is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's >> good afternoon, welcome to the planning commission cyber hearing thursday, may 12 2022. in person and remote hybrid hearing will require everyone' attention and most of all our patients . if you're joining us remotely and not speaking please new your microphone. to enable public participation,

sfgov tv is streaming this he relies and we will receive comments for each item on today's agenda. comments are opportunitiesto speak available by calling 415-655-0001 . access code 2496 103 2138. we will take public comments from persons in person first and open the remote access lin . speak clearlyand slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. the speaker will beallowed up to three minutes . when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up .when your time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next speaker. for those personscalling in to submit testimony when you reach the item you're interested in speaking to pressá3 to be added

to the queue . when youhear online has been unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking .best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, new the volume on your television orcomputer. line upon the street screaming and least any mobile devices that may sound off during the hearing . at this time i would like to take role . [roll call] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call] great, we have all

our commissioners present so we willmove on to a, consideration of items proposed for continuance . at this time no itemsproposed for continuance . we will move on toitem b, consent calendar. all items listed , all matters listed constitute a consent calendar are considered tobe routine by the planning commission and maybe acted upon by a single rollcall vote by commission . there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate this or future hearings. this time relative to the calendar that was issued the only item we pulled up for agenda and will be considered in the regular calendar will be items five a and 5b for 32513 stier street. i would recommend we hear this item after the southeast rail station. at this time i will call the consent calendaritems .

on your consent calendaritem 1 , record number 0052, record number 2202-003219pca, fire damage to liquor stores in the commercial district file number 22032 of planning code amendment. item 2, 2021-004891cua. for 285 winston avenue request for conditional use authorization . item 3, 2021 005709 cua 2241 market street a request for conditional use authorization. item april 20, 2021 011365 cua 42257 irvingstreet, request for conditional use authorization . are there any members of the public or commissioners that would like to pull any of the

additional items off the consent calendar . seeing none we can entertain a motion. >> motion to approve the consent calendar. >> motion toapprove the item as stated . >> commissioner koppel made the motion, can commissioner fung is a second. at this time we will take the rollcall vote. [roll call vote] >> i lost my signaling. what is the motion? is this for the consent? >> it's a consent item for items one, two, three, four and item 5 a and 5b have been pulled into the regular calendar. >> all right.

>> commissioner koppel. [roll call vote] that motion carries 70. move on toitem c . commission matters. consideration of adoption of the draft minutes from april 21 2021 2022 and the draft minutes from april 28 2022. at this time we will take public comment on any of the draft minutes from april 21 or april 28 . seeing none, we will move on to we can entertain a motion. >> commissioner koppel. >> motion to approve the minutes.

>> second. >> that was a motion by commissioner koppel, seconded bycommissioner fung. we will move forward with a rollcall vote . [roll call vote] that i am carries 70. we move on to item number seve , commission comments and questions . >> thank you commissioners, i'llopen this with our land acknowledgment . the planning commissions knowledge as we are on the unseeded homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. in accordance with their tradition they have never seen it, lost nor forgotten their responsibility as the caretakers of this state as well as for all people to reside in their traditional territory.

as guests we recognize and benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to acknowledge the ancestors and relatives of the community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. we will open it up for any comments or questions . >> president tanner and more are listed. >> thank you. justtrying to make sure i have that. next, commissioner release . >> thank you president tanner. i wanted to bring attention to a state assembly bill and i've been hearing about in 2011 which will allow residential housing to be built by wright and infill areas currently zoned for office retail and parking uses so as long as the elements are your adhere to specific standards. i know right now it's still going through the necessary committees but i wanted to

raise this as a subject and asked whether the planning department staff has been discussing this internally or studied what this could potentially mean for san francisco and if not there potentially be amap done to understand this in more depth . >> thank you commissioner. we've been looking at trying to understand exactly what it would do to san francisco's land use controls. one of our concerns is our pdr protections and how this state law would maybe he wrote some of those protections so we are looking into it. we're having conversations internally and with you all about the ordinance as well. >> thank you. is there going to be astudy that will be published that the

commission and the public can have access to or is it just discussions for now ? >> for now it's just discussions. we may be bringing this. if it works and it moves forward wemay bring it to the state legislative committee for a city position on it . >> thank you. would there be any capacity to do an initial study or is that not something the planning departmentstaff does unless it actually passes ? >> it's not something we normally do unless it passes. as it gets closer to i guess september which is what it needs to pass we can reevaluate that when we did sb nine and 10 we didn't wait for those to pass the state assembly or get signed by the mayor. >> i would add commissioner what we've done sometimes in the past is because it's early in the process and obviously each state builds change or

gets parked in some committee and don't build forward we can provide information for you that's out there already on these bills and as it progresses perhaps a memo or a times we've doneinformational hearings for more significant bills that may be movingforward we can kind of entertainment as it moves forward . >> that would be great . anyinitial dissemination of a future memo would for sure be appreciated . thank you. >> commissioner . >>thank you commissioner release . i'd be interested to see as well in the memo but actually i would like to make an announcement that on may 26 there's going to be a future documentary film that is about the history of settled migrants. it will be on may 26 967 mission street.i think it would be just a good important documentary film and featuring

some of the old footage of saddle park. it's important as we look back into history and how we have progressed and hopefully in future years to come. i know as the commission we can all be in the same place altogether but i hope a couple of commissionerscan attend . >> did you have the time of that event? >> yes. it will be 5 pm to 8:30 p.m.. if ever our hearing ends early before 5 pm i think it would still be a goodtime to go. >> we will knock on wood for that . thank you. and then i believe we have commissioner moore. >> i would found something yesterday which ifound fascinating .you spoke about extending a subway of geary

boulevard and it has a diagram on it. it spoke about, the department has been involvedin looking at this . it sounded like a significant need for an idea all the more expensive that having a drg which has had a lot of opposition overthe years that i've observed . in any case i would love for the department to present on that subject matter and give us a better idea of how feasible it is.obviously this transportation funding being more visible in washington dc i'm wondering if that is something thathas kind of like a near-term to be discussed in more seriousness . >> do you have something on that? >> sorry, it's just my class again. >> doug johnson, transportation planning manager for the citywide division. i can let youall know planning

does have a role in that study . the san francisco transportation authority set aside funding at their board hearing last month. we do have a role in setting forward the long-term land-use framework for that in light of both the housing element and the expected investment. so stay tuned. >> i'm more interested in technically knowing if it's possible because many times there are underground gas lines and it may be next to impossible. how to look at it technically. >> that is certainly a component of the study our ability both to find every piece of infrastructure before we start projects i think has proven to bequite challenging . many of them predate any online or digital mapping of any kind which i think has been well documented unfortunately

in the news on some of our recent transit projects. that being said i think this has a proof of concept that's already been lookedat enough times in the last 30 years for us to affirm it is a viable project . >> that's a good answer. thank you very much. >> i don't see any other commissionersrequesting to speak so with that any questions . >> so we can move on toitem 8 four directors announcements . >> good afternoon. one brief announcement i wanted to let you know we sent the draft housing element and all the related reports to acd to get some initial comments from them so they're digesting it and we hopefully will have some feedback back from them in a few days. >> wonderful. we move on to item number nine,

events for the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> erin star, manager of legislative affairs. i have two weeks, last week was pretty short. the committee canceled on the full board of supervisors asked supervisor mandolin sport since on second read. this week the land-use committee consider the designation for 2868 mission street known as the mission cultural center for latino i arts. recommended approval in february of this year. the center is eligible for listing in the national register because of association with social and ethnic history of the mission district as a latinx enclave in association with the california latinx cultural center movement of the 1970s. during the hearing all the speakers in favor of the designation and the importance

of the center. the community voted unanimously torecommend the approval to the full board . next the land-use committees considered supervisor mandelman ordinance to consider are rh zoning districts. this has been submitted severa times and has had many amendments . some of those include requiring rent control, creating an rh t zoning or the existing districts and allowing six units on the corner lots . last time supervisor preston had an amendment that required applicants to have owned the property for at least five years to address speculation concerns. this week melgar proposed amendments to allow family members thathave inherited the property to be eligible . this amendment was accepted by thecommittee . the committee seems to have reconciled the fact that adding affordability requirements would increase the feasibility gap but there's still committed to looking at ways tosomehow subsidize affordable units

so i suspect the conversation will continue around the issue . after public comment we had fewer participants and similar concerns expressed.the committee voted to continue the item one more week in part because supervisor peskin is tying his group housing which could be considered a down zoning to this zoning requirement. supervisor morris for. >> ordinance was also on the agenda and asked that the item be continued to the call of the chair. and finally there were no relevant planning items that the board could speak on and that concludes my remarks . >> thank you, good afternoon president tanner. zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night and at that hearing they announced the resignation of commissioner darrell honda and the board thanked mister hunter for his 10 years of service and

dedication on the board of appeals. the board also heard one item of interest the case was a jurisdiction request and the property was 757 thirdavenue. this project in addition to an existing single-family home that the planning commission heard at the discretionary review way back in october 2020 . the commission did not take the r in may 2021. the dr requester subsequently sold their lot adjacent to the project site after the permit had been issued and the new jurisdiction request to the board of appeals to be able to file a late appeal on theground they were not aware of that permit being issued when they purchased the property but the board of appeals found the property , the permit was properly noticed and issuedand the city did not prevent the appellant from filing a timely

appeal so they denied a jurisdiction request and that concludes my report . >> for the historic preservation commission they did meet at the beginning of the month on may 4 . they heard a landmark designation for city which wouldrepresent one of the few landmarks we have to associated with the events and heard a series of sequences and finally had an informational hearing on a portion of the citywide historic statement associated with architectural planning and preservation . an architect bio. so at this time we will move on to item e, general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on item of interest withinthe subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when theitem is reached each member may address the commission up to three minutes . when the number of speakers exceeds the 15 minute limit

general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda . >> i did want to talk about the project at 1647 sanchez until it sold but once i saw the video which is an email i sent on may 6, i felt compelled.i cannot repeat everything in the email because it would take too long but i do suggestyou look at the redfin link which shows the interior and exterior now and when it sold for 1.667 million back in 2015 . even for those six commissioners who voted yes on the third vote approving the project this project is precisely what the commission did not want to be the outcome during thedeliberations . this project took full advantage of the fact that the demagogues have never been adjusted . selling a completion in july 2020 $49.1 million and now asking 13.495 million and it's never had full-time occupants.

