. >> clerk: okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid meeting for thursday, april 14, 2022. we are requesting that those persons in the chamber to distance as much as possible, taking seats possibly in every other row. you must wear a mask while in the chambers, and you must keep it on even when you are speaking. hybrid hearings are going to require all of our attention, and most of all, your patience. if you are not speaking and you've logged in remotely, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation,

sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for each item on this agenda. opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001, and entering access code 24 # the 1-392-7056. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star, three to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. we will first allow the persons in the chamber in person, and i ask you to lineup on that side of the room in order, and then,

we will take those attending remotely. best practices when you're speaking remotely is to speak slowly and clearly, state your name, and turn down any speakers on your devices. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> president tanner: thank you. i will now do our land acknowledgement. the san francisco planning commission acknowledges that we are on the land of the ramaytush ohlone, the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as guests, we recognize that we

benefit from living and working on their traditional homelands. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the elders, ancestors, and members of the ramaytush ohlone and recognizing their rights as first peoples. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. first up on your agenda, item 2019-023083-cua, at 2955 mission street. we are proposing it for continuance to april 28, 2022. number two, 2020-004414-cua, at 618 to 630 octavia street, to

be proposed for continuance to april 28, 2022. items 3-a and b, 2017-001961-shd and cud, at 350 ocean avenue, proposed for continuance to may 19, 2022. item 4, 2021-004987-drp at 2760 divisadero street, proposed for continuance to may 19, 2022, and item 5, 2021-001219-drm at 1228 funston avenue, proposed for continuance to june 23,

20202 and under your discretionary review calendar, item 14, 2021-011283-drp, at 817 carolina street, with no date for proposed continuance. seeing no requests to speak, we request take public comment. >> [indiscernible] i don't know that i have all the time to share that for this

continuance, but we'd like to do outreach on the parking as it's not mandated. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jason henderson, the chair of the hayes valley homeowner's committee. item 2, at 618-630 octavia [indiscernible] and we are alarmed by the precedent that's set not just for hayes valley but citywide, so we ask that your staff and planning commission direct the project sponsor to work with the community to withdraw the request for c.u. and work with

the community on review. additionally, it's critical that you, staff, reach out to the state legislature for -- >> clerk: sir, sir, i'm going to interrupt you. we're only taking public comment on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. >> okay. but between now and april 28, we're not going to be able to get the legislation back or modified, so i would urge -- not two weeks, but maybe we've got to get the legislature to look at this. [indiscernible] please look at this very carefully, and yes, for the c.u., it's going to take a little longer. i appreciate your consideration of the matter, and thank you.

>> hello, commissioners. my name is mark munoz. i would like to request regarding the 350 ocean proposal continuance, if the continuance can be more extended beyond may 19 to better help the community and the community at large and [indiscernible] thanks very much. >> hello. this is also in regards to the 350 ocean avenue continuance.

i'm also a concerned neighbor and would like to respectfully request a continuance to at least may 19 or further to properly go through and make sure that the traffic and neighborhood conditions for ease of access has been properly looked at, and thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. those persons in the chamber, please come forward. those members calling in remotely, you need to press star, three. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is now closed and the items proposed for continuance are now before

you. commissioners? >> president tanner: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: unless anyone else has comments, i'd make a motion to continue the items as stated. >> second. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion to continue the items as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and

considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 6, 2021-011370-cua, at 33 banbury drive, and item 7, 2020-006377-cua at 4687 mission street. we should open this up for public comment, we will open this up and open the public comment lineup. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is now closed, and the items are now before you. commissioners? >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i move to continue. >> second.

>> clerk: thank you. on the motion to continue -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that placed us on c, commission matters, consideration of adoption the draft minutes for march 31, 2022. seeing no requests to speak, we should open this up for public comment. commissioners -- we have one caller. go ahead, caller. >> hi. i'm calling to see if we can

continue 33 banbury, because it directly affects my ability to get in my driveway. >> clerk: ma'am -- >> yes? >> clerk: you should mute your television or compute you are are -- computer because you're an echo. >> thank you. i'm on speakerphone. >> clerk: having said that, we just took up the matter for banbury. >> right, so i was unable to get -- this is the first time using this system, and i was unable to press it on time. it was literally within seconds. by the time i pressed pound, three to put my hand up, you guys moved on and voted. >> clerk: right, thank you. so right now, i think it would be up to the commission to entertain a motion to rescind their vote on the consent

calendar. we would revote on item 7, and then honor this person's request to remove it from the consent calendar and be heard later today. >> i would appreciate that because it directly affects my access to my garage. >> president tanner: and ma'am, i just want you to be clear, it's not going to be scheduled for another day, it's going to be scheduled today, so there's not another date for this to be heard. >> is there an appeals process? >> clerk: there is an appeals process, but i think it sounds like the commission may honor your request to at least have it heard today. and is this project sponsor? okay. so the parties are present. >> president tanner: okay. let's see if we first have a motion to rescind, then, or the conversation would be moot. >> okay. then my next step would be to apply for the appeal?

>> clerk: well, again, ma'am, right now, we're asking the commission to consider a motion to rescind their previous decision, and that would give you an opportunity to speak to the matter later today. >> okay. >> clerk: okay. so just hold the line. in fact, i'm just going to mute you at this point because the opportunity to request to have something removed is just that; it's just to remove it from consent. >> president tanner: thank you, jonas. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: given the technological problems of this hybrid system, i would move to rescind the previous. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: is that a second, commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. if there's no objection, there's a motion to rescind your vote -- >> president tanner: sorry.

do we take public comment on that -- >> clerk: it's not an agendized item, it's a procedure item, so the sponsor would have an opportunity to make a presentation when the item is heard. >> commissioner diamond: i'd just like to require, if the item is going to go ahead -- >> clerk: fortunately, we do have the project sponsor here to make their presentation. they're shaking their head.

