the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, june 30, 2022. in-person and remote hybrid hearings will require everyone's attention and most of all our patience. if you're joining us remotely and are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this event live and we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period, and are available calling 1-415-655-0001. access code 2497 176 9578. we will take public comment from those persons in city hall first and then open the remote access line. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your

name for the record. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining -- hold on one moment -- you will hear a chime. when you're allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person to speak. to those persons calling in to submit your testimony, when we reach the item you're interested in speaking, press star and then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted that is your cue to begin speaking. please mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attending to city hall, please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. finally, please silence any mobile devices that may sound off. i'd like to take roll.

>> president tanner: here. >> vice president moore: here. >> commissioner diamond: here. >> commissioner fung: here. >> commissioner imperial: here. >> commissioner koppel: here. >> commissioner ruiz: here. >> thank you, commissioners. this will take us now to consideration of items proposed for continuance. item number 1, record number 2022, 003902pca. and item number 2, 2021-000544drp. item 1 is proposed for july 14 and item 2 has been withdrawn. we will take public comment.

this is your opportunity to speak on the items proposed for continuance. if you're calling in remotely, please press star 3 to raise your hand. seeing no member of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed and, commissioners, the item is now before you. >> presidyo any motions? >> commissioner koppel: move to continue items 1 and 2. >> second. >> president tanner: okay. >> on that motion to continue 1 to july 14 and the withdrawal of item number 2, commissioner ruiz? >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. >> thank you, commissioners,

that passes unanimously, 7-0. and this will take us on to commission matters. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for june 16, 2022. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on the draft minutes from june 16, 2022. if you are calling in, please press star 3 to raise your hand. if you're in the chambers, please come up to the podium. as no public comment, public comment is now closed. and, commissioners, the item is now before you. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes from june 16, commissioner ruiz? >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. >> thank you, commissioners.

that passes unanimously, 7-0. this will take us on to commission comments and questions, item 4. commission comments and questions. >> president tanner: thank you very much. we're glad to have you with us, shepherding us today, thank you for your work. we'll start off with the land acknowledge amount. acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you, commissioners, for that time. i want to thank again staff for last week's hearing about what we can do to address the

shortage of housing that we're facing and thinking about permits issued or those stalled a little bit. looking forward to keeping that conversation alive at the commission, working with other agencies and leaders in the city to unlock housing. again, thank you, staff, and thanks for those who called in to give their comment. i thought it was very sobering, but good to get a reality check on what is happening and what folks are experiencing as they're trying to build more homes. any other commissioners with comments? i think we're on to looking at our remote hearing? >> thank you. yes, this takes us to item 5, remote hearings. for record number 2021-009977crv. this commissioner of, commissioners, is a resolution allowing for the commission to continue to meet remotely in the

instance that none are able to meet in person. i will open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on the remote hearing resolution. if you're here today in the chamber, please come forward. those calling in remotely, please press star 3. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. and looking, there is no public comment. public comment is now closed on this item. >> president tanner: thank you. i would say it seems like hybrid hearings have been working out very well. thanks again to all the staff that support. it's allowed myself when i had covid and other staff who have to be out, or concerned about their medical vulnerability. i was just reading this today. what is the latest with covid? i haven't heard very much. not great news. more variants that are more evasive. also not good and so it may be

with us for a little while longer. so i think it's prudent to support this resolution. if there are any other comments op the remote hearing process, now would be a good time, if you have anything you like or don't like, otherwise, i will consider motion for the resolution? >> commissioner koppel: motion to adopt the remote hearings consideration. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the resolution for remote hearings, commissioner ruiz? >> commissioner ruiz: aye. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that resolution passes 7-0. this now takes us to department matters. director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm remote, so thank you for the

opportunity. i don't have any announcements, but i know there is one she wants to talk about. >> thank you. this is director of current planning. i wanted to remind about pre-application requirements. if you recall, earlier this year in march, we were slowly starting to get back to normal during covid. we had pivoted all of our required pre-application meetings to fully virtual and we're starting to ease back to in-person, allowing any combination thereof to be held. with a little lead time saying that july 1, we were going back to complete normal as fully in-person pre-application meeting. i wanted to make sure we took the opportunity to tell the public that our pre-application meetings will go back to normal and completely in-person july 1. >> president tanner: is there