i respectfully request that this project received a full look back. i requested a meeting with director phyllis or a variance was granted for ms. malone or missed hand to look at how they were arrived at. i have a copy of how they were calculated on the plans during its review prior to approval. since there are only two commissioners still on the commission plus director phyllis (the commissioners who are not seated to please watch the may 18 2017 hearing. around the 3:35 mark one commissionerdescribed projects like this as quote, slowly but surely destroying the neighborhood and it looks like other speculative projects . and as stated by staff in 2021 noe valley is the epicenter of demolition.

it raises the issue of not only the demo but what type of housingshould be on corner lots in our neighborhoods . some existing housing should be legally demolished as this projectshould have been in order to expand housing opportunities . just as there are many others that should not be demolished de facto or otherwise but instead should have legal alterations as intended under section 317 in order to preserve existing housing and protect relative affordability. just copy what i said for those of you who were here and here's a copy for the minutes,150 words. thank you very much and have a great day . >> any other members of the public in person would like to provide their comments reach up to the dais or if thereare any members listening in on line

and would like to call him please hitá3 . i don't see any others items. we can move on to our regular calendar itemnumber f . specifically for item number 1 , number 2018 008588 cwp in the southeast rail station studyinformational presentation . >> ... >> good afternoon commissioners and president tanner.

still thinking of coffee, my apologies. doug jones, transportation planning manager for the citywidegroup . this is a follow-up presentation to the presentation cannot party, my colleague was moved on to the tj pa gave you all in october on a number of activities related to the arts benefit study implementation. the study is very much focused. this presentation isvery much focused on southeast rail station study . that's one component of thework . that study set out to focus on a number of kind of key initiatives. the first of which was to ensure that we both enhanced and improved access to regional transit in this part of the city as well as to evaluate stations in the bayview to

restore regional service that was lost a long time ago as well as stations that may be needed in the pennsylvania avenue tunnel. i would like to give you just a quick overview on the schedule of theproject . and then we will have a chance to engage with you all on station alternatives as well as the feedback we're looking for from you around any additional analysis and thoughts on station options from you directly. i also want to let you know there was a news article published just this morning on the san francisco business times website that gives a very awful and in-depth assessment of the considerations for the station, especially in the bayview. we will make sure those are all linked on the project website. as notedthis work has very much

followed the railyard benefit study . the study kicked off in spring of 2020. i will note that was not an easy time to start off a public process. not to make any excuses but i want to acknowledge that some staff have had to recalibrate a few times on her engagement and outreach given the impacts of the pandemic. we did do 2 or 3 rounds of outreach in the fall and winter on community-based organizatio presentation . we've tried to enlist almost 20 cbo's to help usspread the word. we are here today giving you this update . we've been providing updates to the community advisory committees that are in this jurisdiction . and then we will be heading out in a few weeks time to the bayview opera house to have a meeting specifically on next

steps regarding the day view station and seek to return to you all for recommendations based on that event and your feedback today at that meeting. at the end of june.before forwarding the study onto our partner agencies at the transportation authority and caltrain and i believe although i do not have webx on my phone we have representativesfrom both of those organizations on the phone and they're able to answer yourquestions . the study set out to look at a couple of key issues . first of all to ensure that we do expand regional rail access as a complement to the investments that sf mta has been making and will be continuing to make in their transit system and as part of the city as well as to again look at options in the event that or when such time comes as

the pennsylvania avenue tunnel project comes along. i think one thing i would note in looking at what this kind of early finding was that there was really no scenario by which you could put a single station into this community and suggest you were going to serve effectively or meaningfully at the bayview and dogpatch potrero and mission bay so we have broken up the six station options into three groups . we would be looking ultimately to see one of these stations proceed from each group so one of these so-called dogpatch stations and one station from the bayview. just for a little bit ofcontext , for those of you like myself whomaybe weren't so familiar with the city of san francisco

zoning map , you'll see here the three main colors that are impacted or are affected by station locations and vice versa are residential, mixed-use andindustrial . you can see within the different station options how the mix of land uses shifts. i think the most obvious trend is that it's both evident that this is not a mystery. there's a very large amountof industrial land . the pdr lands as we know are scarce in the city, making up less than five percent of all land in the city. but many of them are right here. you can also see to the south the increasing residential populations and then to the north mission bay with its large mix of uses past and present. and similarly just taking a quick lookat some of our

preliminaryforecasts . for the future , you can see i think the growth that has been long planned especially for those more northern station options at 16th and mariposa or replaced 22nd street and consistent with the direction of the new housing element draft you can see that there is not forecasted to the substantial amount of new development in further new development i should say in this part, in the southern par of the station study . the pipeline really does very much reflect the current zoning. you'll see a substantial number of large pdr projects that are in the application process at both evans as well as at cesar chavez. large number of mixed-use and residential projects to the north . you can also see a number of

important projects on perhaps on the edge of the map which i apologize for them not being more perhaps visible obviously but the candlestick and hunter shipyard projects are well outside of the standard half-mile walking distance people tend to think of and use for shorthand for transit planning purposes but they are obviously going to be in the future and even today very important places for these stations to serve. just maybe to be on the record we wanted to make sure that we kind of flat for you all there are a few level rise challenge . i don't think this corridor or the stations are unique in facing this challenge and we are working on this as i think you all know but it is to say there are certainly some additional risks and

considerations that would need to be taken depending on which station we ultimately are able to put forward that could possibly increase cost or design challenges or some other impacts. with that when we go ahead and move into the set of bayview station options fora little bit more in-depth . i think one of the really important things to note that i think well understood but this is a community that is experienced redlining and disinvestment for decades. and at the same time for over 20 years the community has had and has sought to maintain regional rail access. below is a listing of some of the ways in which it hasbeen

studied , approved and considered . that continues to be the case as recently as 2020 in the community transportation plan. affirmed as one of their top three recommendations is the need for the station there has been money previously set aside by the transportation authority for the station. this study given the fact that the station and the bayview has not broken ground nor substantially proceeded for purposes of design did want to take a fresh look just to make sure that historic commitments should be evaluated and reviewed against these land-use trends. so that's part of why the study did take a look at the evidence location as well asthe williams location . for evans you can see from this

burial station and the way it kind of sits right underneath and next to highway 280 with the puc facility in the background, farther beyond you can see the new southeast community center, city college and then out to hunter's point andshipyards locations . i think the key consideration for folks that we've heard from for the station and there are folks at the shipyards in particular who have been interested in and are supported on the station location is proximity to the southeast community facility which is expected to open this summer. there's a lot of enthusiasm about that new facility and enjoining potential investments at city college. these represent a shift away

from where the they used to be at southeast community facility which wasup at oakdale. however , evans as indicated by those maps does sit right in the middle of the zone. there's very heavy truck traffic among other considerations there. it is presently served by one transit line from sf mta and does not provide quite asgood conductivity as some of the other streets in the area . for the oakdale station again, this is the station that has been historically thought of and has been considered the de facto stationoption. you can see it basically shifts the station to the south . one very large flock to the other side of gerald. but provide access from general in that case and then also from oakdale.

it would be a bit of a mix level.it would be a little higher on the northern end and a little lower on the southern end as well as a slow increases there. it also may be an opportunity to reconnect queen street which was severed by a burn back about five years ago at the time when there was a bridge needing placement. it was closing queen street and remaining us. as i noted the southeast community facility is at that southern end of the station along with a very largeparking lot . that it may present an interesting opportunity. there are a number of bus lines is way that runs through on oakdale and could provide good conductivity throughout the city, throughout that part of the city and may be indicative offuture transit you would expect to find in that area .

and then lastly was the williamslocation. this was part farther to the south. one of the biggest challenges with williams unfortunately is that it lies below street level . that is not good for perception and feeling of personal safety . and in addition to that the community farm that you can see sitting right on top of that tunnel i hope was very adamantly opposed to the presence of the station across the street. they thought it would ultimately threaten the farm. but i think we i may or may not agree with that assertion. the fact that it is belowground and would have very difficult access, very similar to the station gap presently at 22nd street suggeststaff did no longer want to pursue that other recommendation so as a summary on the bayview you can see a few of the pros and cons . that we've identified to date and back community members have

also identified . to date. if it would be appropriate with the commissioners i'd be happy to do a question now in the bayview station before we move on to talk about the remaining dog patch for potrero stations. >> i'm okay if commissioners want to ask questions now to consolidateat the end. that would be my preference but i don't think other commissioners want to ask other questions . >> that's fine. >> i think consolidating sounds good to me as well. >> with that we will go ahead and keep going. appreciate your patience. as noted, the railyard and benefit study did identify the goal and the need long-term to extend the downtown extension

tunnel which is actively pursuing funding at the state and federal level right now to move into construction farther south from the railyard down to somewhere in that the city of 22nd and/or cesar chavez. extension would have an impact on the present station. which has a number of challenges not the least of which isalso below the street-level . it is underneath the freeway. it is not a very charming spot but it is also one of the fastest-growing caltrans stationsand is now the top 10 station for the operator . so in looking at that we've developed three concepts. one at mariposa/ 18, one below variations putting it back at 22nd street and third at cesar chavez . i think the main difference from a time perspective is

cesar chavez station would be a air. at the southern end. it is less expensive. these stations to the north are quite considerably more expensive. so mariposa station while perhaps it appears to be near the highest amount of activity and cervical potrero as well as mission bay needs very well, that station could be having cost not dissimilar from the central subway chinatown station. it would be very close to the waterfront and far underground given some of the infrastructure there so you could see also i think one of the kind of key issues that you face in this part of the city is thinking about the station access and through and under the freeway. it's just very challenging in this part of the city as its service to sever that

communities for such a long time. we are going to recommend we expect to recommend in the future that this study really proceedshand-in-hand on select limitation with the tunneling work . there really more intertwined than i think your ability to do them separately given the extreme cost variation associated with those different stations and the amount of engineering constraints thatare associated with them. you can see there are these different variations . you can see down at cesar chavez at blakely bridge again runs into some of the same challenges that we've seen before. it could increase access across 101 by moving it there but it doesn't havethe immediate land-use . so just there's a quick summary table here on the dogpatch potrero mission bay option .