>> commissioner diamond: meaning the project sponsor is fine to go ahead today? >> clerk: yes. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion to rescind passes unanimously 6-0. if we could have a motion for item 7 for case number 2020-006377-cua at 4687 mission street, where we have not had a request to remove it from the consent calendar. >> president tanner: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: so moved. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve consent calendar item 7 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes, 7-0 -- or

excuse me, 6-0. and then shall we hear item 6 at the end or the beginning of the calendar? >> president tanner: i would hear it at the end. >> clerk: at the end? very good. okay. so if that was not clear, item 6 will be considered at the end of today's agenda. commissioners, now we are under commission matters for item 8, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for march 31, 2022, and i believe we had opened up public comment for this matter. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes by pressing star, three or coming to the podium. seeing no requests to speak, the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: commissioner fung, or is that leftover? >> commissioner fung: i forgot to delete. i'll move to adopt the minutes.

>> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes from march 31 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, placing us on item 9, commission comments and questions. >> president tanner: don't see any comments or questions. >> clerk: very good. if there are none, we can move onto department matters, item 10, director's announcements. [indiscernible]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, department of

commission affairs. the h.p.c. unanimously recommended approval on january 19 of this year. the clay theater, constructed in 1916, is culturally and historically significant as one of the city's oldest single screen movie theaters, and is the first foreign film designated film theater, designated in 1935. san francisco heritage, san francisco theater association, san francisco residents, and business associations all spoke in favor of the land use designation, and then, the committee then recommended it to the full board. also, the board considered supervisor peskin's and mar's ordinance.

last time this was heard, supervisor -- supervisor mandelman's and mar's ordinance. last time this was heard, supervisor melgar proposed several amendments to the ordinance. this time, supervisor melgar also proposed several amendments to the ordinance and what the planning commission ultimately wisely recommended to the full board, so slowly but surely, they seem to be coming around to our well thout out amendments. after the amendments were adopted and public comment was heard, the committee continued both items until april 26, and then, at the full board this week, the initiation for the designation of the mother's building was presented to the

board, and congratulations, commissioner moore. you were also renominated to the planning commission by the board. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. if there are no questions or objections by the planning commission, we can move onto public comment. each member -- at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

>> hi, this is georgia schiutish. this is compared with the importance of the d.r. to the public participation in the planning process, a participation that is vital. there are actually what seems like a reasonable number of d.r.s in a city as complex as san francisco. i think mr. sider also has some information on this that may be similar to numbers on a yearly basis, what mr. jocelyn wrote to me. here on the calendar, there are projects from 2015 and 2022. may i have the overhead, please? i showed these last week, and they are two different projects -- oh, sorry. any way, i showed them last week, and i put them in the

e-mail for today's general public comment as a p.d.f. as a history of the demo calcs and the project. as you prepare to open up the whole issue of resewn, as outlined in the housing element over the next through years, i respectfully suggest that the commission adjust demo calcs that may spurn any project in the next few years. thank you very much. oh, here's a copy for mr. ionin. here's one for the city attorney. thank you. >> hi. my name is jim warshell, and

i'm a resident of hayes valley. obviously, my warmest, warmest congratulations to commissioner moore being reappointed and her willingness to serve another term and lend her expertise to this whole process. i'm here to not speak to item 2 in your calendar specifically but rather request that you really pursue clarification and efforts to work with assembly member ting on getting much better clarification on how c.u.s can be applied for in regard to state bonus density programs. as i understand it, the c.u. is

only where a project affords it. it seems to be something where you can use or discretion. again, not talking specifically to item 2 here, but it seems there are opportunities to get much better clarification and specificity so that we really know what we're talking about, and better and denser housing is achieved. thank you. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. again, those persons in the room, please come forward, and

those appearing remotely, press star, three. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar. item 12, 2022-000549-pca electric vehicle charging locations, the planning code amendment. please note, on march 24, 2022, after hearing and closing public comment, continued to april 14, 2022, by a vote of 4-2, with diamond and tanner against. >> thank you so much, commissioners. aaron starr, public affairs. before i make my presentation, [indiscernible] is here to speak. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah owens, and i am mayor breed's environmental advisor. thank you so much for the

presentation several weeks ago on the planning code to create electric vehicle charging locations. to address urgent challenges in december, mayor breed released the city's updated climate action plan, detailing the paths forward for san francisco so that we can do our part to combat climate change. cars are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco and around the world. in addition, vehicle pollution from fossil fuel cars has health impacted and disproportionately burdens businesses and communities along major highways and corridors.

in order to meet our goals of net-zero emissions by 2040, we need to replace fossil fuel vehicles with electric vehicles in the city. the shift away is not just happening in san francisco. just this week, [indiscernible] unveiled their proposed regulations to require all vehicles sold in california be zero emission by 2035. the rate of transitioning to e.v. is hampered by charging, and one of those barriers is

the number of chargers and viability. the city's been working on a number of fronts to increase access to e.v. charging, including that new buildings of a certain size be ready to install e.v. chargers. the sfpuc is helping hetch hetchy customers install charging stations at their facilities, we're advancing efforts on curbside charging with sfmta and the department of the environment, and sfmta is exploring options to expand public charging in municipal parking and parking lots. so these efforts go hand in hand with efforts citywide. all of this is important as we seek to decarbonize and switch