any opportunity to continue the hybrid option, given what i've been reading about covid and just general convenience? >> sure, so the pre-application policy is a commission policy, so we're just reverting back to original as the emergency order is winding down here, but certainly we can absolutely move to hybrid. i think the crux of the issue with the digital, that was a challenge for many applicants as well as members of the public when it was fully virtual, we required a local or a toll free number and as it turns out, you have to pay for that and get a more expensive level of zoom that was a challenge to implement. i think if we did hybrid, we would say the in-person is for folks with local and technology limitations and we would want to make sure the hybrid was the standard free version of zoom. with those parameters, i think that's a great pivot if that is

the direction the commission wants to go in. >> i would support that. i think it's more a matter of the -- in terms of the local number or not, if folks have the option to go in-person, and if they don't want to go in-person, they have the option of the hybrid. so hopefully it will increase participation. >> we'll make that change. >> president tanner: i think commissioner imperial had a question on that. >> commissioner imperial: i wanted to second your opinion on that, because we should be mindful of covid. >> we'll get that updated on the website. >> july 1st is already tomorrow. >> if that concludes, directors announcements, we can move on to item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. board of appeals and his torsion preservation commission did not meet this week.

>> sorry, technical difficulty. good afternoon, commissioners, legislative affairs. the land use committee was cancelled due to the budget process. and at full board, supervisor peskin to create the special house district in tenderloin and chinatown passed its first read. also up was supervisor mandelman's four plex ordinance. it had its first read. as you recall, this was up for first read two weeks ago but was continued so a drafting error could be corrected. this week, supervisor melgar entered the clarifying amendment. the amendment was unanimously passed. unlike most first reads at the board, this one generated a lot

of comments from the supervisors. supervisor mandelman commented on the spirit of cooperation. he acknowledged that this version of his ordinance is a product of compromise. he says he believes the ordinance will still succeed in producing a little bit of new housing and hoping this is the first step in densifying districts. he said the city will need to take larger and faster steps and that this ordinance is a step in the right direction. supervisor safai spoke against the legislation, saying he felt it would subvert sb9 and make it more difficult to build housing. he took issue with the five-year ownership requirement. supervisor dorsey stated he would not be support the ordinance. he believes the legislation falls short of the city's ambitious housing requirements and that the ordinance would not

produce any new housing. supervisor mar said he was disappointed that his affordability provision was not included in the ordinance, but that he was hopeful his hoping incentive development program would create affordable housing. he stated he would be supporting the legislation. supervisor preston recognized the complicated nature of the issues, but that he did not understand the opposition to the ordinance. he felt certain colleagues opposed to the ordinance were objecting to the rent control provision. supervisor walton stated he was very supportive of rent control and felt that the ordinance will obliterate existing and more affordable housing causing gentrification, increased speculation and kill the fabric of communities. it passed on a 6-4 vote, with supervisor chan. those voting against were stefani, dorsey, walton and

safai. and then finally, the affordable housing code enforcement ordinance sponsor by the mayor also passed first read. that's all i have today and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president tanner: there are no comments from the commission on this item. >> we can move on to general public comment. general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the pun that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds a 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to speak under general public comment. if you're here in person, please come forward and make a line on the screen side of the room. if you're calling in remotely, press star 3 to raise your hand. once you hear that your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. we will start with members of the public here in the chamber. >> is it two or three minutes? >> three. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners. georgia shutis. i sent a copy that made copies there, power points to be helpful. the macro is the micro. and i've said that before and i'm going to show you -- oh, thank you. so this is -- all those photos are from the internet. i never saw this in person until i saw it on the internet. this is the original house. it's on page 1 of the handout which is up here. pages 2 and 3 show the thing

during the work. and page 4, which is this page here, your handout if you want them, shows the completed project. and pages 5 through 9, which are these, show the interior with the new building on the left and the old one on the right before it was remodelled. so i found this project as i said as a comp for two high-end projects that were also extreme alterations that sold in the winter-spring of 2021 during the pandemic for 7.2 and $7.8 million. at the time of this in 2021, this extreme alteration was used as a comp for the two is sales, it had previously sold for $6.2 million in 2017. however, the project on the