why certainly welcome your feedback on that and what i want to come back to some of our next steps so in addition to getting your feedback you have community meaning meeting plans the second week of june in the bayview. but we will be narrowly focused on getting community feedback from the bayview communities on how best and how quickly we can proceed at this point on selecting and advancing the station. we will return to you with recommendations in june the foregoing to the sf pta. i'd be happy to take any questions and as a reminder we do also have our representatives from caltrans and sca online. >> i think we will take public comment. >> at this time we will take public comment on item number 10 for the study. informational presentation.

person want to line up on the screen side of the room we can take public comment on thisitem . there are no members of the public expressing desire to comment on thisitem . any people remotely that would like to provide their public comment. it'sá3 to be added to the queue and you will hear theprompt that you have raised your hand to ask a question and we will call on you accordingly. i think i see two members of the public are interested in commenting on this item . >> dear commissioners, my name is tim chan and i'm a long-standing member of the bayview cc and a longtime resident of bayview writing to

express my dismay about the lack of transparency relative to the southeast rail study and about the optics of the city remanding on its commitment to deliver a caltrans station at oakdale. up till recently oakdale was considered as a preferred caltrans station site as a result of working years of engagement in my community and that is a surprise when we were made aware of the options only as it was presented to bayview at the end of the study and that this option was discussed as others to generate thecourt even before the bayview community were informed . i'd like to remind the city oakdale has always been the preferred station location and to change it at this time undermines all the extensive work led by the city as the trust building with the bayview community. this is another example of the city reneging on itshistorical promises made to my community . thank you for considering my commentsvirtually and in

writing which i submitted earlier .>> speaker: this is zach weisenburger with young community district developers in district 10. i'm highlighting the importance of steps to protect the solo the low income bipoc communities in bayview. thisstation will make it more interconnected with the south bay . upwardly mobile workers are increasingly signing access to a variety of transportation options when they are choosing where to live. as developers move to build condominiums that cater to the young professionals, longtime residents of the area surrounding the station will find themselves priced out of their own community. development is the only pursuit with a potential to benefit everyone but if it ignores the

needs and realities of the working class the communities that need and use mass transit the most is leaving people behind. the keys and transportation that comes from these communities helping impact improvements to transportation in bayview are needed but not at the price of the community. the community needs to monitor the effect each station will have gentrification . we need to prevent transit -induced gentrification . this improvement is intended to benefit. it can be done right if the city takes steps tocater anti-displacement. thank you . >> the commission can take any additional public comment if any remote audience memberswant to hitá3 . i think there's one more color.

>> i will skip you for now. >> speaker: good afternoon commissioners. this is roland in san jose. the first comment i'd like to make aboutthe bus rail in london , the platform more to level. now with regards to the tge proposal on townsend we should be incredibly disposed to mariposa. the thing about this solution is to have one position which should be under seventh street. we should be serving the low potrero area. the cesar chavez station at that point in time we no longer

need second street. with regard to oakdale i personally would like to say. it's essentially will be vacated and the queen street. i do believe the central avenue because that's made mention of the collection to the t third which hasgotten existing spur in that area .one or two final comments. every single one of these stations needs to allow traffic through to go because that line is the main line. between la and san francisco. so all the traffic has to be able to go forward to let traffic come through. last and most important thing, the bayshore station which unfortunately is not in san francisco county it's

absolutely critical. it has to be about the same size as the middle and it needs to be shifted out to facilitate the intersection with the commuter on the extension. in future that station will be used to turn trains back that will be coming across the new transit a. that cannot possibly go all the way down because it would be too much traffic. thank you. >> you can do your public testimony now. color, we are unable to hear you. >> hello. this is davon purcell.

i'm the chair of the bayview safety and wanted to comment on these oakdale street station and i think you're looking at the bayview options and approach for evans street. i saw that it was the southeast community center and as somebody who lives in bayview and has seen the primary primary purpose to translate full to the peninsula and so while this facility is going to be near evans street that facility primarily used for bayview for the bayview community and perhaps even the larger san francisco community but proximity to the caltrain is not relevant becausethat's not used for that purpose people are taking the caltrain to travel locally . similarly it's the city college is not relevant because that's where people in the city are using. i wanted to highlight the practical matter of. actually use it know what it's for and what it's for is

transit to and from the peninsula and having it in oakdale would be ideal because it would connect our community in bayview to be to use that as a place to live in either travel to thepeninsula or vice versa . evidence is limited residential dynamics there. there's new developing step in terms of the correct community is not also a biking public walking sort of transit nightmare you walk over there is not feasible to utilize that . i wanted to highlight is really from a practical perspective what is it for and use going to use it i think it's going to be the people of bayview actually lived in bayview near oakdale. >> final call for public comment for item number 10. any remote audience memberthat would like to provide public comment to the planning commission please hitá3 . i see no other colors in my

queue. >> i do see commissioner reese and commissioner fong with their hands up. then to other commissioners as well. thank you for the report and also all the work that's gone into this and i want to appreciate and know what it's like to lose a staff person that's really an asset. thank you for taking thatwork. with regards to bayview station , i want to start by just understanding a little bit more about the timeline as i'm looking there. as well as what was in the report. this has been is my count is right 17 years in the making of restoring a station in bayview. 2005 the station closed and the next cta feasibility study from oakdale so i do not understand climate change is more real than it was but why the need to look at threestations for two

additional stations, why not look at oakdale to confirm . and kind of adding two additional options.can you get the microphone. >> i think it was just purely a point of due diligence as we had heard our funding partners in particular that was interested in looking at more than just the one location. i'm not in a good position to what preceded our study. unfortunately all those years but i think it's a very important and i hear a very critical part of the story. >> i think for me where it took me his this aspect of looking at other stations reaffirming again seven years later oakdale words but i worry about the caller and the city going back

on a commitment that made so for me i think it looks like the study from oakdale has good attributes that certainly there is no perfect station. each station has its challenges but the challenges oakdale don't seem to be any more significant than and it could still be a feasible option but to me it's really no good option for a station. i think it's also surrounded by some pdr where the station would be compounded from the train but at the same time within walking distance of residential and the evans station. and the williamsstation doesn't seem to have a lot of interest from the people closer to residents . but the stationphysically would be pretty undesirable . to basically re-create second street is a practical station but not the most lovely station perhaps. any comments you wantto give on that . >> i think you've summarized

well. the other thing i would say about oakdale that is important is in addition to transit planning that has been around that i think we do have a legacy with the former redevelopment agency seeking to revitalize third street as both a node and a corridor. essentially the opera house an other places there.i think we want to do our due diligence . and it may be that unfortunately we are able to get to a consensus position with the entire community. it's unfortunate and perhaps it's unsurprising given how big the district and the neighborhoods that is. >> i think the good thing is that even if we can't get to consensus is the oakdale and evans station are not that far from each other so for those who prefer evans at least the

oakdale station would not be significantly high traveling if they had to adjust their and depending on where the other station is in the dogpatch potrero that couldbe another option .considering what other information we would have the other things i'm thinking about are the gentrification which the study does reference. i think maybe a piece of it would be understanding more about are there any land purchaseopportunities that need requirements for size and other factors that could be future acquisitions . or would anti-the displacement strategy rely on policy or would it be about sites that are more hundred percent affordablehousing ? not a lot of additional capacity for housing but it's really more about protecting versus, maybe accommodation there.

some kind of high-level look around what's on the station to understand what that could look like or we might forecast a need and the impacts of new station and i could be for either the northern or other part of that study.the other thing i want to see especially for the bayview station is kind of moredetailed analysis of walking and biking to the station . i used to live in the williams station and my fianci would buy a bike to the 22nd street station and i would pray every day you wouldn't get hit by a truck on his way down third street or if he took the long way around that it was a little bit safer. there isjust looking at a google map and saying okay you can bike their or walk somewhere and in addition a lot of the roads don't connect . so you can do all want watershed but if you're not looking at where people would have to walk you you're a 20 minute walk or a 30 minute walk even though you can cross property lines. so just a little deeper

analysis on how many people live within a reasonable light or walk or if it would be regularly transit to get to that location. i would agree with the comments the southeast community facility is a great addition to our city where excited about it but i don't know if it's great for commuters which i think would be the primary use but i would certainly want to see pdr usage obtained in the city to the degree that are land-use changes needed for housing and some of the residential areas. i'd be interested to see the commissions thought but i think you're looking about pdr's. uses around here so having that context is really important. i will stop my questions there and i'll call on commissioner fong. >> they're going to run a gamut of different areas. initially i was going to ask

questions about high-speed rail but i doubt that it's going to occur during my lifetime. for those of us who have been on the station and had a high-speed rail train survive the noise and aircraft is quiet in there. it would have produced probably a number of impacts which we would need to think seriously about. in terms of a question that i asked is if you could elaborate a little bit, what i asked is where their discussions related to connectivity, whether it's physical or land-use between the caltrain stations versus

third street light rail in terms of what would generate potentially either economic stimulation or make sense just because of existing land use. could you expand on that? >> if you can imagine you could have had even more so i tried to spare you a bit of that. what i would say is that in this case buspar there are the farther south you go the caltrain alignment gets closer to third street. so at williams it's actually closest although there are some challenges we don't again and out of the spot where the williams station would be but oakdale would be closer to third street. the informally we have indications from sf and ta they

would have a preference for an oakdale station given the amount of transit lines that effectively run along that route already as well as providing better access to third street between third street and caltrain. i think one of the other things just to note and i'm really glad the caller mentioned the concerns around gentrification, displacement and we certainly think those are very real and are interested in talking about them more but the one thing i want to note is the other side of this is that when around the same time the station could open the bayview the tunnel to the salesforce transit center could also finally be open which i'd greatly increase access for bayview residents downtown to services to retail two jobs. and at fourth andtownsend .