to a cleaner future. in california, homeowners are still more than three times as likely to own an e.v. compared to those who do not own a home. in comparison, renters in the 70% of san franciscans who live in multiunit dwellings don't have the ability to easily install charging at home. allowing for more retail charging locations would help level the playing field and help increase e.v. adoption. we really appreciated your feedback and discussion when this item was before you last time, especially with regard to fleet charging. we think it's time we have a focused discussion with our city stakeholders and experts regarding e.v. charging in the city of san francisco and its needs. we need to ensure that all vehicles that need to remain on

the road can quickly transition to electric vehicles. as a reminder, we need to -- heard your feedback regarding e.v. charging and are working to ensure more geographic diversity of charging stations in san francisco. this may allow 100% complete

charging for fleet charging so that the fleet charging controls align with what we are propose for publicly accessible e.v. charging stations in those drixs. in summary -- in those districts. thank you for your time, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts and answering any remaining questions you may have. >> thank you, sarah. just a quick overview of the ordinance. it would create two new amendments in the code and regulate them as outlined in the case report.

note [indiscernible] fleet charging would be limited to downtown and p.d.r. districts. the second is to exempt the [indiscernible] from e.v. charging through section 143 screening requirements and to add a new section to the code that explicitly allows for the conversion of parking lots to e.v. charging locations regardless of the district. that concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> clerk: thank you.

okay, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. members of the public in the chamber should lineup on the screen side of the room. through the chair, as this matter has been heard previously, you'll each have one minute. >> good afternoon, president tanner, and members of the commission. my name is judy lee, and i'm a president of the [indiscernible] team. through to the san francisco founded and based self-driving vehicle company using all electric fleet of vehicles, if we're to meet the city and state's environmental goals, we need to pursue widespread electrification. this ordinance before you is a step toward those goals and we firmly believe that every san franciscan deserves access to clean transportation options.

allowing fleet charging stations in r.c. and n.c. districts is an appropriate step. this process will enable community input for fleet charging stations -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. seeing no additional members of the public in the chamber requesting to speak, we'll go to our remote callers. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your prompt to begin speaking. >> [indiscernible] we're in agreement with the overall environmental goals and the need to expand access to city charging stations. however, the updated

legislation falls short in converting parking spaces to e.v. charging stations [indiscernible] we also need to differentiate between types of auto uses such as those more likely to employ different types of workers, such as an auto shop. the conversion to e.v. should not [indiscernible] if it results in a direct loss of jobs. the updated legislation also talks about how the united states is separated from updated housing areas -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissions.

ozzie reaume, san francisco housing coalition. i just wanted to bring up some alarming statistics. a single battery weighing 1,000 pounds requiring some moving some 5,000 pounds of materials, as well as the deplorable conditions that some miners work in.

>> clerk: thank you, miss reaume. that is your time. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: thank you, mr. starr and miss owens. >> commissioner imperial: i have a question to the mayor's on staff. you mentioned that the 100% [indiscernible] is still in the works. what do you mean by that in terms of principally permitted by the p.d.r., the different uses of p.d.r. can you clarify that 100%, as you mentioned earlier? >> absolutely. so in the legislation as

drafted, it spells out where those e.v. charging stations will be permitted and where they're permitted conditionally and not permitted.

it seems like even right now, it doesn't have that kind of correlation between the p.d.p. perhaps job losses or analysis on that, and the consideration of that as is 00% or principally permitted for the p.d.r. industrial jobs. so is that something that's being considered or being taken into consideration with respect to this legislation? >> specifically with respect to

jobs, [indiscernible] while it's hard to do a full analysis because we don't know at this time exactly what the uptake would be of turning locations into e.v. charging locations, we do have a provision in the legislation regarding monitoring of what this new use does looking at the conversion of what existing lots in san francisco are, what the current uses, what they're being turned to, and that's something that the planning department staff is going to be looking at because it's an emerging technology and an emerging field, so we're definitely mindful of making sure that they're keeping tabs on the impacts of this legislation, and, of course, we want to make sure that we have kb paying jobs in san francisco. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, thank you. and i think that's just my

overall comments, that this is going to be monitoring, that this legislation also moves forward in terms of what kinds of jobs will be replicated on this. my -- another question, and i don't know if the zoning administrator is here, but there were also a discussion or mr. teague actually mentioned something about the nature of the parking, whether the nature -- and my question is how the tax -- how planning is going to be tackling that type of question, whether -- when it's part or is it a drive-thru, are there any other nuances of that when it comes to parking? so i don't know if mr. starr or mr. teague would be able to answer that question. >> corey, are you on the line?

>> clerk: no. >> i think what he was talking about last time was if it's a parking lot, it has to be a parking lot. you'd have to go in there and pay to park. that's the use. if it's just an e.v. charging location, it's sort of an in and out-type thing. if you are a garage, the state allows you to install e.v. charging in the stalls, so the primary purpose would be to store the car for an extended period of time. >> commissioner imperial: [indiscernible] thank you. those are my questions for now.