screen sold once again in the last month for $7.7 million. besides -- and the sales history is on the handout on page 10. besides entitlement, these high end and extreme alterations have turned over like this one did only after five years adding to the instability of the housing market and the increase in prices. back in 2015 when the original house, which is back here, sold for $1.875 million, this is in the post financial crisis and sales price back then was more than the original asking price. so the speculative market was hitting its stride, taking advantage of the loophole in 317 that had never been dealt with as intended by section 317b2d. and three months after the sale of this in 2015, to an l.l.c., the permit application was filed

and the subsequent sale was also to l.l.c.s. that's my point. i have 30 seconds left. i hope the pictures that are over there and -- i want to say one thing about the interiors. see that stairway. that's not child friendly. i'm sorry. and they all have that and it's bothersome. plus i wonder, what is it going to be like in an earthquake. every alteration has a stairway like that. it's a little side thing to talk about, but i think it's an interesting point that i've been thinking of raising for the last eight years. thank you very much, have a great day. >> did you get the handouts? we did see your slide, so thank you. >> thank you. there are more hard copies if you want them.

>> thank you, we'll now take remote callers. >> commissioner: regarding the housing element, a question. has the financial feasibility study been done for the housing element? a local media outlet has reported that the -- to implement the affordable component of the housing element would cost $19 billion which appears to include workforce. a bay area states that it would either $15,438,000, based on unit cost of $750,000 and percentage of 20% or 15%, which does not include force housing.

does it makes financially feasible? new subject. from the day of the june 16 meeting it was stated that the west hadn't submitted comments for the housing element or the draft e.i.r. as folks were unaware of them. the reason for not submitting comments seemed to be attributed to either its hundreds of pages of length or the technical language used. the technical language used is making it difficult to understand. no one is attributing the lack of comments due to the belief that the housing is a done deal. -- [indiscernible] and the silicon valley leadership group by way of room 200, also from the day during the june 16 meeting it was stated that the lack of comments for the -- from the west side, to the housing element and draft e.i.r. could be due to the west side now

being more accepts of density. to that i would respond, nice try. a new subject. this is a draft -- rationing, the issue has come up whether or not the residential construction is required to have units with individual water meters. if so, when was this requirement implemented? and this requirement has not been implemented, why not? new subject. as the city -- has the city done any marketing research to determine if tens of thousands of additional folks actually want to live on the west side or was the housing element done in a bubble? thank you. >> last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is now closed. and this will take us on to your regular calendar.

for item 8, record number 2018-0020720th. transportation network companies and land use planning study. this is an informational presentation and no action is being requested of the commission at this time. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm anne-marie rogers, director of city wide policy for the planning department. we know that land use and transportation planning go hand and glove. how our city grows is one of our primary responsibilities. as we think about growth, it's incumbent that we understand how people move today and how they might move in the future. this next item is a study of one aspect of transportation. it's what's called ride share. this service is delivered by transportation network companies such as uber and lyft.

and while uber and lyft and related companies have some elements similar to taxi cabs, they are outside of that regulatory structure. interestingly, there was a time early in the 20th century when taxis were also unregulated and even then oversupply resulted in a similar clogging of the streets. today, planners across the nation are working to understand how tncs affect public resources like the streets and public values like equity, employment, safety and convenience. we've learned a lot and there is also a lot left to learn. within san francisco, our sister agencies, the sfmta and the sfcta have conducted earlier studies specific to some transportation issues. you'll hear a bit about those studies today. but our focus is on this new study with questions that you asked us to look at.