we also see that as a huge opportunity.we know the key has been a lot slower and everybody would have ever wanted. this may provide some better connectivity there as well. so that connection to the local transit system may in thatcase made it even more important . >> let's go into a couple of those areas. what is in the discussions related to the issue and the general scope for the size of the station, what kind of discussions occurred then on what happens around the station?either land-use or any discussions of whether you briefly mentioned it in your

response but i didn't see anything in the details related to either a mixed-use, multimodal use. with respect to stations. >> is a great question. i think that's a bit a part of the purpose ofthis hearing is to get your feedback on the adjoining land uses . we have i think a historic commitment in particular to the zoning that's already taking place there to protect pdr and the northeastern neighborhoods and the dogpatch zoning and planning changes that have been made. i think we also see the housing element and emphasis on shifting future housing development patterns away from the southeast and eastern part of the city as well. so those things to me suggest there is not a great call for a massive rezoning. i think whether we should be

ending very hard as we would be with mo and our other partners around community and business realization and displacement i think would be much more our focus that we think this is about serving primarily the current bayview residents as much as it is not so much these days about it beinga transformative land-use opportunity . a lot of planning and zoning work is done in this area's agreed but however we're talking about not just that conversation and i imagine that the land-use impact is going to bury as one goes up the ladder. so one of the things that i want to see is to have staff look at what they project as the land-use impact in each of those stations. but also what would staff's vision be then for how the

land-use around that may want to change based upon either community needs, based upon trends that they're seeing in those areas. especially when you have such large projects being developed on the east side. that is going to have an impact on some of this. in terms of either usage or things that develop around tha . so i think it's a question of not necessarily a great decision making in terms of location. obviously the southernmost one is a little bit more of not only a community perception base. but also political as well. i think for us to see some of

that with that would assist us in beingable to say all right . this makes more sense than thi . >> thank you commissioner and i'd tip on that to say while i think this is not aland-use study , it is a location study i think this question around with there be any changes depending on the station that's preferred that might make sense and for connecting back to the gentrification question. would there be the opportunity to do zoning's this specific to moderate income housing based on the tech parcels that are within proximity to whatever station is selected. i do think one of the things our city continues to do is bring land-use and transportation together because certainly it annoys me a little bit.

it's just a vestige of our past that you have single-family homes often lining transit corridors so you got one household benefiting from massive city infrastructure and operation dollars and the capacity to have even changed also there's no opportunity for host a proximity to that valuable asset . that's part of what i think aboutwhen i think about transportation . we're going to invest lots of money in these stations and have a house next to the rail station. it really doesn't seem to be the right equation.not that we're going to do a massive land-use study but if we were to imagine these stations coming to fruition its narrow down to just the to what might be advised to look at and conversely if we don't want to change the land-use so therefore maybe another station

is preferable because things can change within that walkand that bike radius. with that i'll call on commissioner rubies . >> thank you president tanner. thank you planning staff. this is super exciting and i think much needed. i want to express the real need for opportunities in low income communities and what i'm paying more attention to his the bayview location. i'm proud as a bayview residents and i definitely have displaced memories of how difficult it was to not have a car and the reliance on public transit. i think i remember 29 and the t but those were lines that were definitely into the evening. i think my average commute time was anywhere between 45 minutes to an hour one way to get where i needed to go which seems

quite a long way for how long san francisco is so i think it's something that should have always been there. with that being said in terms of recommendations to the commission on where these stations should be placed i personally would put my trust in the stakeholders opinion on that front with the land-use considerations already mentioned as well. when i feel strongly that those who live and serve these neighborhoods with no less and that and that final decision should be written that feedback which i know might be hard as reaching a consensus is difficult although i just want us to make sure that we're not leaving anyone else in the outreach process especially those most vulnerable so with the bayview location in mind i would love to hear from planning staff how these outreach meetings have gone so far. what is the process on how you're informing the community

that this is happening so folks can engagein these conversations. how does the meetings are structured . and what you are hearing in those spaces. >> thanks for the question. in terms of, so i would say first of all and again i don't want to make anyexcuse . i just want to acknowledge we certainly have not had an easy time reaching a lot of folks in the bayview in particular. i think the acute impacts of it as well as what we've heard around outreach fatigue on this issue as you see we pinged the community a lot about the station and the idea of the station so there is definitely the key. we did work with the transportation authority to delay our outreach as long aswe could . such that we could wait until

some of the worst impacts subsided. we had two rounds of public outreach in the fall. we coordinated with a list of about 20 to 25 cbo space in the bayview. to help promote to online events. we still are compelled to have them online at that time due to concerns and various masking requirements etc.. let's see here. the open houses, online open houses have translators available in three languages at all four of the online open houses. what i would say was that in terms of turnout, and the meeting that we had where we were more focused on discussion of the bayview station we had about 30 odd attendees from the bayview community who were

specifically interested in tha . the majority of them were more interested in pursuing and advancing the oakdale station but recognizing that is not th largest data sample of all time . we also did make sure to pass out and handout hard copies of materials and libraries in the senior center and rec center and other kind of community facilities and that part of the city. as well as the southeast community facility.so i would definitely say the cac's have certainly taken very different positions and we do hope the meeting at the end at the beginning of june to be able to really see if we can find a path forward and perhaps get out of the planning mode and get into some sort of funding

and environmentalclearance mode instead . >> mission or, to answer your question . >> i think when we shared this item before it would be great to get a list of the stakeholders and potentially stakeholders that we're missing who are not in those spaces. just so i have a sense of who's being included and who's being left out so maybe we can think about in the future why those aren't participating and what can we do in the future to increase outreach and engagement . so thank you so much. i also want to discuss an equity piece and thank you president tanner and commissioner for already raising this issue. last lack of transit is of course an equity issue but just

because we implement the station and historically marginalized and low income community doesn't mean all of a sudden everyone is going to have equitable access to our work really can't stop there. so i'd love to hear from our caltrain representative on what plans are to ensure our lowest income residents will have access to this new station and at least get a sense of cost and of where this station will take us to get on at the bayview locationand so on . >> was the gentleman's name? anthony simmons.can you unmute anthony and respond to commissioner ruiz inquiry. you are unmute it. >> thank you commissioners for the question . count train director of

systemwide stations and capital planning. so i thank you for the question and if i can't recall i guess two parts. the first thing is what would they be doing to ensure that people are actually brought in and served by station that could potentially be located in the bayview. i'll answer that part first. the board recently had adopted an equity and growth and development policy and for that policy is for paying particular attention to the fact that sf continues to move beyond the pandemic. additional customer base is a need to change to be more reflective of a broader approval of people and that means that it will need to continue to adjust its approach and its services on how we provide service and how we engage with the community to restore that we are providing

services. at the moment in caltrain where operating the most that we've ever operated. and part of the reason for that is to reflect the changing market that we need to make sure that we connect with and that we've reached so that being said people who may not have the standard schedule means thatpeople who have needs of transit other than getting to and from work ,that's part of the step . the others that we have been connected in investigating as we continue with the discount programs. we're going to hold the other measure that was passed at the end of the 20/20 was to give us the ability to look further in the discount programs and more equitable programs to perhaps lower any other victories in

that space to get people to fall in so those are some of the things that we recognize we need to do in order to grow the effectiveness and grow the connections to the people who as i say are going to be the future of what the market needs to do and reflect. with the second question i'm sorry.>> i was just curious where this will take us. if i were to take it onthe bayview station where can i go ? >> thanks for the question. at the moment we haven't done any detailed planning or anything like that on what it would do there. but i think that if we take it in tandem with whatever happens with potrero it would provide connections to the city and what the service pattern would be and how often thiswould be

served. is it twice and our work is it some other number ? but the destination i would anticipate they remain. >> thank you so much. i think it would be great if when there is a final report on this initiative to include the efforts to ensure that our low income residents will have access to this station at whateversubsidized rates will be set up . so the commission and public is awareof that plan . so my last comment just to follow on the recent equity piece is just my desire to see a robust race and equity analysis from planning staff

because my biggest concern is that while yes, we need a fixed station that this could potentially lead the neighborhood at risk of gentrification and displacement and in the memos there's a section on bayview history that residents are vulnerable to the in classification development and are at risk ofdisplacement as new development comes into the neighborhood . with this added amenity this could lead to negative outcomes that i know we all want to prevent and i think we have examples we can turn to in terms of how gentrification and displacement has changed a neighborhood. we've seen that in the mission district so i think we need that analysis if a station is proposed in the bayview and if it's at a particular location who and what live in the

surroundingarea . i'd like to see demographics . i'd like to see some acknowledgment on small and legacybusinesses . how many renters, longtime homeowners, etc. i think we really need to ensure we are highlighting the vulnerability and what are we going to do potentially in collaboration with other city departments to protect the community. what is our plan and what are specific policies we will uphold to prevent this from happening? i think it also might be helpful to do an environmental scan to see if other reports exist in other parts of the state or country and what other localities have done to mitigate the impact of gentrification when there's opportunities such as transit and have been implemented sohow can we learn from that ? those are my thoughts and i

think the planning staff. this is exciting and i can't wait for it to come tofruition . >> i wanted to take up your comment about outreach with june 9 coming up perhaps perhaps staff can take a list of folks reaching out.if we know anybody who we can make sure the word gets out to those who are not being made aware of the action. >> i'm happy to. >> and lead commissionerdiamond . >> thank you very much. >> commissioner diamond, one moment. director tillis has raised her hand. >> i wanted to respond to comments made around anti-gentrification and displacement strategies because we're undertaking this work in bayview not just in relation to this study and obviously the potential for a station but the

housing element identifies the bayview as part of the prior geographies and we have strategies in their that are geared towards getting access to issues you brought up. there's the african-american arts and cultural district that's there also that we're working with mohcd. i want to let you know beyond the work we're doing in this station whereaddressing any issues you pointed out which we understand . >> good to hear that and perhaps there's something you all can pull on to let us know how it's connected tothe station so i realize this plan isn't for everything so we always want to seethe connections . commissioner diamond . >> i first wanted to thank the staff for putting together a report that explains not just the context of the potential locations to the station but

how this fits into the downtown extension. a patchwork, high-speed rail that we had overall context in understanding why the location decision needs to be made in short order. i too want to say how excited i am to see this major project moving forward. i understand that projects of this magnitude take a long time and that's a reason why we need to seriously study now. i was excited to see commissioner moore say there's a resuscitation of effort on 19th street. and that this has gotten to the point where were actually looking at a station location. absolutely critical to move as quickly as possible to get people out of their cars and to increase accessibility for this

portion of the city. i wanted to address the specific questions asked of us about our initial thoughts at this time on the evans versus oakdale location. like commissioner ruiz i'm a little uncomfortable on that subject because i feel like a great deal of attention needs to be paid to the viewpoint of the people who live in the vicinity of these particular locations. i'mglad outreach , to hear about outreach efforts and know that your meeting back in june. i wanted to say though that based on the information that is in a study including the tendency that they at least for me seemed to point in the direction based on the information provided so far to the oakdale station . and i'll go through those but