>> president tanner: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. one question for the mayor's office and one question for staff. could the mayor comment on e.v. stations in corridor districts? >> we are still considering that. we will take planning commission and staff discussion in feedback as we take the matter to the board of supervisors, but we are still considering it. >> commissioner diamond: okay. and then, the question to staff is, i get your thoughts on the mayor's office suggestions that we allow fleet charging in certain m.c. districts with a conditional use. >> i think as a staff, we're a little bit more cautious. we understand the geographic equity issue. it's just the way that san francisco's land use has developed over time, and there's lots of reasons for that, so trying to find

somewhere else on the western side of the city for fleet charging, we certainly under the need for that or the desire for that. >> commissioner diamond: i would make a motion to approve

the items laid out by staff as well as we allow for charging in the specified districts so that we can take each of those fleet charging requests to be in the m.c. districts on a case-by-case basis on the competing needs reference by mr. starr in conjunction with specific proposals. >> president tanner: is there a second? i'll second that motion. commissioner fung? my apologies. he took his hand off.

commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: thank you. i appreciate this going somewhere else and becoming a little more popular than we anticipated. thank you, mr. starr. was there any thought about any grandfathering going from here forward? >> from my understanding, the only grandfathering i heard was to the effect of the date of ordinance, and then people could put applications in, but we're not recommending that. >> commissioner koppel: thank you. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: two questions. one for commissioner diamond and then one for the mayor's office. commissioner diamond, did you hear your motion correctly,

where you indicated that the neighborhood of the commercial districts and how about the r.c. districts? >> commissioner diamond: my motion took all of the staff's recommendations, which would, i guess, include the prohibition on fleet charging in r.c. districts but allow for fleet charging in r.c. districts with a c.u. >> commissioner fung: okay. so the question for the mayor's office is you have indicated that that would be on a different track in terms of neighborhood commercial and r.c. district. is that correct?

that you were going to take that as a different track to the supervisors? >> so not exactly. so we want to kind of get the conversation going on fleet charging in this legislation with fleet charging and e.v. charging moving forward, and separately, we realize their -- there are still bigger questions and conversations to be had, because we see that while we're very excited about this legislation, and we any that it is a very important sort of steep, we understand that there's a need for perhaps some additional work on the

fleet side specifically. we don't have a proposal at this point, but that's something that we'll be working onto have a comprehensive approach on that issue. >> president tanner: and maybe just to put that answer because it's the same question i had, commissioner fung, we had proposed today, and in the future, there will be separate legislation dealing more broadly with fleet charging. >> yes, that is the intent at this time. >> president tanner: not thank you. >> commissioner fung: and just to conclude that line of questioning, as we discussed, there are quite a few other fleet operations. i guess one could even include at some point in time, should they ever be allowed in here, is amazon, but i assume u.p.s.,

and i presume they're looking at it, but what other fleet operators there are, and could you give us a number? >> i could not give you a number of fleet operators, but it's expansive. it could be everything from delivery vehicles to the postal service. it could include the taxis. it's a lot of vehicles, and so we think that that's why it deserves its own sort of

charging hubs. it can be other types of solutions that -- but to answer your question, i don't have a number of fleet vehicles that are currently operating in san francisco. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> and that's something that we would like to have a conversation with our stakeholders, where they're operating and where they're currently charging if they are, and that way, we can have an collaborative approach and make an informed decision in the future. >> commissioner fung: just to complete my thoughts, i would be acceptive of this plan for action today with the amendment

except for the amendment dealing with r.c. districts. if we're going to consider incorporating discussions today neighborhood commercial, we should include r.c. districts. >> president tanner: thank you. i want to emphasize what we heard last time. under state law, if there is a parking lot that can become a charging station. if somebody already is parking a vehicle, and they say oh, i want my vehicle to be e.v. now, they can do that, is that correct? >> that is correct. i think what the new

legislation would be, that would now be for consideration. commissioner ruiz? >> i generally agree with the overall goal, but i wanted to make sure that we are not leaving behind low-income communities with this initiative, and i wanted to raise some concerns that folks in the public comment had about e.v. space. you mentioned that there will be continued community engagement with stakeholders, but i'm curious what the conversations have been so far to address the lack of capital that low-income communities

have in obtaining electric vehicles, and how will we ensure those things, as well? >> thank you so much for the question. equity is part of everything that we're trying to do in addressing climate action, and we're looking to -- and looking to make sure that all communities can make the transition is essential. right now is what's such a barrier is even a household that's lower income qualifies for the rebates at the state level, they don't have access ready access to e.v. charging. and separately, we have a whole suite of policies that, really,

the department of environment has been leading on around helping make sure that low-income san franciscans can make the switch to an e.v. vehicle, where there's additional rebates for low-income households, and we're working to outreach to the communities about the benefits of transitioning to electric vehicles or e.v.s, and making sure that they know about the programs, that they can access funding so that they can purchase vehicles, and really, as we see more and more

electric vehicles coming to market, we want to make sure that the technology is accessible to everyone. and again, about the questions around transit and getting people onto muni, absolutely agree with that. we are a 100% transit city in san francisco, so it's about making sure that all of our residents can have access to muni and transit. >> so i feel in terms of the racial and social equity analysis, i very much appreciate the additions. i think for myself it would have been helpful to include the cost of electrical

vehicles, the cost of what it will cost to charge your vehicle once it's implemented, and then, the analysis. i didn't read about the analysis about the loss of potential jobs if a p.d.r. space transitions to electrical vehicles, considering that most of the employees in p.d.r. space are probably middle-income workers, and so how will we feel the gap if we're losing jobs with that transition. is there any talk about potential workforce development programs, in training electricians that targets low-income communities that can then service these new stations that will be implemented, and what's stated in some of our most vulnerable communities. >> so perhaps on the jobs piece and on the labor piece and the e.v. charging locations, this transition to electrical

infrastructure and e.v. infrastructure is creating jobs throughout the state, so there is state levels rule around the electrician certifications that are required for e.v. charging installations, including kind of a threshold, at which point the electricians will have to have completed an electric vehicle infrastructure training program, so we'll have the electricians train in that. in terms of the p.d.r. question, the p.d.r. transition into other uses, i wonder if staff or other ones would have comments on that, because it isn't just shift to or from