they're questions that you the commission and public have asked in relation to land use planning and environmental review. our senior transportation planner will review that study and share some potential next steps with you. tncs are affecting our city today and impact is expected to grow. it's important we're open to learning, listening and adapting so that we can help ensure that a fundamental need, transportation, is accessible to all. and with that, i'd like to turn it over to tam tran. >> thank you. good afternoon, president tanner, vice president moore, commissioners. i am tam tran from the city wide division. today i'll be sharing our study about transportation network companies, tncs. i'm joined remotely by my

colleagues wade from the environmental planning commission, darton from the m.t.a. and drew cooper from the county transportation authority. next slide, please. tncs are known as ride hail or ride share. people like them and for good reason. they're convenient, reliable and they're easy to use. using them is like having your own car without having to worry about parking, maintenance, insurance, but like any technology, they have drawbacks. these include increasing congestion, blocking bike lanes and travel lanes amongst other things. most of these drawbacks are in the purview of other city agencies. the focus of our study is related to the areas the planning commission has authority over. the general planning code and environmental review. next slide, please. here's what i'll cover this

afternoon. first, i'll talk about the overall work that the city has been doing related to tncs. i'll go over a city study, questions researched and the answers we found. the department is part of a working group that has been looking at how tncs affect san francisco. city streets are a public resource. we believe that the transportation that uses our streets, including tncs, must serve the public and help us meet city goals. some of the city goals for our streets include transit first, climate action and roadway safety vision zero. to that end, our working group has published several studies as you see on the slide. gathering information and conducting studies can help us

better understand and potentially manage the impacts of tncs. for example, in 2018, the transportation authority looked into what was causing the congestion we were seeing in city streets. they looked at different factors and found that tncs made up half of the contrition on -- congestion on city streets between 2010 and 2016 while tnc use declined during the pandemic, we have data that is showing that tnc is starting to pick up. it's lower than before the pandemic, but we do expect tnc activity to continue to rise. this includes using other forms of mobility, such as passenger service using autonomous vehicles. autonomous vehicles or a.v.s

have also been called driverless cars or self-driving cars. you may have seen them as san francisco has been a main testing ground for the last several years. it's likely that people will first use autonomous vehicles as a passenger, the same way people are using tncs today. so this isn't to say that autonomous vehicles will have the same characteristics as tncs. at this time we can only assume what a.v. operations may look like. however, if the way a.v.s are used is similar to tncs are used, the impact could be similar, too. impact on safety, congestion, labor and employment are some of the areas we need to safeguard. so let's go ahead and talk about our study related to land use planning. why do we do the study? because you asked.

we were getting increase from the planning commission, other policymakers and the public and they were asking us things like how are tncs being reviewed as a part of the environmental review. would new developments be affected by tncs. what would streets look like as a part of tnc usage? with this in mind, we scoped our city to answer these four questions. the next set of slides will briefly cover our main findings for each of these questions. for a first study question, we found that, yes, some are associated with more tnc activity. we define tnc activity as pickups and drop-offs. you can see expect more tnc activity in places that have visitor, retail, residential and cultural institutional educational uses. also, higher density a company

want to store, maintain, test, charge a fleet of vehicles that will be used for tnc services. there is no one good category in the planning code today that fits this use. to answer question 4, we talked to developers who have built projects in san francisco. everyone we talked to saw trends toward less car ownership. as a result, most developers said they plan to build less parking in the future and they said, overall, location was more important when it comes to tnc activity. for locations close to job and activity generators, played a bigger role than land use when it comes to tnc activity. we also heard from developers that expanding on-street loading is the most basic way to

accommodate tncs and other activities. so that's a summary of what we learned. let's talk about the next steps for the commission and the planning department. our findings can be addressed through updates, specifically the transportation element. first finding. convenience is a major factor when it comes to people deciding how they'll get around. and that's why many turn to cars and tncs. to meet city goals, we need to make transit walking and biking convenient, safe and easy for transit, fast frequent reliable and safe. the commission can make this happen by setting the policy foundation in the journal plan and to prioritize these modes in all of the land use decisions. you've asked staff to center our work on racial and social

equity. when it comes to transportation, the most powerful way to do this is to implement our transit-first policy. curb management will also be addressed in the transportation element update. for transportation planning, the hottest real estate in san francisco is the curb. highly sought after and contested. for this finding, for these two findings on this slide, we will develop new planning code controls for tncs and autonomous vehicles with our partner agencies and stakeholders. thus can include preferred locations and site designs for these uses. the planning code updates could

