we were innovate expected to do. >> when those people working at the nonprofits their predictive and thank what straw is giving that in and of itself it making an impact with the nonprofit through the consumers that are coming here is just as important it is important for the grill cheese kitchen the more restrictive i learn about what is going on in the community more restrictive people are doing this stuff with 4 thousand restaurant in san francisco we're doing an average of $6,000 a year in donations and multiply that by one thousand that's a lot to

>> 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 submit 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 ]