that, so i guess i would just say that we looked at where san francisco, we thought this was an appropriate use, and based on the current zoning of san francisco, really feel like we've struck a balance of we need to have these locates as much as we can throughout the city while taking into account other needs and taking a look at where we've landed in this legislation, and that p.d.r. is an appropriate use of this type. >> thank you. >> president tanner: thank you. i just wanted to go back to the jobs piece and the monitoring because it sounds like there will be the monitoring. i think what -- what would be

interesting for this commission as the conversation goes on and maybe another presentation, making the switch to e.v. charging and what was there before. i think it's tracking it at a more granular level and what was there before. i don't know if you can speak to, in our system, i imagine our planners logging in -- this previous use was really just a parking lot, versus this was a mechanic's shop or something at a more granular level. >> sure. [indiscernible] both what the sponsor tells us what our historic conditions are but

also what our stakeholders tell us. we have street views, maps, historical views, and we do a lot of work identifying what the most recent legal land use was, and it dictates that delta between the existing and proposed, so that means it's not a technical change of use or it is, and it needs a neighborhood notice or change of use, but there's a lot of due diligence on the existing legal land use on the parcel, which i think at some level is just as important as what the proposal is. >> president tanner: yeah. i think what i'm trying to get at is if, a year from now, we're reviewing this proposal and say okay, let's see how many e.v. charging stations

were created in the last year, so we can have a more of a sense of what the change is, but maybe it already tracks that level of detail to see that level of kind of history of the site. >> the vacancy is not something that's tracked. the last use category would be tracked. >> president tanner: and would the category be specific enough to say it was a parking lot versus it was a gas station versus a garage? >> those are all different land use categories. >> president tanner: okay. and i think that would be something that would address

our questions. also, just to understand, what's transforming and what's changing. i think the one gap that sounds like if it was a vacant site or we could figure it out on a one-on-one basis. i also wanted to give you an opportunity, commissioner diamond, to comment or act on the proposal by commissioner fung. i know it can be a little intimidating to respond on-line. >> commissioner diamond: i'm a little concerned about the high density nature of r.c. district and the current location of the r.c. districts, tenderloin and along van ness, and those don't seem to be the appropriate locations for fleet charging. in light of the data in the

presentation, i think my preference would be to prohibit it. >> president tanner: if it's what it takes to get the legislation through, i can say, i often wonder about just having fewer vehicles on the roads in those areas of the city because it's a tangle of roads. i'm going to call on commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, president tanner, and commissioner diamond, i also agree with you on prohibit fully charging in the r.c. districts. again, the fleet charging

requires a lot of energy. that's what i'm actually concerned of. well, one is also the jobs -- the tracking of the jobs and the granular uses of the p.d.r., whether -- yeah, the different uses in the p.d.r. the tracking of that, i think that needs to be part of this legislation, as well, and part of the tracking, too, and because that would actually looking to in terms of the -- or guide what kinds of jobs are going to be created, and the kinds of programs that we need to have.

second, i hope we have the infrastructure in terms of, like, what is required, so that's something that, in terms of these legislation, like the p.d.r., the job losses, the potential job losses, i hope they work with the legislators,

but having said that, i'm hesitant of the proposal without the p.d.r., so that's my comment. >> president tanner: there was a motion. i don't see any other commissioners with comments, and i don't see anybody else -- >> can i asking a question because i'm new to this so i don't know all of the procedures. so i'm reading right now, principally permitted community business districts, all downtown districts, p.d.r., and all other eastern neighborhood districts. the motion was to take the staff's recommendation and not commissioner fung's recommendation, but if i wanted to make a recommendation that

would amend the. >> clerk: yes. there was a motion made, and it does not include commissioner fung's friendly amendment, and then, you would request a friendly amendment, and it

would be up to commissioner diamond to accept that. >> president tanner: i do want to call on assistant director. >> sure. i just want to ask for a clarification on that. there are two pieces of the legislation. one is specific to e.v. and one

is specific to fleet charging. >> commissioner diamond: can i ask the mayor's office -- the mayor's office to comment on those specific amendmented? >> the mayor's office is supportive of keeping the legislation as it currently is related to p.d.r., so not changing it to a conditional use, but keeping it permitted as of right now. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so commissioner ruiz, at this time, i would prefer not to take those proposed amendments, to keep it as i previously stated, which is the legislation with all the recommendations recommended by staff about planning and conditional use. >> okay. i just wanted to state on the

record what my sentiment was in regards to this in the p.d.r. component, so yeah. >> clerk: very good. commissioners. on the motion by commissioner diamond -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-2, with

commissioner fung and diamond voting against. that will place us on item 13 on your calendar, 2021-007053-cua at 144 laidley street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president tanner, commissioners. gabriella pantoja, department staff. this is the demolition of an existing one-story single-family residence, the subdivision of an existing lot into two new substandard lot, and the development of each new lot, with a new four-story over basement single-family residences with an accessory

dwelling unit. each a.d.u. will have an access of 142 square feet of open space. the project site is an approximately 5,372 square foot property located on the west side of laidley street between miguel and verde streets within the rh-1 zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. the item before you is requested and required pursuant to planning code sections 121 for the subdivision of an existing lot into two

substandard lots, lots less than 25 feet, and [indiscernible] existing residential family. [indiscernible] the project sponsor's completed a preapplication meeting on may 5, 2021. 12 members of the public attended the preapplication meeting. since the preapplication meeting, the sponsors have continued to engage with the neighborhood and held a second virtual meeting on february 17, 2022. to date, the department has received six correspondence, four of which were provided after the project's -- the publication in opposition of the project and two were surprised in support. members of the public not in support stated project's

ability [indiscernible] and removal of on-site parking. [indiscernible] for the following reasons. the department finds that the project is on balance [indiscernible] and meets all applicable planning code requirements. the project will maximize the use of a currently underdeveloped lot and provide three additional units of housing to the city's housing stock and construction buildings that are compatible with the uses of the neighborhood, and we urge approval of this recommendation.