also inform guidance for developers. for our other findings, staff will continue to monitor tnc impacts. if you read our full report, there is over 100 footnotes and that's our commitment to staying up to date on the industry. we will also update the transportation depend program and environmental review practices if needed. i want to end by going back to the beginning of my presentation where i talked about context. our studies and findings are based on data collected prior to the pandemic. covid-19 has brought immense change and the city is facing a lot of uncertainty and unknowns. what we can be certain about is that people will continue to move about, to be mobile, to circulate and to get around. we all still want to see our family and friends, get a cup of coffee, go to the airport, do

errands and tnc companies know this and they will be here to meet the demand. let's work to maximize the benefits of these services and minimized drawbacks. the tnc working group will continue to collaborate to do this. we'll be studying their operations and effects and work to manage them where we have the ability. we look forward to working with the planning commission on this area. thank you, commissioners, for listening and reviewing the materials. i also want to thank the agency partners m.t.a. and transportation authority who have been great resources to us. i must thank our study team members, both current and former staff, who have worked very hard to pull this together. and my acknowledgement goes to

josey for my slides today. thank you. >> thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, i'd like to open this up for public comment. members of the public, now is your opportunity to speak on the item. if you're here in person, come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. those calling in remotely, press star 3 to raise your hand. once you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will have up to three minutes. >> hi, my name is jim. i'm delighted to hear this examination of tncs. something we've long called for. in fact, one of the cases that we're scheduled to hear today was a 2017 examination where tncs were one of issues we asked to have examined for their

impact. it's wonderful the developers are saying they're planning to reduce parking due to the increased use and tncs and the like. but if you will recall, the recent case before you for 618 octavia where they asked for cu to get more parking and a highway location, this does not seem to be practice. as long as it is profitable to sell parking spaces, they will continue to ask for them and ask for extra parking. it would be everybody's advantage to really codify these shifts so that if they're saying the need for more park isn't there, our codes reflect it.

we should be examining these in all of the densest neighborhoods, such as the northeast ones and looking to reduce existing and support where possible no parking. obviously, the curbside element is also extremely important. the safe drop-off and pickup for tncs being integrated into the planning of everyone's designs is an absolutely critical element which i would like to see a great deal of attention directed towards. concurrent with our interest in tncs, the other traffic congestion and density issue that we asked to have examined is the pickup and delivery services, which are also clogging our streets and creating unbelievable traffic

hazards and safety issues in their double parking and capricious use of our public right of ways tt. so along with this study of tncs, i would hope that we're doing an equally aggressive and concurrent examination of the delivery services. thank you so much. >> this is ester. i couldn't agree more with jim. he basically stole the issue that i was going to raise. one is you have a hearing right after this on one oak street. and that comment period on e.i.r. which was five years ago, that's this community. question information on tncs.

and you have at the hearing today the issue coming back for an amended e.i.r. and i don't think that issue is clearly developed in the e.i.r. how is the issue -- the issue that developed today being reflected in environmental review right now? you don't have to work -- wait until the planning code is amended to put standards in to do information and e.i.r. and it should be in the environmental review that comes to you automatically right now. secondly, following up on a study of the amazon ups et cetera meal delivery is really important. i ask that the planning department help convene a meeting, a working group, to do -- to go through that issue

really at the same level, because people are getting deliveries next door here. i can see the person who lives next door to me gets a daily delivery from amazon prime. i'm not kidding you daily. sometimes five boxes. so we're seeing a lot more traffic on the streets on the very congested streets that is dropping off packages and it's -- people don't shop regional. that's the other side of the planning department analysis of retail service dropping down. and everyone is using meal delivery from restaurants and packages delivered to their house. that affects the traffic and the curb space. please take this issue up. thank you very much.

>> hi, this is tad. i noticed that the report started out by talking about the importance of transit-first. and prioritizing the curb areas, but it didn't seem like that was further explored. transit-first is going to mean certain things about the tncs as well as the delivery trucks which are a real plague on city streets and neighborhoods. so, while i applaud the working group's efforts so far, i would like to see a sign that transit-first is actually a -- if not the -- priority. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i couldn't agree more with tess that there is a lot of congestion on our streets because of the tncs. in fact, it was mentioned in the memorandum, but not mentioned by the presenter that studies show that tncs shift people away from other means of travel, including walking, bicycling and transit. tncs do more car trips than what would otherwise have occurred and research has shown that tncs circulate on streets frequently with few or no passengers and compete with public transit instead of supplementing it, let alone taxi drivers. this is unfair. tncs does not consider people with low income who don't have

