarily during daylight hours and the restaurant will be open until 9:00 p.m. special events hosting up to 500 people such as weddings and group events will be permitted up to 12 times per year. additionally, the sfpuc team will store vehicles at the the yard. the buildings that contribute to the historic cultural landscape are small, one story wood frame

building. these photographs shows the house. these photographs show a semicircular skeet field and a safety fence which contribute to the historic cultural landscape. this site plan depicts the proposed project features only one of the contributing features of the historic landscape, skeet field will be retained in the reused as a picnic area. all other contributing features will be removed. i like to provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the draft e.i.r. the draft e.i.r. found that the project will be unavoidable impacts on the historical landscape that provide for documentation of the historic resource oral histories and interpretive program. the draft e.i.r. also found that impacts on noise, biological

resources and -- the draft e.i.r. analyzed three project navals -- alternatives. under the no project alternative there will be no change to the project site. the building would remain board up. because they do not comply with building codes, they will be unfit for public use. because the site will remain closed to the public. the full preservation alternative would retain all the contributing features of the historic cultural claim except the shell house. the clubhouse rifle range building will be rehabilitating for using of clubhouse,

restaurant and storage. the layout size and locations of these buildings would not be ideal for contemporary recreational uses. the partial preservation alternative would retain the four skeet fields reusing one as a picnic area. the clubhouse and caretakers house. a new restaurant will be constructed at the the center of the site along with the playground and sports court, dividing arrangement of the skeet field. this alternative would mean more project objectives as more modern recreational facilities would be constructed. the no project and full preservation alternative would reduce the significant unavoidable impact on the historic resource. although the partial preservation alternative would retain more of the contributing

buildings and features of the historic cultural landscape, it would still result in the demolition of almost half of the contributing features of the historic resource resulting in an impact that will be significant with mitigation. the alternatives would have similar impacts on noise, biological resource and resources as the propose project which will be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. the no project would not result in new impacts. weaver here today to receive comments from the public and commissioners on the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, please state your name for the record. please speak slowly and clearing so the planning department can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings.

the draft e.i.r. for the proposed project was published on february 23rd and the public review period extends until april 11, 2022. those who are interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing may smi their comments to me at cpc.lake mercedwest e.i.r. at sfgov.org. all commenters who provide their contact information will receive notice of availability of the responses to comments document. known as the final e.i.r. when it is published. if you are providing verbal comments today and you wish to

receive this notice, or if you wish to receive hard copy or electronic copy of the draft or final e.i.r., please provide your contact information on the e-mail address above. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> president tanner: we're ready for public comment. >> lake merced is part of my district. i will be working with the community on this for over on year. i wanted to say thank you so much on the recreation and parks department and planning staff for the work in this document.

it is -- lake merced is a jewel. it provides natural habitat for water, wilderness and fowl and ducks and all kinds of wildlife including the westside coyotes. it provides recreational opportunities for young people and old people and everything in between in our city. specifically for the pacific rowing club and driving boats. this e.i.r., we support. we to not support partial alternative or the no alternative. obviously, lake merced has been neglected for a long time.

over a years we have been able to clean out the led and boathouse that's sorely needed. i'm here to put on the record that the project that is proposed is not necessarily what the community supports. i wanted it to be on the record when we have the funding to go ahead with redeveloping the side of the lake, we want to make sure that the desires and the needs the community are reflected. the pacific rowing club has been a point of access for under served youth to get into rowing. which has traditionally been an activity that has been more exclusive because of the expense. they have a waiting list during the summer that they can't fill. at the current facilities are

very neglected and dangerous. the opportunity to move thanks to the other side into make them have the capacity to serve not just the need that we currently have but to grow the access to the lake. it's really important. i'm just here to say on the record that i understand that the rec and parks they don't need to put it in the e.i.r. the community did have lots of input about this. i wanted it to be on the record with the planning commission that we wish the facilities that we're presented in the e.i.r. included a larger boat dock and space for more boating because that is what the community currently needs and that we're hoping that in the future as we make this board more equitable and access to west side park resources, more equitable. we can just grow our capacity and build our infrastructure to make that happen.

thank you so much for considering our little corner of the world. i want to thank dick morton and coach sam nelson with the rowing club for participating in this process. >> president tanner: thank you. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. you can just line up on the screen side of the room. we'll take you all in the order that you line up. you'll have two minutes. >> caller: hello. my name is emily, i'm the program director at pacific rowing club at lake merced. i represent all the rowing communities there. the adult rowers are involved. i've been involved with the rowing community at lake merced for 20 years. yes, that is over half of my lifetime. i would like to request the modification to lake merced

draft e.i.r. of the addition of a much larger aquatic center where the former skeet fields of 8 and 9 are located. i think pacific rowing club really shares the same objectives as the project and believe we can fill great portion of them. i was just little -- i was born and raised in san francisco. i went to rooftop to lowell, spent my summers -- i love my city. i really love my program. i want to get rowing into as many people lives as possible. i think it can benefit anyone no matter where you come from, who you are. i want to see that happen. especially for the youth being able to get recruited to go to college, like the doors open. i was recruited uc berkeley. it's incredible how much rowing

changed my life. i would say this process i've been feeling little blocked out by not really knowing what's going on and having comments not be heard. not knowing what we need to do. we want to create a great community center at the lake and make lake merced a tremendous force. we need to be told what we need to do. we're ready to do it. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm sam nelson, i'm a 19-year member of the rowing community. not 20. born in san francisco, went si. i speak for myself here but also as part of the long alumni group. i'm also a nurse at s.f. general in the icu.

i've been busy the last couple of years. i want to one final note in my own introduction, i have specifically studied d.e.i. efforts in sport of rowing. bringing the sport to the widest population possible, not just people of color, it's a geld mine. i think san francisco and lake merced can really do that. the current facilities just don't allow us to do that. the proposed facility and the plans simply don't provide that either. 3000 square foot space for paddleboards and kayaks are division what this lake with provide for the community. i like to reiterate too, something 14,000 square foot facility this that southern most portion, simple structure would provide future resources for

rowing, veteran rowing, adult rowing and comprehensive rowing. they agreed to move the arborist facility, which is sticking point in our concerns. that sounds incredible. i wanted to thank you for your time. it's a huge amount of work you have to do. that document is impressive. thank you very much. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm also here on behalf of the pacific rowing club regarding the development of lake merced west. i didn't realize that representative melgar will be here. i appreciate everything she said. i want to reiterate everything that's been said already. the facility that's been drafted up for this e.i.r. is a bit on

the small side. we are trying to grow our program and try to help the community more. we started an adult program six months ago or so. we've gotten people who rowed before and we've gotten people who haven't rowed at all. we've gotten people who coming out to row with their kids. they're making these connections and they are doing all these things that -- sorry. they are making big influence on their life. i was the first person in my family. graduated from a four-year college. rowing definitely opened the door for me to do that. it will be great if we could have more opportunity and bigger facilities to see our vision and help more people and bring our community together.

thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. rich, nice to see you. you pulled me with my day off. usually you'll see me with a nice fresh shave and a coach. i started rowing in 1990. i stopped, didn't have a chance to pick up an oar until last year. what i can tell you, we have a once in a generational opportunity to change the face of rowing. nothing has changed in rowing from my perspective over the last 30 years. in san diego, lot of similar faces, lot of similar tribal contingencies with regard to teams. i think sport of rowing has an

opportunity to change the nature and sport and the ability for people to participate at different levels. i will tell you that i support the e.i.r. in its full capacity but as everyone mentioned before, there are some key architectural distinctions that will make a boathouse slightly larger and functional and inclusive. i read the 800 page e.i.r. report this morning. let's do it. i appreciate your time. specifically the cancellation of -- specifically theexclusion ofr boathouse, got me up out of bed to share my comments with you today. -- can i put this in the record?

>> clerk: yes. thank you that concludes comments from members was public. we'll go to remote callers. you need to press star 3 to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i'm andrew howard. i went to frederick burks school. later in the day at our house on mt. davidson, even here, 2.12 miles away, we can hear the gun reports. from here it's more ominous, it

comes in the direction of the elementary school or lowell high school and the fear of another school shooting is present. now, recreational area is being planned on the parcel immediately south of the gun range. this cannot be right. imagine the family on the ropes course and gunfire erupted nearby. the mom with ptsd with her service in afghanistan is right there. the impact of this range on the project been considered? thank you. >> caller: good afternoon planning commission. my name is webb powell. i'm a rower myself. long time resident of san francisco. i want to thank everybody for

their work on this project. it's a terrific opportunity for san francisco on the only body of water that we have that can do some of these sports that we're talking about. we do have lot of opportunities for tennis courts and basketball courts and parks. i want to thank supervisor melgar for her unbelievably flamboyant -- addressing the fact that the needs and desire of the community is not being met by this e.i.r. i was very disappointed in number of community meetings that were held by parks and rec. they did not listen the needs of the community. supervisor melgar, thank you and please, keep pushing for the right thing for the city and for

the community. it seem like the park and rec department and the property manager had a train on the track and able to listen to people. i want to thank you. please know, we all support this as a city, we need people like you to make sure it doesn't change. thank you very much, commissioners. >> hello, commissioners. i want to echo what was said before. thank you all very much for all the work that you put in this project. it is so important to us which is why you seeing this huge ground swell of community support. the space on the lot for larger boathouse is insufficient. i wanted to add that the community of not just p.r.c. has

grown so fast and vibrant that we are more than willing to leverage our community in order to create a ground swell to push any new project through financially. we're not asking for any major boathouse. we're asking for the space to be allotted for us. that's the most important thing for us. foggier -- thank you very much. >> caller: supervisors thank you so much for your time. i'm leslie lambert. i'm currently a parent and

rower. i have been a part of the community for close to 10 years. i have a son who is now in college, he went through the program in high school. it was absolutely life changing for him. it takes lot of time to be a good rower. it was wonderful that he was able to spend time in such a big place where physical health is such great values. i have a second child is in middle school who has joined the program. it's been such a joy to see over the past few years, not only has grow -- rowing club, they expanded the program to support younger kids who don't have a

ton of opportunities in middle school that are really community-based. i think it's such a special place. the middle school program at pacific is incredibly robust and incredibly diverse. much more diverse than -- [ indiscernible ] i started rowing as an adult about six months ago. i do really appreciate the support with the e.i.r..