this concludes our presentation, and the project sponsor is present and would like to make a presentation. >> good afternoon. this is allen murphy. i'm with the firm of perkins coie. as planning staff noted, this will expand the city's housing

supply by a net increase of three dwellings. each of the two main residences will be sized to house a family, and each a.d.u. will be around 600 square feet, which allows the addition of three more units to the housing stock. the department has determined it's not a historic resource, and each new lot must be slightly smaller than the 25-foot minimum required in the c.u. in designing the project and in response to input from the community, the project team has paid close attention to ensure that the new homes are compatible with the existing mix of the neighborhood. the neighborhood is not composed exclusively of small single-family homes. the proposed project is keeping

with the character of homes nearby, and as the project architects may tell you, they drew inspiration from the ecletic homes of the block. the footprint of the project -- i'll show this here on the screen, the footprint is also consistent with the established pattern of mid block open space. you can see the dashed purple line on the exhibit here. i'll just highlight one modification here. a penthouse level was previously proposed for both buildings, and that was

eliminated in response to community input. you can see that change in the bottom images here, so the image on the right shows the small stair tower. they replaced the previously proposed penthouse levels on the left. there are shadow studies in your packet if you'd like to review those, and we'd be happy to discuss those, as well. you can see that there are no shadows cast toward the back on the miguel street side. finally, while some questions were raised on the impacts to the proposed buildings on the rear, it was not required, but the project sponsor worked with the community to see the impact on views, but the impact to views will be modest because of

the steep upslope. the property owner wanted to ensure the site got excellent design treatment, so we recruited a firm that is truly world class. jessica will share renderings of the project, and we're all available for questions. thank you. >> so to begin, our interest in the project really resolved around the opportunity to create density in this neighborhood, and so addressing our articulating the building appropriate to the mass and scale of the neighborhood, we began with separating the garages so that the entryways to both buildings were very apparent, and within that, more pedestrian scale along the

sidewalk, and within that, the building steps back quite significantly. on the left, we can see that the building has further stepped back from the side property lines, and then this rear yard view, we see the building -- the rear yard of the building in relation to some existing site features. the lower line represents the existing grade at the property line. so we see two stories here, but the proposed building doesn't actually extend much further than the existing site features because of the steep slope from laidley to miguel street. >> and this last slide just kind of speaks to [indiscernible] which is really just indoor-outdoor living, so

we took a step to soften the building's edges with vegetation both in the front yard and backyard. >> clerk: okay. that concludes your time. if that concludes your presentation, good timing. commissioners, we should open this up for public comment. we will divide this up by members of the public attending in person and members of the public attending remotely. miss schiutish? >> i think it can be said in the ad this is a great existing house. today's conditional use raises the allowing of demolitions by

right in the draft housing element. back in 2017 -- or 18, the commission approved a house on 232 clipper with a c.u.a., and that was really seriously deteriorated, a sad house. my question is is this a template that will be necessary and desirable as you go ahead with the draft housing element if you can allow demolition as a right. this is a $2.55 million demolition and will transform each into $4 million buildings, and also, there are no -- no site permits have been applied for with d.b.i., so it's not understanding how much this is going to cost, especially with the 2,200 cubic yard

excavation. i'm agnostic about this project given the condition of the house and the fact that it's currently occupied. thanks very much. >> clerk: okay. any other members of the public in the room? otherwise, we're going to remote callers. again, you need to press star, three, and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking, and through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> hello. my name is mike daly. i am a resident at 138 laidley street. i'm calling in about this project because the city at some point recently posted notices of this project, including a notice of a permit meeting, which is what's going on now, stating approval by the

planning commission at a public meeting constituted the same thing as acceptance of the meeting for ceqa purposes. i just need to clarify what you mean by that. also, this does require -- this type of work is complicated, this foundation work. not long ago on laidley street, a lot was open for over a year, trying to accomplish the gradual foundation, so i'm just wondering, do you have posted engineering drawings that we can see that would identify the

intended revision. also, laidley is quite a busy street, and this would require not only construction access but also occupancy access. have you taken note of this in your discussions? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastasia iovannopoulos. i just heard there's tenants in this building. how can they do that? what are they basing the eviction of tenants from this

property? sorry. bye. >> hi. my name is pierre. i'm just above the project and very concerns about conditions, and -- concerned about conditions, and i want to state that we are going to receive the final version of this project. this will reduce the affordability of all in the city, and that's a negative. it's going to remove normal perfectly size house and add two very large mansions that are not going to be affordable to anyone that resides in san francisco.

the building is so large that it has required a footprint that are just very close to it. i'm very concerned with that, and the effects of the housing increase in san francisco, i really wonder why the commission would have approved this kind of thing. of course, the fact that the lot is too small to' divided in two is a good indicator of the fact that this lot is not the

right place for this monster home. >> hello. my name is rina, and i am the neighborhood directly adjacent to 144 laidley street. i have very deep concerns, and i don't feel like the project team has been forthcoming with information, especially when it comes to the project. unfortunately, this project failed to achieve objectives. the proposed construction is an

overbuild. the home that's been noted in -- is a very nice home. the proposed square footage of this project is 11,000 square feet. the average home size in san francisco is 1100 square feet. the structure itself takes it from 35 feet to well over 50 feet. the height of the building creates a concrete block that

will remove light and air and has very significant impacts for the surrounding neighbors. it has been stated by the project sponsors, it's actually extending to the further reach -- >> clerk: thank you, that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is karen baker, and i and my husband are owners of property on miguel street. i'm calling to voice my concerns about the lot size being dramatically larger than

it is today i think in addition to that, it doesn't respect the harmony of the neighborhood of the buildings that are already there. i'd like to add that the proposed units will have a direct line of sight into our properties, and thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. you need to press star, three

to make your comment.