if we're going to pick a station other than oakdale it doesn't seemlike you've created the record to support anything other than the oakdale station . let me just go through the things that popped up for me on the report explicitly as towhy oakdale seems like it made more sense at this point . and in no particular order of priority it doesn't seem like the funding yet set for either station and that oakdale is the report is less expensive than evidence. anunderstanding that correctly ? >> it is very early days and i think we've all seen what happens to major capital project costs. that being said, oakdale is considerably less expensive than evidence, possibly to the tune of half as expensive. at this point in time. i would note that the transportation authority and

their prop k reauthorization does seek to add funding. as i mentioned there was $1 million set aside in the 0304 prop k sales tax and they're looking to set aside a larger chunk. i believe it is in the high 20s,$27 million . in the case of 100 million dollars station that represents a large scale of the station but in ensuring we have a competitive station ultimately it has to be a part of a consideration . >> i think we have to be very careful not to ignore the cost differential between the two. it doesn't do us much good to make a station we can eventually get funded because it's too expensive. that's one issue. the second is it feels like we are the streaking tracking a balance and we ought to be careful about preserving what

we have and that putting this station at evans seems more threatening to the future of pdr space but it doesn't oakdale. if i'm reading the maps correctly the evans station is right in the midst of the zone of vulnerability and oakdale is on the edge but maybe on the less likely to bevulnerable. did i read that not correctly . >> i would not say that means you could not do and evans station. i think it's a matter of potential cost and design risks associated with taking that on. >> i'm assuming you can engineer around that solution but taking evans is likely to be a more expensive solution to deal with accommodations that it would at oakdale. >> i'm no soil engineer but it seems likely . the next is that evans seems

like it's not even a mile away from the 22nd street station and that oakdale isa little more than a mile away . based upon the part of the report dealing with the northern station it seems like 22nd or somewhere around the 22nd might be the most likely station and that if we were trying to face the stations appropriately that the oakdale station is a moreappropriate distance from 22nd . did i read that correctly? >> i wouldn't say that's a hard constraint and anthony can easily correct me when i'm wrong but kind of not having done the surface planning still for the stations and exactly how trains stopping patterns will exist in the future especially with caltrain nearly

electrified, i think some of that is tbd but i think that oakdale could provide slightly better spacing for the trains . but i don't know if you want to indicate any interest in a binding on that. >>. >> i think your statement is pretty much correct and we wouldn't know until we got into deal with the service plan. it would be highly dependent on where the other stations are located particularly whatever for 22nd street. >> next issue for me was the location of thenew community facility . i was quite persuaded by the argument that the community

center is more likely to serve the local community and a community center writing by train so if in fact that community center is dependent upon or is planning on serving a community that's arriving by train it would be important to know that because in the absence of seeing some arguments around that it seems like a location at the train station might be irrelevant or not that big of afactor to the community center operations ? an argument in the, did you want to respond to that? >> know, i'm happy to follow up with them and see if they have any information on that. >> one argument that did strike me in favor of evans was the proximity to the shipyard projects but then i saw some language in one of the letters that it's too far away to be within walking or biking distance especially walking distance and it would need to rely on the last mile shuttle isthat correct ?

>> far be it for me to say how farsomebody wants to walk or bike . the trip go from under! shipyards to evans is about a 10th of a mile shorter than it would be to access a station by going to general and getting on it at oakdale. >> i wasn't saying this that it's too far away to walk. it's hunters point shipyard which was within walking distance and is not within walking distance ofoakdale , that itmight be a strong factor . >> you're going to need to shovel there. >> i think most people will probably be inclined to take a shuttle perhaps be dropped off or takeeither transit or their

bikes. it would be quite a walk . some folks might do it but it would be about 10 percent difference in walking distance. >> the last factor for me is this isimportant . 17 years of promises need to amount to something. and that while i understand the desire to retest and due diligence, i think there would have to be a good reason or a number of reasons to want to switch away from a station that's been studied and ingrained in the minds of the name . there would have to be extremely compelling reasons to do that. and i don't think they're in the report. if you do want to shift away i would needto see better reasons . that being said that's where commissioner ruiz started.

it's not necessarily what they're asking fortoday but you need to take into account the 17 years of construction . the last thing i wanted to comment on was the issue raised by the other commissioners which i agree with which is wanting more information on the changing land-use patterns that's likely to occur as a result of location atevans versus oakdale . and to me even if you're not changing the zoning it has to do with the speed at which changes mighthappen . if you put a station one versus the other are we likely to see more or less retail around it developed at a faster pace than we otherwise would. would we see higher density than we otherwise would. so i do feel like the land-use decisions are intricately tied

to thesestation locations . and even if you are thoughts are at the moment you've already looked at all the zoning there and it doesn't need to be done i think i need some understanding, better understanding of the timing at which we change wouldoccur. that's the additional piece of information that i would request . >> thank you. >> vice president more. >> it has been extremely insightful to see both commissioner ruiz and president tanner speak abouttheir own experience in community . to cut to the chase i'm in strong support of questions asked by the fellow commissioners. i offer my strong support for the oakdale stationlocation . partly because the vested commitment of the community is

ultimately the treatment for this particular station to be successful. we know many stations which are so to speak in no man's land and nobody goes there because they are isolated .there's not any presence of community at those stations and they are mostly overlooked. looking at the expansion of the puc at evans street together with larger divestitures surrounding the facility it seems very hard to see that after many years of promise on oakdale that evans could easily from a psychological point of view the and attractive station.that said i would like to raise the ante a little bit by asking bayview and this area has been basically public transportation for decades.

there was one bus line i think in this area that was the parents when doing planning work in that area but it was basically nothing. what are the possibilities of ultimately looking at an expanded transportation network in east west director that creates multimodal successful high-frequency trends port performance to connect to the station so this is not just basically all vehicle commutes. but it's one that creates healthy cross city transfer and traffic at thisparticular point . do we have any answer to that question? >> i would be happy to work with my colleagues to get you a more detailed response. what i would say is that obviously there are a number of existing bus lines on oakdale that are attempting to serve

the east-west connection out o the bayview . it is a very challenging unfortunately due to the tracks, due to the freeway. there's a lot ofinfrastructure thatmakes east-west travel in that part of the city challenging . that's no excuse . it is just kind of the lay of the geography today but again i kind of come back to i think looking at the history of disinvestment and redlining i don't think it is consistent with what they transit experience is. mta wants full in the bayview to have nor is it what caltrain is aspiring to as well based on what i've heard from that. i can work with staff to get more detailed information on their service planning work in the southeast and talk to you all at the next meeting. >> i think it would be helpful

and i think it would strongly underpin arguments in the future. i want to comment on the proximity ofthe community center . typically in transportation planning as to what commissioner dimond said too many dissenters are not transit generators or necessarily transit destinations but the ability to combine or have adjacent high-frequency community active use i think is not only eyes on the street but it's also possibly awaiting gathering in support of transit so i believe in this particula neighborhood i think it's a very strong beginning point . not only to support the station but also to spin off other communities that go hand-in-hand with a more stabilized lane that is not

subject to gentrification and displacement establishes those so to speak small community. the small in its own right where the transition was a community center and otherwise facilities create that social kind of stability that would gentrification speculation are not foremost in people's minds. the thing i would strongly encourage and hope to see in the near future is the schematic plan, which parcels exactly the station itself takes and start planning on securing adjoining properties and stabilizing of how they ultimately are being used. bring them into housing. bring them into other community supports such as schools, whatever they may be a strong foundation by which you create a small new downtown for this

part ofthe community . otherwise i am in strong support of moving forward. i would encourage if we can and perhaps have to ask our planning staff but some commissioners may attend the june meeting at the bayview opera house to really see what the community is saying. i personally would be interested in such an opportunity would be made available for us . thank you to all and i look forward to seeing this cometo realization as quickly as we can .>> i agree with many of the commissioners suggestions and also particularly in now that we are, we've been having this discussion and especially the bayview station where

assessing whether oakdale versus the simmons and again, i think i would accept the invitation of what commissioner more in terms of looking into what the committee has to say i'm more leaning towards oakdale station which has been a historical commitment and i agree with commissioner dimond that it has to be a compelling argument but i do have one particular question to the caltrain staff in terms of serviceplanning . i'm interested about the service planning process. and i guess it depends whichever the station will be decided on, how is the input on the process for service planning and how isthat being assessed ? >> mister simmons still with

us? >> chan, can you unmute anthony simmons? >> iq for the court first question. service planning tends to be quite an ongoing thing we do and once there's more information i can clarify where these low locations are looking to be. i think we could get more detail on that but in the bigger sense of the word, we would be comparing the operating times for the systems so we would be comparing who would be doing the analysis of how the station stands in the whole context of what does mention around the timing.