>> clerk: thank you, that's your time. >> caller: i'm a san francisco resident. my son dennis has been a member of p.r.c. and the rowing club. i'm calling to support the draft e.i.r. and add my comments in support of supervisor melgar and the speakers from both rowing clubs. i'm requesting that somebody within the public service reach out and let them know the best way possible to bounce their ideas in this process. lot of work was put into the adding comments to the e.i.r. when it was being handled by

park and rec. for some reason those comments did not make it in this analysis in front of you. i would ask you to take that on board and it would be fantastic if someone from it planning department would reach out and provide that community service to the interested parties. i will add my comments in a letter for the record. thank you very much. >> clerk: last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional request to speak from pubs of the public. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. this is for your review and comment only. >> president tanner: i want to thank all the callers and those who are here in the room.

thank you supervisor for joining us. i want to support your comments. i want to thank staff as well for your very thorough review as usual, very comprehensive e.i.r. certainly, i think what if i understand the e.i.r. correctly, the larger boathouse was considered but was not included because it didn't have additional environmental impacts by having a larger boathouse. i can appreciate the concern and the desire. if you change between now and in the future expansion, incremental made, then the environmental is not the hurdle that we have to get over to have additional space. i want to acknowledge those comments and we hear what you're saying and your perspective. only thing i can say, i can't wait to go to this park.

it looks really fun. i will look to other commissioners. commissioner koppel. >> vice president moore: public comment has been extremely important and thank you supervisor melgar for this discussion right in the center where we are. you need opportunity to reconsider a major public open space.

these comments very much echoed what i experienced doing treasure island e.i.r. most recently with expanding public access for city youth in that particular case canoe and surfing. we had the review of the board request for considering the rowing and swimming. thank you supervisor melgar for your comments and putting it right in front. my second comment is an appreciation of historic preservation. i want to support and ask the

review through the equity lens into our group of responses. the fact that ramaytush ohlone, are indeed the historic occupiers of this land. i would hope that all of us embrace that thought. going from there, i saw the comments on preservation opportunities and no project alternative. i don't want to get into detail. the e.i.r. sort out how we can minimize impacts and maximize

reuse of the site. with that, i want to go a number of points that i heard made over the past three or six months, particularly with project impact on not just the site as it is but on the context in which a site occurs. that is lake merced at large. how does that impact not just on the site but habitat is a matter of looking at the lake. how does the project serves social equity? remote location of the site makes it difficult to city at large to come here and might need public transportation. only expecting people will come here by car, creates burden.

we all know that the need of open space in this particular form that is increased and come into strong focus and the ability of people not having their own spaces. finding access and accessibility to this newly open space, i think that's something e.i.r. should consider. there are concerns about the site including that rec and park seems to say -- [ indiscernible ] that concerns me there's concern that the facilities, the restaurants and numbers ever people that are expected to this side of site, make it too much enterprise that can only be supported certain segments of

the population but not by everybody. i like to really see close analysis of what is really expected even data what is required to make this viable and successful enterprise. i like to deemphasize entrepreneurial part of the open space opportunities. one ask i have about the e.i.r., i found it more difficult to read through the alternatives without having the pictures which describe them right next to them. in other e.i.r.s, we have

mostly a matrix at the top shows small form what the alternative is in column form summary of impacts. in this case, we have things very much thrown together and you have to go back-and-forth to get to the imagery, which explains which alternative you exactly looking at. [ please stand by ]

i was trying to find the club to roll and i was trying to drive in both scenes and the one thing i could find was in oakland and south san francisco so i ended up joining a dragon boat team and south san francisco and then ended up quitting because it just took a lot of my time. dragon boat and rowing takes a

lot of your time and i'm working out, by the way. i believe you have to practice for times a week for that. and by the time i got to see the kind of facility we had in south san francisco and here that this facility is 3000 square feet is not enough because the boats are longer and there's also some of the storage for the equipment needs to be there. so i do support them having a bigger facility for the rolling community because that's what's needed i think in san francisco because we don't have that much recreational activity around here and if there are they are pretty expensive in terms of membership . so i'm excited to see that a committee facility is going to be improved in this area and i have also in my free time have

hiked around the university so really beautiful area and underutilized at the same time . i do have also in terms of the eir and the kind of analysis that's been done in terms of the biological resources and how a biologist can be part of this during the construction time. i think there are some good mitigation measures being done here. however i do also want to emphasize in terms of the usage of these let's what's being proposed in front of us because i do want to highlight in terms of this open space of how it's going to be used for public open space and the recreation activities rather than the restaurant and that's something i feel like that perhaps

included in the comment is the effect of the habitable effect of the referendum especially if there's going to be 500 fitting in this area, how's that going to impact on the biological resource aroundhere . and if we're going to also, i would an commissioner moore and her comments around the racial socialequity in terms of accessing the area . i think we need to emphasize as well the public transportation access and other forms of transportation aside from cars . so in this for me i would emphasize on the open space and recreational use of this area then the restaurant use >> thank you, commissioner diamond . >> thank you. i too want to thank supervisor nice to see you in front of your old session. two sets of comments, first is

as i understand section 283 of the eir, our only input is to review and certify the eir. we have no input on the actual decision as to what is built . that being said, especially in light of the comments that we heard today i feel like it's important to ensure that in the response to comments that they take all the steps necessary to address impacts that would come from a larger facility so that if the decision-makers ultimately do go along with the wishes of the rowing club that are not held up by having to redo any documents. that this document should be brought up explicitly brought enough to cover that solution

if that's where the ultimate decision-makers decide to land. i also on a separate note want to say even though we don't get to approve the contract, we just are defined as a eir that i am excited about this projec . it opens up an incredible resourceto a much broader swath of the community . it's a very very intense use of the site in the sense it allows for multiple uses and i appreciate that the project designers are going to insure this facility appeals to as many people as possible and that strikes me as particularly important as we embark on an effort with the housing element to increase density, probably on the west side. we need to make sure we have increased recreational facilities as well to . so i am very excited to see this project come to fruition

so thankyou . >> i see vice president moore has her hand up again. >> i had forgotten to mention something which i have injected in all discussions about nightlife use and recreational open spaces near the coast, that we are very mindful of not having night lighting and distract in this area. the view of the city at night should be left illuminated in this part of the city and basically reflect the open space that it represents.so i like to put this to record on excessive lighting.

>> i add my voice to support thatcomment in thinking about the directionality and intensity of lighting for the park at night . i don't see any other hands from other commissioners so i think we already concluded. i want to offer again tothe supervisor and others who came into city hall we appreciate you being here with us today . >> great,thank you. this places us on item 11 , 282088, 2742 mission street, this is an informational presentation . >>. [inaudible] good afternoon

president and members of the commission, rich prey representing on behalf of lind aiello holman . before you is an informational item related to a conditional approval on the home sf object authorization located at 4742 mission street . on march 4 2021 the planning commission conditionally approved a home sf project at 4742 missions street through planningcommission motion 20868 . consisting of demolition of an existing vacant approximately 7000 square-foot commercial building located on the lot and new construction of a 45,000 square-foota story over basement , 74 foot six inch tall 46-year-old unit mixed-use building with approximately 2400 square of commercial space on the ground floor and mezzanine. at the time of the hearing the landscape design ofthe rear yard had not yet been developed and revisions to the roof deck

were requested . as such a condition of approval was imposed for requiring a landscape land and revised roof deck come back as an informational item for review . before the commission today for review and comment our plans reflect the reduction of the usable area of the roof deck from approximately 3997 feet to 3112 square feet. by setting back the railing from the building and providing a landscape buffer and a landscape plan for the usable open space and rear yard of the property. the plans also include a copy of the ingress and egress recorded on the property. action by the commission is required and the like to introduce you to the project sponsor is prepared a presentation . this includes a staff presentation and staff are available for anyquestions, thank you . >> thank you commissioners, on behalf of the project sponsor if i could get the computer

screen please. thank you. many of you may remember that you approved the project at 4742mission street last month . as mister craig mentioned it's a home sf object with a 47 unit building with 25 percent affordable unitsand as part of the home sf approval we were granted a floor height up to 65 foot . the property has a unique condition in that the rear of the property is subject to an emergency egress providing access to leo street. soconsidering this the commission asked that the project come back for an informational hearing once the final design of that rearguard was developed .