cell phones and cannot hail a ride share. if you don't have a cell phone, you're not in the loop. so, yeah. sorry. goodbye. >> last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment on this item is now closed and the item is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: thank you. i want to start out by thanking staff, including all the other agencies who worked on this report and bringing it to us and those who called in, public comment. i don't see any other commissioner hands. i'm going to start off with a few questions and then i'll hand it over to commissioner imperial and ruiz for their questions. one of the things i was -- actually, it was a comment. which is i think no matter what form of transportation one is taking, that can shade our view of other forms of

transportation. so when we're of walking, i get peeved by cars who aren't driving. when i'm driving i'm mad at someone getting in my way. i think when we're in a tnc and in these things, we have different perspectives how we think of the other modes of transit squirrelling around us. i want to commend us for doing the study and how do we shore up our transit first. that's one of the questions i wanted to see if staff have ideas. when you this i about the general -- think about the general plan and firming up from a land use perspective, do you have ideas of what that might look like? in particular, because what i'm seeing is one of the things we complain about or have challenges about with tncs, may fall more into m.t.a.'s jurisdiction, they may be the purview of those who need to write citations for those parking incorrectly, not a land use per se, but how the vehicles

are moving, where they're parking. could you just share a little bit how you're thinking about the different jurisdictional lines and who is managing the aspect of tncs we're trying to manage? >> yes, thank you, commissioner tanner, for the question. we are starting to develop policies for the transportation on that and the land use part is something we're looking at and trying to figure out what we can we enforce now that is working and what can we do in the future to improve things? and it's complex, because it involves streets, street design and involves how we use the curbs. so all the factors are played into how we can use land use as a way to encourage better transportation mobility. and we are also working with the housing element team on what to do for that, too, because that's -- where we build housing, where we can put the neighborhood, for people to walk, bike or quickly

get to their needs is really important. i will ask you to stay tuned for that, because we are coming up with those ideas. i'm planning to come back to the commission to talk to you about our draft policy for the transportation element. >> thank you, commissioner. if i could add just a little for the public benefit. it guides in two different realms of public policy. it guides city agency action, including all the agencies and all the departments within the city need to be compliant and consistent with the general plan. and it also guides our review of private development, so we have action not only in the private development cases that you see here, but as a policy document guiding all city agency actions. thank you. >> president tanner: i'm certainly in that regard, i think some of the issues and topics raised in the report, they're not maybe the subject of the study, but around these -- not just autonomous vehicle using, but other uses, parking,

storage. the a.v. were part of that conversation, trying to get ahead of this, or maybe in line with this new technology and emerging mobility so we can understand how do we want the spaces to be used. and even just reading the different interpretations

and, drew, if you're still on the phone, i invite you to add more on the study. >> thanks, tam. good afternoon, commissioners. the study tncs and congestion was based on a comprehensive set of data describing tnc trips in 2016. the study measured change in vehicle delay and traffic speeds between 2010 and 2016. and it found by looking at changes in background traffic,

changes to the network itself, and changes in tnc activity, that the increase in delay tncs contributed about 50% of that increase. now that number is about 25% of the total amount of delay. they contributed 50% of the increase in about quarter of all delay. >> thank you very much. that's very helpful. i'm going to pause my questions here. i'm going to call on commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, president tanner. and also, thank you for this study. i think this is an initial step and i'm looking forward to see our transportation -- actually this study creates more -- yes, questions and also asks for analysis for different kinds of transportation that is still emerging. and, you know, this is kind of like a very dynamic in terms of

like how transportation is evolving throughout time. but one of my questions is part of the methodology in terms of the -- and also it will go to my second question -- in terms of tnc versus private auto, how are they being identified in this analysis? or how are they -- yeah, how are you identifying between the tncs that looks like, you know, 83% are private auto using vehicles back in 2017 and then about 15% in tnc. how is that analysis? >> so, i want to ask you which study you're referring to, or which part of the memo. >> commissioner imperial: in the beginning, the introduction. >> it's the 83% of the daily trip count i believe. drew, is that one of the transportation authority studies?