all the way down to kilroy. or beyond looking to consider things in different ways but we would need to consider different things around timing points . when some trains might be serving local services to each individual station where some might provide some bypass for express services and we would also need to take into account things like growing requirements and how they would be staff and how that has implications. we would also need to take into account leaving points so one of the things we've done in the past several service planning and federal updates is to make sure we meet the board at the station to provide intermodal connections for people across the whole area as much as we can get to. but we would need to take that into account as well so we need to know context and any

adjustments they may be making. one added wrinkle is that for future planning we would also take into account thehigh-speed window coming through the corridor . so those are all the layers that we would need to think about at the top version and then we would get into a lot of the more finer grained details of potential locations. >> i guess another layer on this service planning in terms of i guess informing the community and informing, providing outreach as well in terms of looking into details of service planning or accepting feedback from communities interms of service plans . >> i'm not aware of say seeking feedback on the crops. i would have to check with my

colleagues that may have historically been done but i do know that when the schedules are being put together they are put forward and there can be comments as they go forward. we will talk about how that might impact people who may need to get some from certain point to certain point and it's not really just about say major point to make your point. it may be for some of the intermediate stations to the key area . that does help provide some understanding on how the services being provided and whether people need that. >> i hope in terms of the service planning and local services as well i believe this is going to be a discussion of cpa and i'm not sure as of now in terms of this process how

the planning commission will be informed about that but like it is interesting to see. i would be curious to see how the service plan or how the station would be connected to other parts of the city not just in the main downtown or what the caltrain stations would be i think that will be another discussiontoo. perhaps with a different body . but when we're thinking about transportation i believe we also have a plan for transportation elements where we are trying to havea kind of connection to other parts of the city .that's where we also are as part ofthe equitable transportation . but i hope we can have that kind of discussion in the future when we're talking about the transportation elements as well. but thank you very much and i'm

looking forward andhopefully we get into that high-speed railway.hopefully it happens in mylifetime . >> we can only hope . >> one thing that anthony might not have mentioned is that visor walden is on the caltrain board and does have a chance to opine on and advise on a number of matters including possible changes toservice . as you opportunity to advocate forcertain outcomes . >> i don't see any other commissioner:. perhaps only because i have used the 22nd street station. it seems like upgrading that to me is preferable to moving the station but i'll leave thatfor discussion when you all come back .it's not may be the most pleasant station but it is a good use of underutilized space that probably wouldn't be

used for anything else but it's not a station. and it's pretty popular and it gets upgraded i think it would be a little bit nicer but than you . and with that i think we're ready for the nextitem . >> we got a request for a last-minute public comment if you'd like to reopen public comment. >> president: sure. >> will you unmute the long color we have? you are welcome to provide your public comment on item 10 or the south rail station study. >> speaker: my name is francisco dacosta and i'm the director of the environmental estes advocacy . i've been following this for the last 20years . the alignment for your information is 501 dallas and then home avenue andoakdale . my by oakdale we have two

buses. the 23 montgomery and the party for. you all can look at a map, contact mta and find out if these two lines can bring people and take people to their homes. the gentleman making the presentation is alluding to 50-50 evidence which is a new community center and a plan for some crops. that is why i'm talking to you to stare down the center at oakdale. and bring the name of the board of supervisors you know he has some power or we can work with him. the presenter should be very

clear the voice of the people. not the crops. and the planning department as you know i've spoken to you all for. you all have not fulfilled our aspirations. some of you are talking in circles. but this has been going on for 20 years and we wanted a station at oakdale that had to be there 10 years agoso what is happening . now wehave this clown . that's talking about something and with the commissioners asking the question he's like throwing arrows in the air. thank youvery much . >> i think that's the last of it so we will move on to our next item, item number five a and 5b4 2021 011722 cua and item 2021 011 722b ar 43251

3253 steiner street. request for conditional use authorization and variance. >> anybody was going to get a comment we will reduce the time to one minute. so oneminute for public comment . >> department staff, the item before you is a request conditional use authorization pursuant to 303-21-7712 to legalize the conversion of two residential flats on and third floors of the subject building to nonprofessional services project also seeks the variance to remove the condition of approval associated with various case number 8601 9b that requires the two offstreet parking spaces inthe grand story garage be provided for the two rental units . the item was presented on april

24, 2022 after staff presentation hearing and closing on public comment the commission adopted a motion to approve the project and to you. the subject building at the southwest corner of lombard and skyler street consists of a three-story front portion, one-story middle portion. the ground-floor consists of commercial spacesand a two-car garage . the second and third floor consists of two-bedroom residential flats which are currently being used as offices for non-professional service use. historically there was a prior conditional useauthorization in 1986 that was inspired to convert the second floor from residential to commercial use which was denied by the planning commission . because of the variance in 1986 was approved in atwo-story portion was activated along with a condition of approval the garage be converted back to accommodate two parking spaces as required by the planning

board . the project sponsor case that the owner was directed by multiple agencies that the authorized use was commercial and the water of databases were displayed at the division of the prior conditional use for approval. for this brief direction resultedin the owner being required to conduct commercial electrical upgrades to the units . based on this evidence of electrical permits and the erroneous information given to the sponsor regarding authorized land-use mission tried to correct errors on the part of the city. consequently in summary the department finds the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and finds the project to be necessary and compatible with thesurrounding neighborhoods and recommends approval . this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions . >> project sponsor i think is availableonline . misterkaplan .

>> can you hear me?>> we can hear you. >> i appreciate the compliment from miss caliente and i appreciate the commission's consideration at our last hearing and i am here for any questions . >> thank you. >> at this time we can take publiccomment on items five a and 5b . 3253 steinerstreet. if you like to make a public comment line up on the screen side of the room . seeing none if you are participating in the hearing online and wouldlike to make public comment on this item please dial á3 . i do not see any additional publiccomment .

>> there's one in here now. >> we have one member ofthe public who wants to participate online . mister o'neil. >> i'm an attorney representative speaking on behalfof concerned local citizens . the newly proposed change relies in large part on the assumption of economic hardship of the property owners and i wanted to urge the board to reassess the concept because the posture isn't what the applicant is asking for in an ordinance from the city that she reuse the unit with no need forthe unit to be classified as eminently commercial . the owner is not violating the ordinance or triggering any liability . in part because the rental ordinance allows people to have commercial tenants so long as the leases were before 2020 and with that i don't see evidence of immediate hardship so it seems inappropriate to make these units permanently compatible to residential when

a better option would be to refrain from supporting illegal actions inthe future . >> that's all the public commenters we have. commissionerdiamonds . >> i don't see anyinformation that'sbeen presented . i would move to approve . >> item number five a we have a motion to approve from commissionerdiamonds and a second from commissioner fung. we will take the role at this time .[roll call vote] .>>. [roll call vote] so that motion

passes 410 3. zoning administrator on item number 5b. >> i will grant the variance with the commission's second. >> thank you very much. we can move on to our gr calendar. discretionary review. itemnumber 11 a . [please stand by]

>> building envelope therefore varieties are required. the requester david ng and the neighbor to the south of the proposed project are joined by others who think it's out of context and scale for the neighborhood. the project impacts public views and he is concerned about privacy and light and impact on

neighborhood aesthetics. the proposed alternative is to reduce the height of the vertical addition from 34 feet to 32 feet. the department received no letters in opposition and 20 in support of the project. staff review of the proposal con terms support and provides emphasis for the buildings and support of the topography. some views of vernal hill and twin peaks are modestly compromised and the question is whether the views are blocked or limited or major. it's staff's opinion the views are limited from the portions of the open space and a small section of mullen street and as with many additions in san

francisco some compromises of views are expected. the application of policy 1.1 and the resident design guidelines regarding public views are intended to moderate development not preclude development when the impact is modest. with respect to privacy the project does not impose undue burdens on neighborhoods and the distance is so as not to be presented exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. therefore other properties across the street therefore staff does not see extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking the d.r. and this concludes my presentation.

>> thank you, mr. winslow. we'll have the requester take the podium. you are the requester for 98 mullen avenue? is the requester here? >> i don't see the d.r. requester but i do see the project sponsor. >> are you here online and if you are you can hit star 3 and raise your hand. okay. we can move on to the project sponsor and commissioner tanner do you want to do five or three minutes? >> three minutes. >> i'm tim collins. i'm the home owner and

architect. my wife and i bought this 1,000 square feet house with who bedrooms and one bath about five and a half years ago and we have two kids and hoped to add a single story vertical addition to the house well within the massing and heighten very well -- envelope for the house and the park across the street we love and spend time in and the design's responsive to the neighborhood context as found by the board by my own opinions as an architect and by planning staff. lastly, as dave winslow it does not have significant impact on privacy. for the neighbors we have voluntary concessions to improve

landscaping and that are all part of your packet and lastly we have the support of the large majority of neighbors. we have over 24 signatures with us today. and lastly on the topic of the variance, this is an unusual case of variance we'd hoped to avoid but the project require a variance in this case because we're not maxing out the zoning in -- envelope and the vernal height requirement is kind of corky and in this case because we're not proposing the maximum number of variance is required a larger house with more floor area could be built without it and require the variance. thank you. >> thank you very much. i apologize commissioners i neglected to call public comment in support of the d.r. requester in light of my newness.

at this time we'll take public comment on items 11a and 11b for those that would like to provide public comment line up on the screen side if in person or come up to the dais. i do not see any public commenters for those online who would like to provide public comment on 11a or 11b hit star 3 and i see two callers. feel free to provide your public comment. >> caller: i'm a neighbor and an architect and i have closely reviewed these plans and i would like to say that from the perspective of how you perceive this project i think it will be

an improvement to the park. the view will be no longer looking down on a roof. i would also like to thank the project sponsor for not pushing it to the maximum height that would be allowed. that's the end of my comments. >> great, thank you. next caller. >> caller: good evening, commissioners. i'm michael smith. i'm the owner of the adjacent property to the west i fully support tim and his project we appreciate the addition is set back from the back of the house and it protects light and air to our house and it looks like mostly a view issue. this is a family trying to stay in the city. it's a two-bedroom, one-bath

house. very small. and think it's a reasonable addition and hope you guys approve it. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> thank you, i don't see additional callers in our queue. >> we'd have a rebuttal but i don't know if you have anything else you'd like to add. thank you for being here to speak to your project. with that i think it's to the commissioners now. any comments or motions from commissioners? >> i have one? >> commissioner moore. >> this is a lot of and i find it puzzling why it requires variance and i make a motion to

not take d.r. improvement. >> second. >> thank you for that. >> just to speak to the variance for a moment this is in vernal heights which can be quirky. i agree with that. i'm not quite so sure the comment about a project not requiring a variance and responding to small lots and topography by restricting the building envelope can be a challenge but also purposeful. having said that, this is a lot that has pretty severe topography and the cause of that a not insignificant portion is essentially below grade and that limits how the space can be used even if it it was used for example as bedrooms.

there's extraordinary circumstances where they would justify a modest variance and we often look to the design in that case and here as was mentioned the east slope design review board supports it and the additional mass is placed kind of in response to the topography at the rear opposed the front. and i think when you combine all those together, this is a variance that can be supported. >> thank you. i did have one question. i know commissioner i set about a 700 and some square foot addition and we have 950. i want to make sure these the right numbers. >> the upper story the new mass is 790 interior and the additional square footage is because of a change of use of the basement and entry in the basement. >> i want to make sure the

numbers line up and you don't have to come back to us again for something else to be corrected. sorry you had to be here and thank you for work with your neighbors so well and i'm sorry your other neighbor wasted your time this afternoon. i think we're ready for the vote. >> to confirm i have a motion from commissioner moore. i didn't catch who the second was? commissioner koppel. thank you. we have a motion not to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed for 98 mullen. commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> it passes 7-0 on on to item 12 -- >> quickly, grants the variant

and moving on to 617 elizabeth street. >> good afternoon, again. >> david winslow staff architect. the request is for building permit application 2019-1105.6461. to construct a three-story horizon -- horizontal to the house and an adu and it's eligible for a historic resource built in 1912.