and so you'll see on the screen and in your packets in the plans there is a hard scape separating the rear wall of the project and landscape area at the rear of thelot . this allows for the required progress while providing open space for the project resident . we work with the neighbors, they agreed to this design and as thesupervisor mentioned we've updated the easement . we got it all down on paper so everyone is clearly on board with changes or the new design. the commission also had questions about the final design of the roof deck which we have on the screen right now. we have since your last hearing pulled the deck five feet off the light well toprovide some privacy to neighbors . in addition to the existing setbacks that are on all sides of the building that were there at your hearing last march so

we welcome any comments the commission has as we pursue final approval of our permits and thankyou, we are here if you have any questions . >> thank you, that concludes the project sponsor presentation and we should open up public comment. any member of the public in person or remote would liketo speak , pressá3 to be added to the queue. seeing the requests, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you . >> i don't see any commissioners with raised hands yet. i don't see anybody raising their hand.>> if i may, i have aquestion . the drawing is actually by number, 5.1 and i'd like to know on the right side in the upper drawing, is there any intent of landscaping or some

form of transition to the adjoiningresidential building ? it just showed the last one protected. >> sfgov tv, could we get the computer screen again? we're looking at the same page at the same time, if you specify which area of that top plan you're talkingabout . >> this is actually to the east. that would be the right side of the drawing where you see the easement coming through and that particular area does not have any indication as to landscaping, hard-hitting, whatever . i'd just like to know. >> translate. >> thank you commissioner more. it's not clear in the plan but the intent for that area behind the drive file is to continue

the hard scape that's shown in the upper part of the rear yard so that square design, that's intended to be continued right behind that drive out butthat's not clear and the plan . >> what is the reason for keeping that hard scape, any idea? is it permeable hard scape or one going through the joints or what is the idea there? >> thank you for the question. and i hope i'm responding directly to it. the intent of how design and you see how it's diagonally stepping up towards the rear is the dark space above is where the adjacent building is we need to provide the hard scape to the gate on the fence that gets you behind the building above the site.

and the question about the materials, they will be papers. presumably there will be the ability to absorb storm water and other water between those papers. >> i'm just concerned there is no noise continuationbecause you have residential buildings to the east and to the right . and i just hope there would be some green along the fence to get a visual barrier because we have a change of landingshere . that's justan observation and you may want to think about that . >> thank you commissioner and as i said we're stillworking with staff on this . we need to provide that access it'ssomething we can work with prior to the permit issuing . >> that would be great, thank you so much.

>> i had an commissioner morse, thinking about whether it's promises or anything along the drive file that could take up space so you could have some vertically adding less but it's not picking up the ground floo and just decided the comments on permeability being a key priority , whenever we do get to the lane, hopefully more in the future than we have in the past making sure we're not letting that go into our storm drain and out into the ocean. i want to thank staff for working with the project sponsor andi'm happy to see the progress that'sbeen a happy to see a home sf project so thank you forbringing more housing to our city . any other questions from commissioners ? i think this is concluded . >> very goodcommissioners. that will place us on the final item on today's agenda for item 12 , case number2021-003326cua, 491 23rd avenue .

>> before we go tothe staff presentation unlike commissioner diamond to make a disclosure . >> thank you very much. i wanted to let the commission and the public know that the architect of this project, david marlette is an architect i have retained personally for services. that engagement terminated almost a year ago. i do not believe that will affect my ability to evaluate this case impartially but i did want toalert the commissioners . >> thank you commissioner diamond. with thatyou can proceed with the presentation . >> good afternoon commissioners,greta gunter . the project at 491 23rd avenue includes the alteration and expansion of existing restorative single-family

dwelling from approximately 1963 square foot to 2342 square feet and the addition of an approximately 644 square foot accessory dwelling unit on the first floor. the project will increase the total number of units from 1 to 2 and increase the building to 2986feet . project is located between anza street and geary boulevard in an rm one zoning district. the product would not maximize density and will cost existing units less than 2000 square feet larger in size with an rm one zoning district. thus requiring a conditional use authorization under the interim zoning control for large residential projects . the existing dwelling unit will continue to occupy the second and thirdfloors and total 2342 square feet . the new accessory dwelling unit will occupy the first floor and

total 644 square feet. the project includes two new class one bicycle parking spaces and 52 square foot private debt and 196 and a half roof deck for the dwelling unit and i'm an approximately 372 square foot shared yard . to date the department has received no correspondences from members of thepublic . the project will create one new dwelling unit to increase density from 1 to 2 units there will not be a loss of rent control unit, single-family dwelling units are not subject to rent control and will be fully retained . the proposed project is code compliant, compatible with the starting context in terms of massing and further will not be visible from the public right-of-way. the addition at the rear has been designed in a way that is sensitive to the adjacent neighbors and maintains privacy

and fully matches existing light wells. the department finds the project to be compatible and unnecessary and desirable and recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation . >>i think the project sponsor has a chance to present .>> when you start speaking, sfgov tv should shift to your slide. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is david marlin, i want to thank the staff for their presentation of ourproposal to add an accessory dwelling unit and main dwelling unit at 491 23rd avenue . >> can you pop the time for a second? the screen maynot be showing your project on the computer . >>. [inaudible]

>> i will reset time is it in the usb? >> sorry about that.

i guess i have my packet. >> we will have our staff share your presentation. >> we can look at those. >> how hand those out right now. >> can you share josie's screen? she's sharing the slides. >> perfect, thank you.

>> then if you want to advance theslide . >> thankyou . go analog. okay, thank you. good afternoon again commissioners. i want to thank the staff for their presentation of our proposal to add accessory dwelling unit, expand the main dwelling unit at 23rd avenue , constructed in 1950 the home is currently 1963 square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. it takes up 80 percent of its short depth and even encourages about 42 inches into the rear yard setback. it has been on remodeled and added onto over the years making the current plan and efficient and out of sync with the ownersneeds . the current owners are a family of four who have lived in the

house since 2004. next please. they wish to remain in san francisco to raise their growing family, to achieve this goal financially and physically theypropose to add an edu to modestlyexpand the main dwelling unit to accommodate their needs . want to improve the home safety, code compliance and energy efficiency .our proposal is to create a one-bedroom edu, remodeled the spaces and locksthe primary bedroom and at a bedroom for the kids and two bathrooms . next please . our project is 1023 square feet of conditioned space of which about a third page 79 is in the primary unit and 644 in the adu. the footprint expands 256 square feet but only along the side of the property adjacent to a blind wall that our property shares with 485 23rd avenue. because this exceeds the 2000

foot for a main dwelling unit that is not maximize density under zoning control and we're seeking a conditional use authorization to add 2022 square feet of space to the livingunit. the adu is proposed in an unfinished basement area in the rear ofthe building . the unit is accessed from a tunnel on the north side with an alternate entrance . the size as you can see in the plan is maxed out betweenthe existing garage wall, rear yard, required access for an art and south neighbor and south neighborhood stairwell . next please. upstairs the rooms are basically untouched in the front. a new kitchen is added and the side alleyarea and bathroomis relocated in the front hallway . a new stair connects the living level to the garage and the bike well in the south is preserved . on the upper floor the primary bedroom is expanded with a kitchen intoa current roof deck area. two new bathrooms are created

and one new bedroom . finally, an existing roof deck is expanded on new rooms but stillunder 200 square feet . and some, there was nothing excessive orexceptional about this . it provides four bedrooms, 3 and a half baths and 2400 square feet for a family of four. next please. in preparation for the hearing we surveyed properties and roughly 200 foot radius to understand our project fits into the neighborhood . our survey included 120 addresses and55 buildings and we asked the taxassessor data for the building area .next please . of the 55 buildings before or compatible two hours either as angle family houses. of the 22 unit buildings, 11 are solid ground proposed projects and nine are larger in other words we're pretty much in the middle and we don't feel there's projects are in any way an outlier.

next please. drilling in deeper our proposed building is only110 square feet larger than the average two unit building . in addition to this being a modestly sized addition, there are other considerations that we feel supports our application. although ourproject could not create a three unit building it does add to the sanfrancisco housing stock . no neighbors haveopposed our project , the expansion is not visible from the street and the buildings are larger than us . the project adds no height, no depth with almost nochange to the 1915 building fagade . the projectprovides needed safety and code upgrades for the building as well as improving its energy efficiency .the neighbor at 485 23rd avenue is completing a larger expansion with a 2900 square foot main unit based on their permit filed in 2018.

application was filed three weeks after the zoning control took effect. their project demonstrates there is recent precedent for a main dwelling unit of more than 2000 square feet in this neighborhood and on this block of their dwelling unit is not feasible within the volume of the existing unless the concept of the main dwelling unit is abandoned entirely and the current ownersanother whole thank you for your time and we're available for any questions . >> thank you, that concludes projectsponsors presentation. we should take public comments, members in the chamber i don't see any . you can line up on the screen side of the room, any member of the public attending remotely please press star 3. seeing no request to speak from any member of the public public comment is closed and the item is nowbefore you . >> i think the projectsponsor for a concise use of yourfive minutes this is really well done .

any comments from commissioners ? mister diamond was before i believe onher disclosure . commissioner koppel. >> greatjob and very tastefully done . >> we have frank fung, commissionerfung . >> is miss claudia there? >> she's not in chambers online. >> perhaps somebody else can bring forth. when we had the discussions related to the policy behind this staff had indicated there was one project upon which the policy was based going forward. are there on number of other projects similarly to this one?