[please stand by]. >> i would very much like to hear the conversation about this, particularly the role that this demolition, it's going to bring into the conversation. i would very much hope that the commission would have a conversation about this before approving this project. thank you. >> hi.

i'm a neighbor on laidley street, and i'm calling in to express my disapproval of this project. basically, what they're going to do -- this is one more example of a developer buying up a perfectly lovely home with neighborhood character, and then razing the home to create a profit. it's going to fundamentally change the light and air and outlook of people around us. it's really egregious and a horrible example of providing housing for the need. it's not going to do that at all. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you.

i apologize, commissioner tanner, but there is one more public commenter. >> president tanner: all right. we'll take this comment. >> hi. we are [indiscernible] and we are a neighbor on miguel street. we would like to comment that the lot is too small for the project, and also, that we haven't really received the new design that shows how it's going to look like on our street, and then, by the light, it does show that it looks like it's a huge mirror into our houses. >> president tanner: okay. is that everyone? >> clerk: that looks like it for now. >> president tanner: okay. >> thank you, president tanner. i just wanted to present some

information on two points raised during public comment. one about the ceqa language and an issue raised about the tenants. really, all ceqa means is as soon as the commission takes action, a ceqa appeal would be ripe, so until the commission takes action, it would not complete ceqa. as far as the tenants, we know that the tenant is the architect, that the tenant is in full support of the project, and that the property owner knows they have eviction protections, all of the available protections for tenants, and they are planning on adhering to all of those, so just to provide a little bit of color for who the tenant is

that's currently in the building. >> president tanner: thank you very much. i'm going to ask a few questions if the commissioners don't mind, and then, i will ask commissioners to ask questions and comments, as well. on that, if the project sponsor could please come to the mic. i just want to understand that the architect is the tenant of the property as it exists today, is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> president tanner: and has your project sponsor been able to or would be willing to provide that in fact it is the architect and provide the lease or rental agreements? >> i'd have to speak to my client about that.

>> president tanner: you are currently occupying the home? >> correct. >> president tanner: and that's your primary resident, your home? >> yes. >> president tanner: how long have you been living there? >> two years, just over two years. >> president tanner: and is that how you [indiscernible]. >> correct. at the time, i was looking for housing, and the house was empty, and the client offered me live there. >> president tanner: and would you be willing to provide any lease documentation to the department if required? >> yes. >> president tanner: okay. i don't know if anyone has any other questions? >> commissioner imperial: yes. part of the s.b. 92, [indiscernible] according to

the tenant or rent, so what is your current rent right now in your -- >> in terms of what? dollar value? >> commissioner imperial: yes. >> $5100 a month. >> president tanner: thank you. and commissioner ruiz? >> do we have any potential idea what the cost of the a.d.u.s will be? >> the cost of the a.d.u.? >> yes. >> i don't know. >> okay. just trying to understand that, it says for general plan compliance objective one, that this meets the city's needs, especially for affordable housing, so i don't know if the city could speak to how this meets those policies in the

general plan. >> president tanner: just one second. i think we may be done with our questions for you. do you want to answer that? >> sure. i think the concept is those being 600 square-foot units, and those are on the smaller side, so those would be relatively more affordable other than other units in the neighborhood that are typically much larger. >> president tanner: okay. thank you. i'm just going to stick with that for a little bit because that was my biggest concern was the tenant occupancy of this building. the second concern is just the size of the overall main units, so i'm not sure whether the project sponsor team wants to speak with it, but the idea of having the a.d.u.s become enlarged from the 600 to 700, 800 square feet, maybe becoming additional bedrooms or what

have you, so my question is would you be willing to increase the size of the a.d.u.s? >> well, we've considered the size of the a.d.u.s relative to the size of the house. the two main units obviously are not small. they were designed to accommodate families with small children or intergenerational families. we really wanted to ensure that there was quite a bit of space in the main units, and then, when the penthouse space is removed to accommodate some neighbor concerns, it became all the more important to obtain that square footage. a 600 square foot a.d.u. by design is sort of more affordable. two a.d.u.s would be more affordable than a 900 square

foot a.d.u., especially if you expand it more, then cost makes it more difficult to offer affordable housing to the housing stock. >> president tanner: i certainly would be in favor of seeing a slightly larger a.d.u. i'm not wanting to kick it up too large. i'm looking to balance the affordablity of a smaller unit. i understand having smaller homes, because this is quite large, because then, it affects the cost of housing in the city and county of san francisco. those are my comments.

commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: those are my questions, as well. last week, we clarified demolition, and we were trying to clarify a way that demolition was being used for megamansions, and this is a concern, i agree with president tanner in terms of increasing a.d.u., and i would suggest increasing it up to 1,000 square feet and adjust the main housing to 2,000 square feet. but at the same time, this is not what we have. what i would -- because as we are typically discussing multiplexes or duplexes, we discuss it in a way that is equity excisive on it. this is not what we envision when we're talking about duplexes, so not sure -- it

doesn't sound like the project sponsor would like to increase the a.d.u. sizes, but i would also second you on that. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner imperial. any other commissioners? i might suggest, since i can't make motions myself, i don't know if you could work with the project sponsor, but i would be okay with it coming back with the revisions. >> i also think if there's a minimum square footage that you'd like to have the a.d.u.