>> i'm not familiar with the figures that are being cited. >> this is in our packet. it's on page 2 of the staff report. and then it's further in the study i think repeated perhaps. average weekday vehicle trips. >> source transportation authority, 2017. >> yeah. >> okay i see now. thank you for that clarification. we developed estimates of trips by mode as part of our routine traffic analysis. we developed that from surveys we distributed. and that's the source of the estimates of the vehicle trips by vehicles and transit

impacting the tnc component. we estimated directly from the same -- [indiscernible] -- described before which was a data set shared with us by researchers, uber and lyft. from that we derived the total trip making for a period of time in 2016. >> commissioner imperial: thank you for that clarification. it goes to my second question, because those other modes of -- or how cars are being used in other services, not just like lyft or uber but in terms of delivery uses like -- and there are many of them, uber eats, grub hub, instacart, door dash, all use private autos. i'm wondering if that that's going to occur or we're going to see that trend in the transportation element. or is there going to be -- can there be an analysis on that well? >> the kind of services, door

dash, they're called transportation network couriers, another term to learn about. and there isn't a plan to study those right now. when we talked to drivers as part of our third study question about their work patterns when they're driving for tncs, many of them did drive for non-tncs, deliveries like uber eats and so forth. so we were thinking the information we gleaned from our study can be transferred to what they're doing in that capacity. [please stand by] [please stand by]

information we received through some survey information but not necessarily statistically significant, more able to

establish the number of trips or any of those types of things from that. that would require an additional study that they could capture all of the trips and not just the tnc trips we're talking about today. >> commissioner imperial if i may, to answer the second part of your question, we will address network services because we are trying to address all in the element. >> that is what i was going to ask, if it could be embedded into transportation element. and my last question, regarding the map, we see that the north, downtown is the number one, two is like the south of it and then the third is like the western area. and i understand this is more in the tnc, but i guess my -- it's more of my ask or comment really

in terms of like i'm trying to grapple this tnc and the delivery uses and trying to implement the transit first policy, part of the general plan, a city-wide plan. and you know, when we look in the western area, we don't necessarily look into the tnc but it happens there, special deliveries as well. and i would agree with president tanner in terms of being consistent with our general plan and not just on a case by case interpretation. it lives up to us to decide if it is a good call or not good call and if we are trading off or not. which i don't think is really fair for the public unless we have good analysis and being consistent with the general plan. so it's more of my comment and i'm looking forward to seeing the transportation element. >> so i am.

>> thank you. commissioner ruiz. >>ty thank you. i find this interesting and see firsthand the congestion and how the city continues to get worse and worse. the first question, in this study, would we be able to assess the impacts that tncs have on our roads and the cost burden that the city has in addressing potholes because of increased congestion over the past years. >> through this study, we couldn't do that because we weren't -- we don't have data to assess whether traveling align that with the conditions of the road. i think it would be hard to tease out what portion of the

vehicle, because vehicles have different weights and different characteristics that could make an impact on the road conditions. so i think that will be challenging to do that. i want to see if drew has thoughts on that as well. >> i am -- i'm not an expert on roadway conditions and damage. but in my limited understanding, vehicle weight is a significant determination of what causes roadway damage. heavier vehicles, buses and trucks, commuter shuttles and things like that are likely to be primary contributors to roadway damage. >> thank you. and commissioner ruiz, i also wanted to add that we are dependant on the cupc, the state

public utilities commission getting data from them that the tncs provide to them that we can get. so, the data that we are given has to be robust and accurate enough to make those kind of assessments. >> thank you. my next question is how is this related if at all to the congestion study that sfmta has been doing? >> if i mentioned, we're working on the tnc working group and mta has been tremendous resources for us and we rely a lot on the studies. the first two study questions of the study depend on the tnc data, transportation authority collected and processed. we used that data to conduct an

analysis to come up with the findings for the first and second study questions. >> so will this study at all influence congestion that the sfmta has been doing? >> this is to look at land use planning and how we can take our findings and implement different kinds of measures to address the findings related to tncs. in terms of congestion pricing, that is a different matter for the transportation authority which we will provide input on, but this study won't necessarily address congestion pricing. >> those are my main two questions. i have heard studies floating around for a while and feel that

the amount of tncs on our street just need to be addressed. i don't believe we have too many regulations in place to limit the amount of tncs on our road. and just knowing firsthand the impacts that taxi drivers have had with the increase of lyft and uber crowding our streets and the acceptability of them over taxis, and i just hear time and time again, taxi drivers at public comment explaining the negative impacts that tncs have had on their businesses. i'm interested to see where this goes and the policies put in place to reduce congestion and really thank planning for presenting this study today. >> thank you commissioner. >> commissioner fung.