>> give me a number ofprojects that are similar . subject to interim control. >> right. >> just to clarify these are interim controls that supervisor basket introduced and were passed. these haven't been necessarily before us as this is the second case we had, i believe it's the second we had implementing these controls. but i'm not sure if we have others pending. >> commissioner fung, this is technically our fourth one of these and there's none others pending in the northwest area of the city and as far as i understand and the northeast there's not any right now. >> thank you. it's a contorted way of having to deal with such a small addition.

>> i just want to add my voice to that and for vice president more, this object is very tasteful, very modest addition to a home and we are super excited and happy to see especially a dwelling unit that's well laid out with access to the rear yard and it's two-bedroom so i'm happy to see the one-bedroom edition. i'm just sorry our city's policy is a minute addition to have to come to a conditional use hearing. so i'm glad to hear there's not many in the pipeline right now but i don't know if that's a functionof happenstance or if that is a foretelling of whatwe will see . hopefully we can think about this policy together . i know it's interim now but before it comes even more long-standing. commissioner moore.>> i would like to ask the architect the question. this is the question, we asked quite a few years ago and i

wonder if commissioner fong remembers these questions and that is in fact a question that the. [inaudible] adu is still connected to the second floor, given the fact there is an indication of a door that through the store would remain locked. that's indicated on drawing a 1.1 which gives the adu ability to come out of the kitchen and step into a landing that gets into the second floor. since i see the stairs of the second floor and open stair. that means that these two units could be easily connected but it's integrated into the use of the housing. that's an observation that you

are very much to to a few years ago. mostly being freestanding and on their own, it raises the question, the second question i have is is the entrance to the adu going for an exit tunnel does not quite have the prominence of an independent entrance that we would like to see .three feet is barely. somebody with the right shoulders heading outside the wall. the questions i think are importantfor us to consider , first and foremost what what these indicate that this could be actually a single-family home rather than adwelling unit . >> can you address the chair case? >> thank you foryour observation . starting with the tunnel.

obviously the adu requires its own independent access to the public right-of-way. san franciscoyou're dealing with 25 foot lots . the car parking with the single car garage and the existing fagade not wanting for both budget regions reasons and maintaining as much as possible the original fagade to do too much alteration to that.so you are correct in your observation that the front door from the street is fairly discrete. it's not express. it doesn't interrupt the fagade. and the three foot tunnel is the trade-off when we can certainly consider whitening it but it's a question of trade-offs with usability of the garage and functioning as a 25 foot lot. regarding the door at the base of the stair, our intention was not knowing as a potential

landlords whether they would be sharing car parking or the bike parking for the tenant. not having them go outside and comeback inside it seems practical . as the occasion may arise quite often landlords have good relations with their tenants so it was more just because of the practical contingency kind of thinking if it'sraining then you can get into the unit in that manner . i think that's the intention, thank you. >> want to address the question pleaseabout the open staircase ? there should be images through those future units. it would be a wall and not an oak railing. that raises the question about why the store is where it is. so they have an immediate

entrance from the tunnel, i believe that was not necessary and shouldn't be there.unless you are prepared to have the staircase going from the garage to the second floor being basically a staircase otherwise it's hard to believe somebody has an equitable relationship with their staircase into the garage. >> your point is well taken. we could eliminate that door and add potentially a door from the rock. >> you already have one. you already have a door right next to the real garage so the tenant comes out, goes into the tunnel and immediately makes a right to go back into the garage. that's over there.

>> your correct . sorry. >> i would agree with your assessment. commissioner diamond. >> i just wanted to say i appreciated the fact that they designed a much larger adu that we normally see in the situation by a verynice unit . somebody can rent. i also want to share the observations of commissioner tanner and fung that this kind of project doesn't seem like it wants going through the conditional use

. >> in terms of the cua. >> we don't have any current applications on file dealing with this interim control and usually the interim control expires after 18 months. >> they will expire next 18 months. then my thing about this is that i do want to respect and uphold theinterim control being passed by supervisor peskin . the thing about this project is that we are in a way not

maximizing the kinds of units in the proposed project and i think that is the intentof the policy or the legislation itself . in a way, i would like to see either a bigger adu or one more unit in this project in respect of the interim control that we have. but at the same time, this is the project, the proposed project that we have. my other question in terms of because of the increase of the square footage ofthe existing units , in a way it's about 300+ square foot increase of existing units. but the access to the open space of the roof deck remains by the existing units and the unit itself has only 50 blocks. square foot in front of the open space and i think we've been talking about equitable

supplies and in a way equitable access to the amenities of the proposed projects so this is where i'm kind of like struggling in terms of this project . but i do respect the proposed project on this but in terms of our policies and what we've been discussing in theplanning commission i feel like that's something we need to be consistent on . >> i definitely hear you on wanting to respect interim control. part of the challenge is its to maximize the true density of what's allowed itwould be a very different project, very different cost , just a completely different scale than what i think this particular owner is pursuing. as part of the balance we're struggling with is how to maximize density when maximizing can be really run up against other challenges like

maybe to get rid of the fagade or change the building significantly and that hits other parts of our code .>> just to follow up on commissioner moore's comment i think staff has prepared a condition of approval that would basically refinethe interior layout and then make sure that there'sseparation between the two . that would better meet our adu controls commissioner moore's comments are correct . the tunnel does meet code and is consistent with the kind of entry requirements that we have to followthrough. so if the commission will decline we have some . >> just on the overall legislation when the supervisor proposed this we had discussed with his staff and to be since had discussions about that perhaps making these permanent but one issue that, when they were originally proposed is in making them permanent, how does that apply to new construction

which would be very different than how it applies to expansion of existing. i thinkwe're running into that here where this is a fairly modest expansion of a single-family home . they are adding a adu butthe maximum density would be three units . in order to get that you're basically cutting up or doing something very different. would it be easier if this were new construction but because perhaps its historic it gets to be a different su. that's one thing we want to talk to him about if these do become interim controls is perhaps treating new construction differently than an expansion of anexisting in this case single-family home or you could have a adu so it's good, it's getting somewhat of the intent of it but not much . >> i think the other part of it for thelegislation is thinking about how we're defining what

is out of, is it entire buildings ? you have tothousand square foot, have a garage , all you're talking about is a small unit and we're back to where we are building housing for couples or singles that isn't geared towards families with children or international households. so i think it's definitely the intent. none of us here on the commission enjoy the approval with the elevators andall that . that's not what i want to be on the planning commission . at the same time this is clearly not that and it's a far cry.they prevent certainly the mcmansions of the world but they alsoprevent inks like this . i don't think that would bethe supervisor's goal in that . so commission, didyou have your hand up again ? >> we've heard modifications, doyou want to read that into therecord ? >> commissioner tanner . maybe we put our names up afte . >> summary, commissioner fung.

>> i will bethere in person next week . i think staff should also bring forth because you provide or excuse me, not provide. if you require so much process, it acts as the counter protection for productivity where people wanting to add to their homes and therefore the number of units. in any event, since it did come before us i'll hold my further comments on that but i wouldn't move to grant conditional use. >> second. >> motion and the second, we d have vice president more . >> i've wanted to add to director hill's comment, i think it's interesting to look at new construction of older buildings and alterations.

it would be a percentile of how much that would be so this project may fall into that because it isn't that much. the one other thing though to which i'm working with is the fact that the condition of this building is still designed to connect these two units and a matter that has to be really rethought in order to be credible. that is the condition that the commissioner has not even mentioned.anybody want to take the second on that? >> depending on hearing them i would wonder if they would be amenable to addingthose after the hearing . >> asked either miss gunter or john to come up.>> staff recommends a condition that the internal connection connects the two units directly, not the

door leading from the garage but the door that connects the living spaces the comes a solid wall and removes that internal connection. themission will consider that . >> thank you, so i don't know if you're open to adding the conditions of the project commissioner diamond or chair koppel. >> i'd like to hear from commissioner fung first. >> indeed. >> it's the existing door that bothersme . >> very good commissioners. if there is a motion that's been seconded we can call questions. on that motion to approve with conditions that does not include the motion read into the record bystaff, commissioner diamond . [roll call vote] that motion

passes 4 to 2 with commissioners imperial and more voting against. that concludes your short agenda today.i guarantee you next thursday will not be shor . >> thank you everyone, this meeting is adjourned . >>

. >> clerk: when your item of interest comes up, dial star, three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, turn down your listening sources, and

speak slowly and clearly. please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available at sfgovtv.org. >> thank you so much, secretary hom. so we are going to call this meeting to order. this is the our city, our home oversight committee, so we're going to start by doing the roll call. [roll call] >> thank you so much, secretary hom. i just realized we do not have the land acknowledgement on our agenda. i don't know that we can do.