there are two d.r. requesters. the first janice maloney of 621 elizabeth street the west neighbor with concerns the proposal is out of character and will disrupt the scale of the street of the historic row of houses. that of scale with the massing of the surrounding building and open space at the rear and will impact privacy and light due to its depth and height at the rear. the proposed alternative to comply with the original comments and other president comments to limit the extension to the rear and remove the fourth story. the second d.r. requester, neal lucy and janet rafoni the neighbors to the east are concerned it's out of scale with surrounding buildings and impact privacy to the rear and they're

proposed alternative are to eliminate the fourth story bay window at the rear or reduce to match the third floor of the lucy's addition. reduce the depth of the third floor edition to match that of the rear pop-out at 621 elizabeth street. reduce the depth of the fourth floor to nine feet and reduce the second and third floor to four feet from the side property lines. the department has received two letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. the planning department generally supports this code compliant project however, because the d.r. requester's buildings are shallower than the proposed project staff finds the proposed second, third and fourth story massing extends to such an extend beyond and above the adjacent neighbors it would impact lights and policy and the

preservation review after the filing of the d.r., resulted in recommending modifications to maintain the building scale at the front and rear to conform with the residential design guidelines. the setback of 15 feet from the back wall renders the fourth floor minimally visible from the vantage point and allows the facade to design the scale with the prevailing scale of the neighboring buildings. given the circumstances, staff recommends taking discretionary review with the following and approving with the following modifications. one, reducing the height of the fourth story addition by reducing the plate height at the eve to seven feet. maintaining the existing ridge hide height of the fourth story and reduce the sight setbacks of

the second and third floors to four feet. three, increase the side setbacks to 3'6" at the rear of the fourth floor and number 4, reducing the depth of the deck at the fourth floor to no more than five feet from that rear building wall. this concludes my presentation and i'm here to answer questions. threw. at the time we'll take the d.r. requester, how long for the presentation? >> three minutes for the requester and for the project sponsor. >> have you three minutes and i'll start the time as soon as you start talking. >> members of the commission. i'm representing the adjacent 615 elizabeth street property standing over there. they've owned the home almost 33 now. the extraordinary circumstance is the dramatic difference in lot size between my client's property and that of the proposed project next door.

my client's lot is approximately 43 feet, three inches deep. the proposed rear wall of the ground floor is 74 feet 9 inches from the front of the property slightly in the required setback and beyond the rear property line at 615 elizabeth. the project's new ground floor unit extends beyond my client's rear yard line by 4 feet 9 inches effectively create one-story plus wall across the length of the common property line. there is an objection mid block corridor issue. there needs to be a transition from the smaller lots on one end of the block to a full intrusion beyond the rear as currently present the project. indeed the project's ground floor well will cast a shadow on my client's yard and second floor deck and set back four feet from the side property line will impair the privacy at the

615 property. i will turn your attention to page 6 for the owner of 621 elizabeth. it depicts the bulk of the proposed project compared to the remainder of the homes on the block. we submit the bulk makes the project unsuitable for the neighborhood. it should be noted we're not the only parties that feel this way. the initial residential design review comments from the department in february and june of 2020 reflected this concern regarding massing making the following recommendations. reduce the rear wall of the third and fourth floor to align with the existing adjacent main rear building walls. reduce the deck at the fourth floor to minimize privacy impact and reduce the pop-out extension at the second and third floor to align with the pop-out to the adjacent building west and reduce the fourth floor to

minimize privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor to the east. notably, none of these recommendations have been followed. and there is no clear explanation why or why the department here is not enforcing them. assuming somehow an extension beyond the existing rear wall is appropriate, the now four-foot setback on that extension does not go back to the existing year of the property. the practical effect is to completely block the light to both properties. the commission should adopt the original department design review comments in any discretionary review that it accepts. thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time we'll take consolidated public comment.

>> good afternoon, president tanner. i represent janice malloni. she lived next door for some 22 years, raised two children in her house and is here in the audience. this case is extraordinary in that the system would have worked if the sponsors had been reasonable and simply followed the design directives from staff. no d.r.s would have been filed and we told the staff and sponsor that. we are here to ask the findings be applied to this project and attach the matrix to our brief in exhibit 1. it was first completed by the residential design advisory team and reviewed again four months later by mr. winslow and bridge it hicks. the matrix asked for four essential design changes dennis just went through that were necessary in order for this project to actually comply with

the residential design guidelines. let me put those up again. i set them out in my brief at page 6 and they're in the matrix at exhibit, page 2. so he crucial thing is why weren't they done and why weren't they done. the first is probably most important and reduce the third wall to align with the existing neighboring building. i've circled the point they don't align on the second and third floor. that's a problem and causes shadowing. my client has a small pop-out she didn't build, it's just

there. match it. that was not done. and the fourth one equally important, reduce or eliminate the decks. two is to provide the side setback and the reason it's not there is because it goes up to the property line. they're not matching the side setback as it should be and these are basic for the residential design guidelines. the sponsors refuse the basic design considerations. these changes are reasonable. it's what staff determined was needed at a minimum to make the project comply with the residential design guidelines and we agree and why we're here and asking for the commission to impose the reasonable small

design changes. it's a large project some 3500 square feet of new building. >> your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> at this time we'll take the project sponsor presentation and you'll have three minutes. >> good afternoon. we are the others of 617 elizabeth street and respect aim all decisions you come to relating to this project. we purchased the victorian road house and virtually no renovations or addition have taken place. we have one simple goal to

create a modern family home and work space all in one. after marrying in this very building years ago we have plans to start a family and need space to accommodate this life. our intention is for broader family members coming from overseas to stay with us and created an open floor for family. we are choosing to invest our lives in the community which we have been welcomed into and love the access to create schools and restaurants and the requesters are part of our neighborhood experience and wish to maintain good relations with them. we've been active in communication with both d.r. requesters through the process and taken their comments to heart and several major concessions at various points to satisfy their needs and those of the city. now we feel we are left with a minimum viable design to fit our

needs and make it functional and we're not developers and looking to achieve the most basic of goals with the project a space in wish to work and raise our family. thank you for your time today. >> usually there's additional time for project sponsor. >> we'll extend your time. >> if i may please have the computer. >> ryan patternson for the project sponsor. they've worked hard since 2019 to create a project that creates their family needs and to be clear they have agreed to make

the changes requested by the planning department and have gone further. can you can see all the houses on the block add rear additions and decks and none could be town a second unit. the project is currently one of the smallest on the block. the sponsors have already made significant changes after the meeting and before the 3/11 notice was even issued to address the requester's concerns. the roof form has been transformed to a gable roof. over 400 square feet of deck space was eliminated for privacy removing the third floor deck. the upper deck side setbacks were reduced by two feet and rear-facing windows remove to

increase privacy and side setbacks were increased by six inches. the fourth floor depth was reduced by two and a half feet and ceiling heights reduced to protect neighbors' light and air. after the project sponsors made additional changes to further address the d.r. requester's concerns including reducing the fourth-floor plate height by a foot and increasing setbacks to four feet on the second and third floors, increasing side setbacks to three and a half feet on the fourth floor and reducing the fourth floor deck step as well as replacing planter boxes with 54 inch frosted glass for privacy screening. the project sponsors have not stopped trying to reach a compromise and been in communication before and after the d.r. was filed to find a solution. despite not being able to reach agreement, the project sponsors are voluntarily offering to make

further modifications beyond those identified by planning staff to benefit the requesters. and you have i have distributed a set of plans with today's date the plans reduce the second floor by an additional two feet and reduce the third floor by a foot and increase the second floor deck side setback to four feet on each side. just to be clear, these are not changes that have been requested by the department and i don't think we're even really required at this points but the project project sponsors they're part of of a neighborhood and out of a desire to be good neighbors and have good relationships with the people they live next to.

this project incorporates every design modification. the home above the adu will have floor area and this is smaller than the average for the eight homes on the block base which is 2,520 square feet. the home is smaller than every home mark with a red dot including both the of the requester's homes. the project sponsor reduced as much as they could while maintaining a workable program for their home and family. because the rear yard is accessible to the adu the decks are the only open space for the main unit.

thank you for your time and happy answer any questions. >> thank you. at this time i'll take public comment on item number 12. if you'd like to provide public comment committee commissioners line up on the screen side or feel free to come up to the dais. >> we do not have remote attendees at this time. we can move on to the rebuttals. one minute, correct? >> mr. patternson and i have had good comments on possible resolution but come to agreement and i want it show you two things on the screen the blue

line is approximately where my client's property line ends. >> if you can zoom out you can see the impact of the a.d.u. unit as it relate to my client's property. it goes to the end. there's two circles on the mab. -- map. the project now goes out four feet, three inches past the main back of our property and that's a sticking point. >> great. next d.r. requester. >> the comment they did

everything we requested isn't true we wouldn't be here. the past both buildings and third and fourth floor were requested and incredibly reasonable and small when you look at the overall size of this project at 3500 square feet the only building with a fourth floor on either side a brand new addition. this is 50 or 40 square feet and means everything to the neighbors. do what's asked to do. >> thank you. >> project sponsors.

you have one minute. >> thank you, ryan patterson for the proj sponsor. i want to show what was represented. the area where we're not in agreement is this corner here. this is the adjacent property and they're asking for the space to be carved off. the prob is that's the stairs landing and if these don't work and if you try to slide this backwards you lose the dining room. on the floor above the stairs

exit directly into the bedroom. it didn't work but with the additional side and rear set backs it doesn't work as well and the architect is here and can answer any questions. >> thank you for the suggestions and the project importance is amenable and i'll be supportive of a motion to take the d.r. and approve the modifications as written in the staff report. i don't know if we need to reference the plans submitted today if there's additional modifications that that are suggesting beyond you're recommending you're okay with those maybe the motion will reference those plans. commissioner fung.