be, we can subsequently work at how the puzzle pieces fit together to make that happen. if you don't need to see that final design back, if it's just 800 square feet, 1,000 square feet, we can work with you following that motion. >> president tanner: i would support whether it's coming back or working with staff and just give a range of 800 or 1,000 square feet. however the motion goes, i would be willing to support that. [indiscernible]. >> it's almost entirely

subterranean as it reaches the back of the lot, so any additional area that we add to the a.d.u. without making it a two-story a.d.u., would mean excavation at the back to make it that space. i just want to add access to the a.d.u. is adjacent to the front door to the other larger units, so both units are accessed from the same kind of entry. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner diamond, do you have additional questions or comments? >> commissioner diamond: no, i'm prepared to support the project as is, so i'll just put that out there. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm also prepared to support the project as is. i don't think this discussion changes from project to project where the size of the additional unit is desirable,

from a citywide point of view, if it's smaller, then it's potentially more affordable, and i've said that multiple times. i don't know why we would look at a more magical number that is more appropriate for the city. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner fung. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i would still put a motion in terms of continuance, in terms of the a.d.u. to increase up to 800 square feet and work with the planning staff in redesigning for a more

equitable unit distribution. how long do you think the staff will be able to work with the project sponsor with that? your estimate. >> i would have to defer to the architect on how quickly they would be able to do that. >> yes, hi. i apologize. we were discussing the -- what the commission was discussing, as well. was the discussion about the continuance and the size of the square footage?

>> president tanner: yes, and how long would you want to come back before the commission? >> i think two months would be best to ensure to see if we can make this work. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. in two months. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the commission, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to june 16 and increase the a.d.u.s to 800 square feet. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: either way, that motion fails, 3-3. >> president tanner: i know. that's what i would think, so we'll be looking for another motion, commissioners. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i will make a motion. i think we would like to see more units here. i'm okay that the existing or proposed a.d.u. is already taking up that entire lower floor. >> clerk: thank you. there is a motion to accept the

project as proposed with the additional items. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner fung: i wonder if the project sponsor has some ability to squeeze some square footage into that one unit on the lower floor? >> president tanner: if the project sponsor would like to respond to commissioner fung's question? >> the challenge is the excavation on that floor. there's a lot of expenses associated with it. [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and ruiz voting against. commissioners, that will place us on the final item on your agenda today, which was pulled off of the consent calendar, 33 banbury drive. this is a conditional use authorization. mr. horn? >> good afternoon, commissioners. jeff horn, planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization to allow for expansion through alterations and additions to an existing religious institution,

s.f. hill-el. the project site is a 7,762 slight upsloping lot with depths of 116 and height of 80 feet. it is a religious institution constructed from a single-family home built in 1946. the existing western wall of the building is currently set back 5'2" from the edge of this easement. the project proposes exterior and material alterations to add 1,017 square feet to the 2,002

square feet to the religious institutions. the alterations will include remodelling of the indoor and outdoor areas and construction of the site. an existing one vehicle garage and curb cut would be removed from the project. the department has received a total of five letters in support of the project, which includes the adjacent neighbors to the east across the street and from the lakeshore homeowners association, and yesterday, the department received one letter of concern

with this public easement for access along a provide portion of [indiscernible] drive. there's two notes that i want to note on the case report.

>> i think perhaps the concern -- it is unfortunate that this is being raised at the 11 hour. we had an outreach letter open to the public. there were lots of overtures made to this resident, and we -- you know, it's really

disappointing to receive this kind of feedback now in this forum. that said, we understand that, you know, driving in san francisco can be a challenge, and this alley is an alley where there are trash cans set out every monday morning. >> president tanner: pardon me. i think their concerns were there were bushes that she were concerned that could be a wall. >> they're amorphous. they're further into the driveway or into the drive of the easement than the building will ultimately be, so if she's

currently having a hard time avoiding the plants, things will be better in time because it'll be within a planter or they won't be sprawling. it will be a boundary for people driving down the street, particularly because there will be a line indicating where people can drive for support. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: if there aren't any other comments, i would note that the -- one other point brought up was related to the easement, but the fact that the drawings show

the easement. if there are no further comments, i'm prepare to move the approval of this project. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: commissioner fung, with the clarity of the amendments read into the record by staff? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> clerk: there's a motion to accept the project with the amendments read into the record by staff. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your hearing today. >> president tanner: thank you, everyone. we are adjourned.

>> van ness avenue runs from market street to bay street in san francisco. south vanness runs from south of market to cesar chavez street. originally residential after the 1906 earthquake it was used as a fire break. many car dealerships and businesses exist on vanness today with expansion of bus lanes. originally marlet street was named after james vanness, seventh mayor of san francisco from 1855 to 1856. vanness heavy are streets in santa cruz, los angeles and fresno in his honor. in 1915 streetcars started the opening of the expo.

in 1950s it was removed and replaced by a tree-lined median. it was part of the central freeway from bayshore to hayes valley. it is part of uses 101. it was damaged during the 1989 earthquake. in 1992 the elevator part of the roadway was removed. it was developed into a surface boulevard. today the vanness bus rapid transit project is to have designated bus lanes service from mission. it will display the history of the city. van ness avenue.

>> shop and dine in the 49

promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community.

>> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery

for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

good morning everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed. and today i'm here to talk about laguna honda hospital and i'm joined by the director of department of public health dr. grant colfax as well as the director or laguna honda michael phillips and located in