>> it's part of the call to order. >> yeah, let me grab that to keep that from happening. >> no worries. >> all right. just get it on the agenda. can you see my screen? >> yes. >> clerk: yes. >> and is it the powerpoint or is it the agenda? >> it's just a gray screen right now. >> okay. i'm going to stop sharing and then reshare to be able to share. >> there we go. thank you so much. >> we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush

ohlone who are the original inhabitant of the san francisco peninsula. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. thank you. thank you so much, so we'll now move into our next item, which is approval of minutes of the february 24 meeting. is there a motion? >> i'll move. >> is that member friedenbach? >> yes. >> is there a second? >> sure. >> seconded by member reggio. we will go to public comment. is there public comment on this item? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public

comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 24 # # -- 2490-351-0915, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue. please note that you will have three minutes to provide your public comments. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese language] >> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: i'm checking to see

if there's any public comment, and there is no public comment. >> great. we'll take general public comment at this time. members of the public who wish to provide general public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2490-351-0915, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and please note that you will have two minutes to provide your comment. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language] >> clerk: thank you.

cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese language] >> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: graez, thank you. i do see a public commenter. i'll take this first caller. hello, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is albert [indiscernible], and i'm a student at san francisco state university. i was just calling to see if i could find out where the budget

paperwork is located so i could download them for a school project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. checking for any additional attendees, and i do not see any. >> thank you so much, secretary hom. our budget documents are on-line. if we could share the web address with the caller, or put it in the chat, that would be great, so if we could post our budget link in the chat, that would be great. we'll now go to item 4, which is our resolution on teleconferencing. >> clerk: did we take a vote, i'm sorry -- >> we have not. >> did we not take a roll call on the minutes? >> clerk: we did not.

>> all right. let's go back and take a roll call on the ite that was motioned by member leadbetter and seconded by member reggio. [roll call] >> thank you so much, secretary hom. we'll now go to our resolution.

>> because of the covid-19 pandemic, conducting meetings of this body in person would present imminent risk to the safety of attendees, and the pandemic continues to impact the safety of members to meet in person. so at least the next 30 days, the meetings of our city, our home will continue to meet remotely and not in person or places where any policy body

member is present in person. further resolved that the secretary is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the our city, our home oversight committee within the next 30 days. if the committee does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff is directed to place such resolution on agenda of the next meeting of the our city, our home oversight committee. all right. so we are now going to have community discussion or is there a motion to approve -- i do want to ask a question about where we are with this? i know we were aiming to get

back in person this month. i don't know, jessie, if you could give us an idea of where we're at with regard to getting back to meeting in person. >> sure. there was an intention to get back to meeting in person. i think omicron has delayed that plan. so the mayor has begun making it possible for some policy bodies to begin meeting in person. our policy body is not one of those, so we are prohibited from meeting in person. >> thank you so much. is there any comments or questions from the committee? okay. seeing none, we'll go to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting

i.d., 2490-351-0915, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to enter the queue, and please note that you will have two minutes to provide your comment. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language] >> clerk: great. thank you. cantonese interpreter, please.

[speaking cantonese language] >> interpreter: thank you. >> clerk: i'm checking the attendee list if there are any hands raised, and there are no hands raised. >> thank you, secretary hom. i'm looking for a motion to approve -- >> i can approve. >> approve -- >> okay. a motion by member leadbetter and seconded by member andrew. roll call vote. [roll call]

>> so the motion passes. we will now get into our presentation portions of the meeting. we will start with a presentation from carol lu with the budget analyst on our collection, projections, and reserve policy. >> thank you. can i share my screen, please? >> clerk: sure. >> how does that look? >> clerk: it looks good. >> okay. thank you. good morning, everyone. my name is carol lu. i'm citywide revenue manager in the controller's budget and

analysis division, so i'll briefly go over our revenue update and discuss the potential reserve policy. so just to review, the homelessness gross receipt tax was imposed through the november 2018 prop c, and it's a tax on gross receipts in excess of $50 million, and it's on top of original gross receipts. the base of the tax includes the largest payers of the existing gross receipts tax bill. in to 20, that was about 340 payers, versus the 1040 payers

of the original gross receipts tax. each year, the budget and legislative analyst, controller's office, and mayor's office issue a report on revenue collection, projections, and reserve policy, and the forecast is a little worse than the general forecast. we have a forecast every spring, and we listen to expert economists and on the ground experts in the hospitality industry to hear what they're seeing on the ground as practitioners, and in terms of, like, keepings that apply to the gross receipts tax, hybrid work is here to stay, and they think the long run average of being in the office would be about three days a week, so

that would depress our gross receipts tax, but on the flip side, they think there is a new potential for growth as other businesses fill in unused space. [indiscernible] and that would impact our property and transfer tax. so in terms of how we translated that, we assume -- from the entire projection, we assume higher long run telecommuting, so we assume 30% instead of 15%? and then, we incorporate the

cash receipts to date as well as the initial tax year filing data. so in terms of the numbers, what does that look like? this is what the numbers look like to the march update for homelessness gross receipts? this is budget? this column is our prior forecast. green is the new forecast, and the earlier forecasts. so just some final thoughts on revenue. we've talked about this before, but san francisco's taxes are really volatile, and this fund in particular is supported by just this one single revenue

source, which also increases its exposure to unanticipated changes in the business cycle? as i said before, we project further tax weakness versus budget, so our march forecast is approximately $30 million to $40 million in annual losses just from two forecasts ago? we don't forecast the sessions, but there is risk, if you've been paying attention. as the federal reserve increases interest rates to fight inflation, that would cause a recession, and at the same time, when there are recessions, usually, the demand for homelessness services is usually increasing at the same time. so this could really guard against future relative

volatility and services could continue to operate at projected levels. here's some principal reserve policies. [indiscernible] some jurisdictions are mitigating, like, earthquake risk or, you know, just various types of risks depending on what it is they're managing? in terms of size, that's related to the purpose of scope, and then also, between multiyear versus one-year risk? and then, there's another component to think about is, like, when do you use your reserve and when do you replenish your reserve? and just, like, personally, you wouldn't want to put all of your money just in your savings account for savings?

you might want to, like, size and have different policies for the different things that you're saving for? so it's, like, i'm going to save $10 a month from my paycheck -- or $10 to build up something like the christmas present reserve or something that you value or need to save up for, or you might have a savings account just to, like, be able to save for, i don't know, a car or a house, and then, for your retirement, you would use a different kind of retirement to save for a decade or spending in old age. similar to personal finance, you're balancing between current and future year needs when developing a policy, so there's really no program for

setting a reserve. if you look at the government policy reserve, they talk about all of these methods that i talked about. it just depends on the risk being managed and the potential consequences if you don't manage this risk. so they do offer -- the government cessation office, they recommend a fund reserve of two months, or 15% of operating expenditures, and that's really, like, a number that they throw out in the guidance. so the city and county of san francisco has numerous reserves and reserve policies? in the general fund, there is a general reserve that funds,

like, unanticipated funds in the current year, and there's a target balance for that reserve between 1.5% to 3%, depending on where we are in the economic cycle? another thing you might have heard about is our economic stabilization reserve? that's a combination of rainy day reserved enshrined in the city charter and the budget stabilization reserve? they're used to close economic deficits in economic downturns? it has a policy measurement of 10% of revenue, and we hit that in 18-19 and 19-20, but that 10% general fund revenue was

accumulated, i think, over the prior decade, so it took a long time to save, and the use rules are it can only be used during times of economic downturn. like, a third, a third, and a third. and then, there are other general economic downturn reserves, like, a fiscal cliff mitigation reserve. there's a state and federal level reserve to guard against all of the downturns.

there's a free city college reserve that kind of guards against losses in free city college programs, so there's a bunch of different reserves in the general fund. and enterprise fund, each under prize unless also has their own contingent policy -- enterprise also has their own contingent policy. in terms of the homeless gross receipts tax, we would recommend a 10% to 20% reserve? this table just looks at the performance of the general fund business taxes because we don't have that much history of homelessness gross receipts

tax. here, you can see in the salmon color, these are times of recession when the actuals were lower than budget, and you can kind of see the dollar value size and the percentage of budget that was -- you know, it's quite varied. it might be 13% up to 22% in this most recent recession? and so it just kind of gives you a sense of, like, the similar kind of risk in the homelessness gross receipts fund. so i guess what i would offer is the biggest fund is general reserve fund, and we can organize the rules around that general kind of concept. as i mentioned, the [indiscernible] suggested maybe a 10% to 20% would be helpful,

and that 10% to 20% aligns with roughly the number you saw on the other page. it's really in line with everything else. in terms of how a reserve could work, these are just some numbers about possible reserve mechanics. we could do a reserve at each year end once we know what the actual spending is within each budget is, and then, within each main category -- there's four main categories -- deposits could be made within each category, and it could be made due to savings in those categories, or if there's just a revenue surplus, that surplus could go to category. in terms of withdrawals, because it seems like revenue is the biggest risk, it would make sense to kind of pull the withdrawal rules to a revenue

loss. so one recommendation would be that you only use reserve when revenue is less than budgeted, and the budget would sustain that spending level. in terms of where, like, this would fit, we could codify this through an administrative provision through the annual revisions, and this is where some of these are codified? so this is where we are now, and in terms of our next steps, i know there's probably some questions that folks have, so i'm happy to answer any. i know our folks have some work to do to understand how these reserve rules would actually work with the numbers that are being proposed right now, and i was thinking we could come back

to this group with more concrete examples in the next meeting. that's all i had. any questions? >> thank you so much, carol. we'll now open it up to the committee for any comments or questions, and as carol mentioned, we're going to kind of be workshoping this policy and bringing it back for possible action. are there questions from the committee? i see vice chair d'antonio and then member friedenbach. >> i just had a couple of comments and questions. so can you explain to me why the last two years of projections increased based on what the connectists you guys spoke with are projecting? >> oh, why they decreased?