>> the third and fourth floors. i think there's a disagreement there. >> i was trying to compare what i had in their letter to what was listed in the beginning of the report. it seemed they were the same maybe i'm misreading them. the four items in the letter and the one shown.

>> they're offering a further reduction of the pop-out second and third stories in addition. >> my staff report reduce the height of the fourth story edition by reducing the plate height of the eve to seven feet and the increase the side setbacks to four feet at the rear of the second and third floor the side setbacks.

done. where we differ, my report suggests reducing the deck off the fourth floor to no more than five feet from the building wall and they were suggesting an alternate way of reducing the deck was to bring it in on the sides and additionally the project sponsor has offered two-foot reduction on the second floor pop out and reduction on the rear wall on the third floor pop-out which would be acceptable to staff as well. >> i misheard it differently. i don't think they agree with your item number 2. >> can the architect approach.

in the staff report summary it's reduce the side setbacks at the second and third floors. >> >> use the microphone. >> he said they did incorporate item 2 the four-foot setback at the career and second and third floors. >> did you hear something different? >> i thought i heard mr. wins

dough the second and third floor should match the two adjacent buildings. >> are you talking about the shoulder rear wall of the building. >> to the original recommendation was posited. the project sponsor chose not to do that and it's typical for us to allow air certain extension from three to five feet in situations like that we made that recommendation in the original. >> but not in the current. >> the rationale is there's a constellation of consultations that get a project to compliant and a constellation of what is acceptable in response to that. >> the two d.r. requesters have

indicated the remaining point on the two neighbor prornts are there windows? -- properties are there windows? >> if you're going to speak you have to approach the microphone because there's people online. >> there's an aerial view of the rear of the properties. >> they've indicated the line. >> those online indicated yes there's windows. no further questions are directed to you but you'll be asked to respond if the commission has a question. are you satisfied mr. fung? >> not really.

>> before i go to vice president moore to understand the discrepancy and changes there's a different solution for the deck i don't know if you're still supportive of the deck going to five feet opposed to squishing it and setting it back maybe vice president moore can give comments and then we'll get back to you. >> i'd like to point out this contains three sets of drawings and the department tried to guide the purview of the planning department in respect to the d.r.s and while they're unusual if not unacceptable a set of drawings are being put

forward and those online cannot see the drawings and what i see on my screen is not larger than two and a half by two and a half inches in what's being done. in consideration of fairness i suggest this item be continued and differences worked out and i'll ask the a.d.u., suggested unaccessible and you follow the ground floor of where this particular unit sits and the one-inch corridor by which you're supposed to approach the a.d.u. you cannot even get a dining through and blocked by

the storage clos et cumbersome and think we can do completely without the fourth floor and still achef -- achieve a balances an large home and ask we have continuance and people look at this again and pay more attention to the layout and what is offered as an a.d.u. is my suggestion for today. >> is they motion? >> that's a motion, yes. >> second. >> we have a motion on the floor to continue the item.

it seems there's negotiations between the project sponsor and trying to note what are being sounds like negotiations i ultimately have and particularly in term of like getting the staff recommendations in those negotiation as well ease like it to come back for the planning staff to to weigh on the negotiations. >> thank you both. >> we have a megs on the florida to continue the item commissioner moore, when you would likeyouwould like to cont

would like to continue it to? o to continue the item commissioner moore, when you would like to continue it to? o to continue the item commissioner moore, when you would like to continue it to? oo continue the item commissioner moore, when you would like to continue it to?o on the florida to continue the item commissioner moore, when you t on the florida to continue the item commissioner moore, when you io on the florida to continue the item commissioner moore, when you n on the florida to continue the item commissioner moore, when you would like to continue it to? >> look at the calendar and i would think four weeks at the minimum and could ask our d.r. requester i'd like people to look at the drawings. >> mr. winslow will you weigh in on the date? i'm seeing june 2 or june 9. >> june 9 i'm out of the country and don't want to be here. >> may i suggest june 2. >> that would be fine. >> there's a motion on the floor to continue this item to june 2 made by commissioner moore seconded by commissioner

imperial. commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> no. >> commissioner fung. >> no. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> no. >> commissioner moore. aye. >> president tanner. >> no. >> the motion fails 3-4. >> thank you. >> the unresolved action is deck and reducing it five feet total in deck or bring it to two and a half feet on each side of the deck. is there a preference or does staff have a preference. >> the longer the further out you get the better the view is

for privacy and the height of the deck i stand by my recommendation. >> that seems reasonable. commissioner fung? >> i concur. >> if there's interest in a motion i think the motion would be to take all of staff's take all of staff's recommendation and also incorporate the additional changes with the exception of the five-foot -- exception of the fourth floor deck. >> so moved. >> commissioner diamond would also like to chime in, i think. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to support the

recommendation but i'll vote against the project because i believe the a.d.u. is poorly designed and i would vote against the project. >> thank you mr. koppel for making the motion and i second the motion. >> there's a motion to take the d.r. and incorporate changes as made by mr. winslow as well as the project sponsor as presented to the commission today except for the setback of the deck. commissioner koppel and tanner is that correct? we have a motion on the florida and second. commissioner ruiz. >> no. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> no. >> commissioner koppel.

>> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> that motion passes 4-3 with the commission taking d.r. and approving the project as read into the record. >> we'll close the meeting hoping it goes to monday. thank you everyone. thanks for joining online. >> bye.

>> there is a lot of unique characteristics about visitation valley. it is a unique part of the city. >> we are off in a corner of the city against the san francisco

county line 101 on one side. vis station valley is still one of the last blue color neighborhoods in san francisco. a lot of working class families out here. it is unusual. not a lot of apartment buildings. a lot of single family homes. >> great business corridor. so much traffic coming through here and stopping off to grab coffee or sandwich or pick up food before going home. >> a lot of customers are from the neighborhood. they are painters or mechanics. they are like blue color workers, a lot of them. >> the community is lovely. multi-racial and hopefully we can look out for each other. >> there is a variety of businesses on the block. you think of buffalo kitchen, chinese food, pork buns, sandwich. library, bank of america with a

parking lot. the market where you can grab anything. amazing food choices, nail salons. basically everything you need is here. >> a lot of these businesses up and down leland are family owned. people running them are family. when you come here and you have an uncle and nephew and go across the street and have the guy and his dad. lisa and her daughter in the dog parlor and pam. it is very cool. >> is small businesses make the neighborhood unique. >> new businesses coming. in mission blue, gourmet chocolate manufacturing. the corridor has changed and is continuing to change. we hope to see more businesses coming in the near future.

>> this is what is needed. first, stay home. unless it is absoluteliness scary. social distancing is the most important step right now to limit spread of virus. cancel all nonessential gather everythings. >> when the pandemic litly land avenue suffered like other corridors. a few nail salons couldn't operate. they shut down. restaurants that had to adapt to more of a take out model. they haven't totally brought back indoor seating. >> it is heartbreaking to see the businesses that have closed down and shut because of the pandemic. >> when the pandemic first hit it got really slow. we had to change our hours. we never had to close, which is a blessing. thank god.

we stayed open the whole time. >> we were kind of nervous and anxious to see what was going to come next hoping we will not have to close down. >> during covid we would go outside and look on both sides of the street. it looked like old western town. nobody on the street. no cars. >> it was a hard eight or nine months. when they opened up half the people couldn't afford a haircut. >> during that time we kept saying the coffee shop was the living room of the valley. people would come to make sure they were okay. >> we checked on each other and patronized each other. i would get a cup of coffee, shirt, they would get a haircut. >> this is a generous and kind community. people would be like i am getting the toffee for the guy behind me and some days it went

on and on. it was amazing to watch. we saw a perfect picture of community. we are all in this together. >> since we began to reopen one year later, we will emerge stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> when we opened up august 1st. i will not say it was all good. we are still struggling due to covid. it affected a lot of people. >> we are still in the pandemic right now. things are opening up a little bit. it is great to have space to come together. i did a three painting series of visitation valley and the businesses on leland. it felt good to drop off the paintings and hung them. >> my business is picking up. the city is opening up.

we have mask requirements. i check temperatures. i ask for vaccination card and/or recent test. the older folks they want to feel safe here. >> i feel like there is a sense of unity happening. >> what got us through the pandemic was our customers. their dogs needed groomed, we have to cut their nails so they don't over grow. >> this is only going to push us forward. i sense a spirit of community and just belief in one another. >> we are trying to see if we can help all small businesses around here. there is a cannabis club lounge next to the dog parlor to bring foot traffic. my business is not going to work if the business across the street is not getting help. >> in hit us hard. i see a bright future to get the storefronts full. >> once people come here i think

they really like it. >> if you are from san francisco visit visitation valley to see how this side of the city is the same but different. hi, sandy, how are you? >> hi, fine, thank you. how are you? >> good. i want to ask you what inspired you to be a paramedic? >> that's a good question. you know, i wanted to go into med school and after i found out how much time it took and all of that, i decided that that was going to be a little too much schooling, but i still wanted to figure out a way that i could provide medical care and doing that as an emt as well as a paramedic was a way to do that. >> can you give me a break down of a typical day for you? >> i come to work and sit at my desk and then i respond to

e-mails and try to figure out what are some of the issues we need to address. can we hire more people. what kinds of policies we want to try to create that will help us do our job as ems. >> what does it take to be a female paramedic? >> you know, it takes quite a bit of schooling, but also required somebody who's empathetic. it can be a very stressful job and so we want people to be able to hand that on a day-to-day basis. >> so what's your greatest satisfaction in your job? >> trying to make sure that the work that we provide and the services that we provide to the community is the best that we can in ems so that when we go out to see you if you call us for an emergency, that we'll be able to treat you in the best way possible and that you get the care as quickly and as effectively as possible. >> why is it important for young girls, women of color to see women in these roles? >> i think it really is important for us to be able to get into these roles because we

are effective, we are able to reach out to the community. we are able to do the job in a very effective manner and to be able to relate to the community and be able to do that is one of the best things that we can do. and people of color and as women of color, you know, we are in a great position to be able to do that.

>> good morning welcome to the may 5, 2022. audit and oversight committee. i am chair dean preston joined by conne chan and commissioner mandelman. welcome our new clerk and extend thanks to the team at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, welcome. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, the board of supervisors and committees are now conducting hybrid meetings. while still providing remote accessoria telephon