>> why they increased, and i think it's 24-25, like, on the next slide. >> oh, okay. >> it's really this idea that, like, office space might be unused for a while, but, like, eventually, people are going to

want to use it for some use, so you can see more businesses fitting into, like, the same office space, and that's the underlying assumption there. >> part of me is thinking we're going to see, like, larger corporations grow, as well, like the facebooks that are growing up a lot of office space, and visa that's coming over to mission room, and, like, larger companies and a lot of smaller ones, but that just would be my inclination. and then, what is the process -- what is the process to codify, and then, how do we change it in the future, like, if there's something we want to change, growth isn't looking like what we thought or if we're looking at the level of, like, how much we're going to save? >> yeah, so for the -- i mean,

this might go to the city attorney. i'm not exactly sure. >> yeah, no worries. >> but i would think -- i mean, my general sense is those words can be used in the general budget cycle, so i think that would be an opportunity to do

that. another way would be to make the words in the admin provision a little bit more vague, and that would allow for flexibility. >> well, thank you, carol, and i just have a couple of more comments and questions. one thing i would like to see if possible would be, like, to see the numbers projected with, like, ten, like, 15 and 20%, like, how long it would take to build a reserve. i think that would, like, be something helpful for me to see. and personally, this is a comment to the committee. like, i think 10% from my perspective is good. i kind of -- i would hate to just have, like, all these funds sitting there instead of going out into the community, and so i guess that 16.7% is sort of, like, the suggested

average, but it does seem for a lot of city reserves, 10% seems to be the average, and so i -- yeah, that's my personal observation. >> thank you, member d'antonio. >> okay. member friedenbach? >> yeah, thank you for the conversation. i'm concerned with the higher reserves when we've got folks out on the street and struggling and the money's not put in use. we have a ton of city reserves that are there, that if we are on shortcomings to be drawn from, and i think a lot of savings in city government expenditures that are pretty

wasteful in a pretty large city budget. i'm not concerned about losing programs and for me, the focus should be on homelessness and forcing some general contributions there, i don't think that would be a problem. but if we do do a reserve fund, i would strongly recommend that we not do it this year at a

time when we're in a period of downfall. and i think if we did an additional -- and if we can do -- and if we are working towards -- if we're doing reserves, then it should be incremental over time to make sure that we're not taking away from investments that are real emergencies that we're seeing among unhoused communities, so that it's not -- you know, if there is unused funds that we can draw, i don't think that we can, though. like, i think, like, it literally, like, impacts certainly services. like, in behavioral health, we'd be able to pull because that has a lot of gray in it,

but shelter at the other end doesn't. so i think from that perspective, i would -- i would rather us kind of, like, carefully building towards it rather than -- rather than having this immediate impact that that direct service is cut. having been through the recession, i've seen what happens when dollars drop, but

if the funds are coming back up, but we know that prop c is not going to come close to helping the 19,000 homeless people that are out there. >> member reggio? >> thank you. my friendly amendment would be

is -- that either are not up to -- up to full operation or arguably even in existence, so this is our moment in time to do something to a level that we probably won't be able to do, generally speaking, from next year and beyond as these programs start to function, so i think it's worth thinking about from many perspectives, but that would be mine. >> thank you, member andrews.

we'll now go to member reggio. >> yes, i echo the appreciation. i have two questions. one is with regard to practice, other specific funds. i think you mentioned some of the funds in the city, the restricted funds. with reserve funds, would this be the exception or the norm?

if there was a reserve in place, [indiscernible] so those programs wouldn't die, but that's a question. would the ocoh funded programs be eligible to receive reserve support from other sources? . >> thanks for those questions. in terms of other reserves, i think you're asking about when are they used -- >> i'm asking does every restricted fund -- not general

funds, but restricted fund have a reserve. in other words, is that the norm throughout the city? >> yeah, it's -- every enterprise fund has a reserve, like, the n.t.a., p.u.c., and the airport. the special revenue funds, because of baby c and big c, we didn't really have other special revenue taxes, so it's very recent that we've had those, so they haven't had a chance to really be tested. i will say the thing that's most akin to that is the library preservation fund and the open space fund, they're funded by portions of property

tax, and they have large fund balances, which function, like, a reserve, and open -- actually, the open space fund does have a formal reserve policy. the library, i think they've built up a large reserve over 20 years. so it is best practices financial management to have financial reserves, a sort of policy, a cushion in each fund. >> and if we were to have a fall in our flex spending fund,

let's say there were adequate funds to support that, i mean, it would take decision, i would imagine, by the board of supervisors, to keep that going even if if our own fuchbd was not. >> yeah, it would be -- fund was not. >> yeah, it would be a pressure. >> thank you. if there's no other questions

or comments from the committee, we'll now go to public comment. secretary hom? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2490-351-0915, then press pound and pound again. press star, three to lineup to speak, and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted before you begin your comment. spanish interpreter, please. [speaking spanish language]

>> clerk: great. thank you. cantonese interpreter, please. [speaking cantonese language] >> clerk: great. thank you so much. i'm checking the attendee list for any hand raised, and i'm not seeing any, so there's no public comment on this item. >> great.

i was just told that we don't have a chat function, so if yo

presentation. >> i'm gigi whitley, and i'm joined by other members of our team, najendra, and cynthia. next slide. so just to start with the ocoh funding plan that we're devising, this is still a discussion plan with all of you and the mayor's budget office, but wanted to preview some of our thinking. the plan continues the investment adopted in july, and all of the different strategy

areas. some of the strategies that we discussed with you just back in july have stayed the same. really increasing the range and availability, permanent access from homelessness through housing, whether that be rapid rehousing, scattered site

housing, which we call our flex pool model, expansion in permanent supportive housing, and this also includes funding to support a housing ladder strategy, where folks who have been served in permanent supportive housing are ready to move into the private rental market are ready to move into housing subsidy and shelter services. on the presentation side, it expands problem solving strategies. i mentioned that we're really focused in this plan on centering equity and improving outcomes for the overall homelessness response system, and our really continued strong

partnership with the mayor's office of housing and community development to coordinate our citywide response to preventing

-- and so some of the funds that we budgeted are just some rolling out, so there's some natural savings there. we were also very successful in leveraging new state funds in key areas like housing and shelter that have relieved some of the pressure on the fund this year, and as you'll recall, your recommended budget

also included some of the continuing shelter response. we're very fortunate that the biden administration has spend extended the time for fema reimbursement, so we're hoping to reclaim what we claimed against fema for some of our covid funded response shelters. going into the next budget, there seems to be enough savings -- as member friedenbach mentioned, we've really got some savings, and we're using that in the next year, as well. it has constrained budgets and budget expansions. in year two of the budget, we're still able to balance but also needing to constrain kind of program expansions that we were thinking about in new

programs. this also may require trade-offs in nonpresentation buckets going forward. i will say our plan as it stands now doesn't yet fund a reserve. really wanted to hear the feedback from this committee and also wanting to hear about where we might be at year end with such a reserve. next slide, please. some highlights of our initial proposal to all of you and the mayor's office. as i mentioned, really refining some general estimates of what per-unit services would cost with more program design from our contracting process. in most cases, limiting new programs for program expansion, and i'll talk about the exceptions to that. we are considering proposing

levels in our flex pool as well as permanent supportive housing to better serve families, chronically homeless adults, seniors, as well as transitional age youth. this was delivered, but i'm waiting for conversation with h.s.h. to deliver it to you for more discussion. for programs that are more established, they'll get a 3% cost of doing business or c.p.i. want to make sure that we're

building in room in the prop c budget to manage on going cost increase. next slide. so housing, update on goals and implementation and what we're proposing in next year's budget. next slide. so most of our strategies have stayed the same to develop, build, and operate strategic sites. next slide. so on the general housing bucket, a little bit of what we've been doing this fiscal year, as you know, we have an

aggressive acquisition strategy. we've required or are in the process of purchasing 300 units of adult permanent supportive housing. we've also been really successful in leveraging what's called home key funds. it's our state one-time funds for the operation of an acquisition and rehabbing permanent supportive housing with also some subsidies. we propose 4 million to close out our acquisition is strategy for these initial units as well as a strategy for the round one

funds. more to come on this, but we're asking to use some of our savings to restore part of the prop c budget. as you can imagine, we're sensitive to setting up two separate systems. one, you know, more service

enriched or equitable system that's only funded by prop c, but something we wanted to look at. next slide, please. we're continuing the flex housing subsidy program for adults, older adults, and the bayview neighborhood. we're also proposing, in year two of the budget, to add 263 adult flexible slots.

predominantly those have been distributed to mainstream voucher holders and were previously funded by those prop c sources. also continues the rapid roll out of our prop c housing program. we were very lucky to get a sizeable payment from the federal government and we're able to link access to services citywide. as we look toward the end of the fiscal year, it could be programmed for new projects or funding reserves.

and analyzing where we can leverage c funds to further support enhancements system wide. we are about to launch our t.a.y. housing subsidy pool given current market rates. last year in the budget process, the board of supervisors adopted a one-time pilot to pilot a t.a.y. bridge

housing program, and so that's also reflected in the budget. next slide. family housing, we've acquired 40 units of housing at 1321 mission, and we're also going to be before the board in the next few weeks to purchase a newly renovated 200 unit dedicated to family housing. so excited to have that come on-line. next slide. the family flex pool, again, looking at our subsidy level, as i mentioned, the budget also proposed using our flexible

funds to leverage those subsidy vouchers. what's new in the proposal is a one-time capital fund investment, a partnership with the mayor's office of housing and community development to do a notice of funding availability to request new construction of about 80 units really in underserved communities, and so proposing that this $8 million would be the seed funding, the capital funding that would be needed to serve 50% of the households, or 40 units at that yet-to-be-determined site. next slide. next slide, please. so our goals and strategies remain the same. prielting problem solving --

provideding problem solve strategies as well as eviction stabilization. as i think you heard from the funding strategy, the programs for veterans, justice involved adults, t.a.y., and families are underway, and we're developing a direct transfer program for t.a.y. that also leverages some state funding. the budget maintains the homelessness and prevention assistance program. because of the funding shortfall, it doesn't yet allow

us to grow that intervention. it also maintains the eviction prevention and housing stabilization investment that mohcd is leading. we're maintaining the tenant subsidies to include all flexible legacy buildings, and it continues the department of public health behavioral health investments or those legacy p.s.h. tenants, so not a lot to do in our budget. goals and strategies, operating low barrier navigation centers that were started after prop c passed, safe sleep, cabins, and an open vehicle triage center

at a site on candlestick. next slide. so the budget implements the phase two triage center at candlestick, and that site has already opened. this year in the adopted budget, there's funding to start funding the navigation center bed expansion that was started with those prop c advances. it maintains the noncongregate funding, and that was allocated to oasis, which i believe is in district 5. it it continues to fund the wind down of two safe sleep sites. in year two of the budget, the fund isn't yet able to

accommodate a continuation of that model, and through the end of the fiscal year, we've also implemented a pilot program to fund 44 cabins on gough street. the lease is up this year, so t.b.d. on whether they'll be able to continue this for another year. conversations with the mayor's office in preparation for the june budget submission. thank you very much, and i'll stop there. >> thank you so much, gigi. we're going to open it up to

the committee for questions. i'm looking at our participation list. i have member d'antonio, member friedenbach. >> i actually don't have any questions. i just wanted to say thank you for your presentation today that i was really listening to. >> officer catalano. >> thank you so much, gigi. i think i have a couple of questions, as well, and hope to not get too nitty-gritty. related to other general fund

resources, if expect shortfall in those other areas. i'm just curious if there are other service -- limitations on service expansion or other concerns that you all are weighing across your floef you could speak to for the next two years, and then, secondly, i'll just ask about the tree age in the fiscal year 23 and 24 in the prevention? it was highlighted in the beginning, but i'm not sure i understood about expanding those programs? and i think my next question, for now, which i see around the e.h.v.s, so exciting to have those propositions or resources from the government. the service dollars that are

prop c funded, are those expected to be on going services that align with the lifetime tenured vouchers? [indiscernible] thanks much. >> thank you for the questions. so in terms of our overall h.s.h. budget, this fund is a very large component of it, but we do have getting closer to a $600 million budget. the mayor's budget instructions this year did not require general fund cuts, which was appreciated, there also wasn't additional funds that we directed that the department could cover, the increases. there is an in -- the challenge

with funds are that they're one-time, so we've really been funding them for capital expansions and our navigation centers, and it's challenging when those funds go away, and we need a continuing source for those. so we're in on going discussion with the mayor's office and our

other cities to advocate at the state level for on going funding, you know, so that we can really start to plan around what is going to be the state's obligation or commitment to ending homelessness in our state, in our community. in terms of the trade offs for fiscal year 23-24, in a presentation budget, you know, to be honest, we're still trying to figure out some of our numbers, and the numbers are still moving. i don't know if carol mentioned, but updated numbers came just a couple of days ago. it's as you described. the adopted budget anticipated that our homelessness prevention would continue to

grow next year. we know the biden administration seems to be committed to prevention of strategy that they want to fund, so that's very promising. the other challenge is because some of those problem solving interventions that i mentioned were funded by one-time dollars, we want to continue that in the second year of the budget. it will require reallocating between various priorities, and i think there's discussion between program efficacy and program outcome before we get to some of those conversations. and then, to your discussion about the urban housing choice vouchers. you're correct, in the current year, we funded a higher amount. we are anticipating that some

funds would continue but at a lower level to provide on going support services for those voucher holders so that they remain housed and continue to remain housed. thank you. >> i see member reggio and then member friedenbach. >> yeah. let me echo vice chair d'antonio's appreciation, gigi, and your department, and the spirit -- not just the spirit, but including the department intentions in the budget and the direction we took. couple of comments and concerns. the staffing ratios that are needed, particularly in case

management in properties, i think that's essential. i think -- i don't think your slide indicated, and i may be wrong on that, taking into account wage equity and parrot issues, but if it didn't, i think that's also important to look at that. we can't depend on a 3% increase creating the bandwidth and the capacity that's needed in the nonprofit sector to carry on the work that's required. i would also flag some concern, and i think you acknowledged that that would change, especially in this year's time of inflation, putting in a 3% cost of doing business, which may be very inadequate to keep things as they are. and the last concern, and i think this is a big one, has to

do with whether or not -- i would suggest that the city look very hard for other services, and it's absolutely essential that it be equal. you can't have two systems, and you can't have two systems on older projects i think it's

quite questionable as to whether prop c is the proper way to enhance [indiscernible] so i would look at something like that over the next month. >> thank you so much. we'll go to member friedenbach. >> yeah, thank you, chair williams. just two, two things. so -- so we've got almost half of the shelter funds, 13.5 million, starting next year, covering the operating costs of preexisting shelters rather than new beds, and i'm wondering why the city can't continue those funding, and why

that funding wouldn't free up for expansion? >> sure. the budget last year assumed about 14.5 million, and navigation center beds that were started after approval by prop c voter but not yet unlocked, the general fund is paying about half of the cost of those sites and anything that predated that? the challenge is that the costs were funded with one-time prop c advanced money or eraf funds. we were able to use a state grant to continue that this fiscal year so we could immediately not put that on prop c, but there is not an on going source otherwise, and certainly, when the board and

the mayor gave the green light for those programs so start, it was with the anticipation that prop c would immediately be available. i know there's specific concern about that, and i want to acknowledge that, but that's how prop c worked out. >> i think my point being kind of obvious there, but the second question i had, and this is -- because we have more one time moneys, and we're looking at acquisitions, and the operations are short, have we thought about acquiring buildings and using housing choice vouchers or emergency housing choice vouchers to cover the income -- people are constantly looking for places

that'll rent to them that -- you know, with the section 8 vouchers, and typically, who gets those are unhoused people. and so it seems like if someone moved out, it would be super easy to replace that. i know it seems a little funky, but i'm just wondering about that? >> i can try to take a stab at that, and then, as well as our chief deputy, emily cohen. one of the buildings that we've acquired is with the hope that some of the emergency voucher holders would be interested in that, as well, but to answer your questions, have we thought about looking at buying up properties specifically for voucher holders.

emily, do you have anything to add to that? >> i think you captured it really well, gigi. obviously, we are thinking about whether there are ways to proactively market our sites to the voucher holders, knowing that that would help on the financing side. >> thank you. that's all i had. thank you for the great presentation and for your work. >> thank you. we'll go to member miller and then back to member catalona. -- catalana. >> so i'm trying to think about what everybody is saying, and thinking about the pros and cons, but first, i want to think about the work of the department and even identifying these new buildings and -- to

purchase, because, you know, when we're just talking about oh, okay, we've got this building and that building, just know, like, how much hard work it is, because it's not, like, every time the city acquired a building for unhoused folks, you know, everybody is throwing you a party. it's a fight, it's a fight every single time, you know? and it just takes a lot of work, and so i really want to acknowledge the city for fighting that fight and making sure that we're able to acquire places for people of all incomes to live, you know, safe nice places. also, you know, we did have a shortfall, and gigi, you were

referencing a windfall, and perhaps a lot of money because of covid, whether it would be hitting the streets, but a windfall, and i don't think people were expecting it. so who knows? the biden administration seems like they're committed to investing a lot of money, and it's going to come through the infrastructure bill, and that's going to go into homelessness, and we hope that homelessness stays on top of everybody's mind until we figure out a new, what, public housing system, but i think it's important to plan, and i think it's important to take money aside and make sure that we're going to be okay every year and that

the bottom doesn't drop out, and we'd be responsible. i think there's responsibility to shop for the best value, and so that's all i want to say. thank you. >> thank you, member miller. we'll go to member catalano. >> thank you for those great points, member miller. i think celebrating and acknowledging the work that's done every day is really important, and i think it's one of the roles of this committee to remove some of the barriers and to be in partnership about all of our committee in san francisco to how we can do

that. my question is on the goals that were established on the permanent housing. there was a reference to 4,000 units or 4,000 households, and so i'm wondering how those are going to be updated from year to year. obviously, there was a conversation about that with the committee and the department and the community, but how is h.s.h. thinking about those goals in relation relationship to some of the other goals so that we can be as supportive as possible in those processes and making sure that we can achieve those goals and help folks? >> i'm going to see if my colleague, cynthia, is onto answer that. >> i'm here.

thank you, member catalano, for your question. i want to make sure i understand the question, just to clarify. so i think you're asking, in our planning, we're thinking about how the investment of plans is working in our overall goals and then the strategic plan. is that your question? >> yes. >> it's a longer answer but i'll try to keep this brief just because there's so many answers in that framework. there's our strategic framework that closes at the end of this year has a number of goal trying to reduce numbers of homelessness, which we've made some investments on, and when we were looking at those goals, we were trying to look at the

best way to use these ocoh funds? in developing a strategic plan that will be encompassing more of the city's plans, we're going to be really focused on setting equity goals, advancing equity in various areas across the system, so we're going to be looking at all the funds that we're going to be spending, including ocoh funds. we're going to make progress against the current and future goals as well as where we're going to need more funds to see how far we're going to get and where we need to invest more, if that makes sense. >> that does make sense, and that's super helpful. i think as the oversight

committee, to the extent we can be supportive -- we need to understand we need reserve policies, we need to be familiar with all the different policies and the investment plans, but the ultimate goal is to get people housed, so the more we can understand those, i think it's great, and i think it's great work, and it's great that we can understand all of these investments and the work in all of them. >> thank you. we're now going to move into our next presentation from kelley kirkpatrick. >> hi. i'm kelley kirkpatrick. we have our c.f.o. who's going

to kick off our presentation, and we also have dr. hali hammer available, should you have programmatic questions, so we're going to kick it off. >> is it possible to have sharing capability? >> clerk: yes. give me one second. >> i see your presentation.

you're currently on mute. >> all right. can we try this again? hi. good morning, chair williams and member of the committee. i'm jennie lee, chief financial officer of d.p.h., and i'll be kicking off the presentation of looking at updating our budget over the next two years.

additional one-time dollars for funding up to one-time needs, but at this point, no new programming due to the projected shortfall, and as we look forward to implementing, we're really looking at it through an equity lens. the expenditure plan really maintains the status quo budget and relies on the use of one-time fund balance to prevent service reduction.

>> i will turn it over to miss kirkpatrick, and she will dive a little bit more into each of the spending areas. >> thank you. so for overdose prevention, this is a bit of a little more of a breakout of sort of the outreach component. we're proposing to maintaining funding levels to expand the expanded access to these ae

services, including the services for t.a.y. and youth. these are most notably in case management and staff, both in outpatient management and case management. in permanent supportive houses, i don't know if you noticed on jennie's previous slide, the ratio of the funding is going

down for this service. for the p.s.h. support, there's kind of two key parts. there's the physical health aspect and the behavioral health. for drop-in services, we are proposing to maintain services for drop-in shelter services.

we're proposing to expand the budget to maintain those services, and we're in conversation with the controller's office toexpand those services.

i know this is incredibly dense, and we can circulate the link so you can take some time to digest it. most notably, we've added estimated timelines for our projects, so i have -- on the next slide, i have a breakout to kind of uplift the timelines because there's a lot of information here. but you'll see, in tiny blue script, at the top of each box, we have that projected to open spring 2022, and it was not included before.

we are really providing case management on both fronts. in order to fund this project with our current budget and revenue declines and trying to maintain service levels, we have reduced residential step down beds. it was previously 140. it is now 70. it is the third box from the bottom on the far right. given the development of this opportunity with the project, we have decided to prioritize the funding now? this additional funding is identified, we could move full steam ahead for residential step down beds, but we have

made that a shift. there are still approximately 400 beds in our bed expansion plans, and we are moving quickly to try to meet demands. next slide. so here's the timeline projected for our bed expansion. you will note that we are planning and moving full steam ahead with a significant expansion this year and having a total of almost 200 beds on-line in 2022. that includes our psychiatric skilled nursing facility beds, the drug sobering center, called soma rise, opening this spring, a dual diagnosis program that you shared with you for justice involved, expansion of our c.f. beds, and we also expect, in 2023, given

some likely building acquisitions, to go through the full kind of purchase acquisition, opening, that long ramp up from about a year to 1.5 years. the dates may change, but we wanted to use our best thinking to put our best thoughts into potential openings. next slide. here's an -- i just wanted to give some examples of acquisitions that are in progress? so we have hyde geary that will be -- i have the wrong number there -- no, about 16 units of

crisis diversion. we are in active collaboration with the real estate department through the acquisition of a large property that could house up to 70 residential care or boarding care beds. the potential acquisition of a large site is 20 m.a.p. beds, and it could serve as colocation for beds and emergency stabilization units, so we are moving on all fronts, contracting where we can and working to plan in the long-term for these long-term acquisitions with prop c funds.

we are also moving on an r.f.p. to support this in-county process to build our own beds

long-term. we are seeking providers through an r.f.p. and r.f.q. for these bed types to give us options to try and get that in-county capacity. for example, our lsat beds are in county, and our [indiscernible] beds are all out of county. we're currently contracting out of county for those beds. this r.f.p. will allow us to work towards a solution that we can potentially bring those in-county. the r.f.p. and r.f.q. is planned to be published this may, and it's in the order of magnitude of $20 million to $25 million. back to jennie lee. >> first, just wanted to say i

appreciate the presentation and the conversation by members of this committee around looking at volatility and how we can handle that. one of the strategies i would like to explore is looking at the [indiscernible] of $70.3 million and use a portion of this to offset this and also create a reserve for future

revenue fluctuations. i think there's a balance that we need to strike. we do not want to slow down implementation of those services, nor do we want to cease to be able to fund the reserves with the that. should future revenues not grow

back to previous levels, we may need to look at our future reserve plan, and i think that one of the things that was of concern was that there was an initial projection in january, so we think that concern of some levels are warranted, and we look forward to the conversations that we'll have with the committee as well as the mayor and board on this topic. i will also note even with the use of those one-time dollars, we have 23.8 projected to be unspent by year end, and one of the things that we're looking at is a way that we may want to

program those dollars, and one of those ways is looking at a potential drop-in site in addition to those beds. as we look to acquire these if a -- facilities, we want to make sure that they're maintained and have permanent support. in terms of next steps, we have work to do to finalize the program costs, and hoping to finalize [indiscernible] with that, that concludes our

presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you so much, director kirkpatrick and director louie. i do want to mention, colleagues, where we are with our time. i do see member andrews in the queue, so member andrews? >> thank you, chair williams, and to jeannie and kelley and hali hammer and all the team at d.p.h., thank you so much for just all the work that you're putting forward.

i had a couple questions. one is a bigger one, but i'm going to save that one for last, and i'm sorry, i have to jump off at exactly 11:30, because i have to jump to another one. i wanted to get a clear understanding of the treatment beds -- and that's a great chart, as we continue to lead at populations. jennie, could you pull that slide up again. are you thinking of one site that would support expanded beds or are you thinking of beyond that and beyond this particular one? with the savings that we had, i think it was towards the end of the presentation -- right

there. it says potential acquisition of a site by d.p.h. for potential drop-in services. are you thinking of one facility that would provide that service or are you thinking of a series of facilities? >> thank you for the question. yeah, this is ideally a single facility that would facilitate drop-in services rather than you go there if you want this, and you go there if you want this. >> to the agree we may not know this, but to the degree it has a look and feel like the

linkage center that was established, is that a variation of the linkage center team that we have right now? >> i think we are looking at the services that we have at the linkage center, and we have been for the last few months. i think there will be some lessons learned, but at this point, i can't say.

>> in both presentations, at some point, it will come into view the state investments that we've made. i was wondering what your thoughts were in how to approach what i would think are inevitable resources that would come our way and how they could positively impact the work out there? >> we are looking at some new benefits that are coming out

through the new cali medi-cal program. the devil is in the details. >> they're speaking in the billions, so i know it's super hard. >> it doesn't necessarily seem that we would have some visibility on what those investments would be that we

would have a good overlook of where those funds would go. >> nothing that i could hang my hat on. we'll see. there's a lot that could happen between now and when the budget is actually approved, so it's unclear now, but it's a little bit behind in terms of rolling outdetails. these are incredibly -- out details. those are incredibly complex programs, but at this point, it'll unclear if there will be additional revenues that could be used in the upcoming budget.

>> thank you so much, member andrews, and we'll go to member friedenbach. >> thank you so much. really great presentation. continue to just love the dashboard. awesome. i'm a little confused on the drop-in and how -- is that kind of the next iteration of the expanded access to assessment, evaluation, and therapy that was originally going to be the behavioral health access center out of the mental health s.f., and then, there was some crisis diversion facility. i'm just trying to figure out, did that morph into this thing now, and then, we're still doing that, and this is another thing? my general comments are that

generalized access is better, but how many thousands of people need mental health? you have a police and sheriff's office out front, and it doesn't work for a lot of folks. i'm trying to figure out how these work together. >> that's a great question. i think it's something that

we're grappling with and working controllers. [please stand by] >> i would like to remind

everyone to please mute yourself if not speaking. in person silent your cell phones. first item is roll call. president bito. >> here. >> commissioner eppler. >> here. >> commissioner alexander toot. >> here. >> commissioner summer. >> commissioner newman is expected. we have a quorum. next is land acknowledgenent. >> the building inspections commission acknowledges we are on the homeland of the ramaytush ohlone. they have never forgotten their