>> will this study look at the physical interface between the tnc pick-ups and deliveries with parklets? >> so, the question is will this study look at the interface between tncs and parklets -- no, we didn't do that for this study. >> there are a lot of -- in the area that you indicated that has the greatest concentration of tncs, tncs are double parked constantly throughout that area for either pick-up or deliveries. as are the delivery trucks.

is there anything there that perhaps would signal that pick-ups need to be in certain areas? >> i'm sorry, i think i heard you say, did we look at anything that would signal when tnc pick-ups and drop-offs be happening time wise? >> just an aside. i'm just wondering what is involved in the study with respect to parklets and you're saying there's nothing. >> we didn't specifically look at parklets as part of the study. >> i'll pick up on the comment because it is an interesting one, perhaps the study didn't take into consideration but curb management seems to be a huge element to what will make the

impacts of tncs, deliveries, whatever it is, the post office for goodness sakes who often parks on the sidewalks to deliver the mail, having curb management is critical. it certainly decreases in certain areas the availability of curb space. . >> i'm hearing about curb management and northeastern quad

of the city. if staff can show the screen i just projected. this is from the curb management strategy from 2020. it is an excellent document if you haven't read it yet. they looked up prioritizing what kind of curb functions should be adjacent -- what kind of curb functions to be prioritized by land use. it's one of the things we work with. we are well aware of how -- we're aware of the competition and contentiousness that curb space and when it comes to different businesses wanting to use it and so forth. it is very much a hot topic. and mts has great curb management staff we're working with to do this. one thing i wanted to note for

you all, this is the area of the richest transit network, our walking/biking assets and if we can't compete with tncs here, then it is going to be challenging for us to do that in other parts of the city. >> some of the land uses were tourism, i think it is the first or second biggest industry in san francisco. perhaps that's an area to focus on, out of towners who don't know how to use transit. they may rent a car because it is easier or hop into a tnc versus figuring out how to use the bus or train to get where

you want to go. how do we promote it for people who don't have the cards. vehicle use is going to be most convenient and easiest. no explanation is needed. our local transit is going to be a bit more challenging to navigate on a weekend or week here in the city. >> i agree 100%, whether a first time user or long time user, transit should be user friendly, safe -- it should be the first choice when you want to get anywhere. that's a good point to bring up. >> commissioner diamond. >> thank you. so the comments so far -- on

the issues and negative effects of tncs that we want to try address with various regulations, the loading zones, the parking, the congestion caused by tnc circling while waiting for rides. lack of handicap access through tncs and the fact that tncs don't do a good job in serving certain parts of the city. i believe they are all important problems but we need to make sure we keep in mind, tncs were an innovative solution that grew in popularity so quickly because they solved real problems that

cabs were not solving. i want to mention a few of them to make sure that as we start to think aboutlations to address some of the negative side effects, we keep in mind that the tncs at least in this point in time are a real necessity to solve some current problems for people and how they get around the city. let me mention a few. i'll start with older adults. many of whom are not capable or too frail to walk to wherever the closest transit stop is. or anxious about going out at night and therefore end up being more housebound than they otherwise would. tncs give the ability to get medical appointments and get

door to door transportation, especially wet days where cabs are hard to find and transit is not nearby. we have a city of growing older adults, i want to make sure that we don't think transit, walking and biking is necessarily a solution that will help with this group of people. we need to keep them in our minds thinking about regulating. second is -- maybe this is apparent, but tncs have helped reduce the drinking and driving problem, especially among teens and young adults. and transit, again, doesn't -- especially on the west side of the city doesn't get you to your door. i believe that tncs have been an incredibly important shift in reducing the drinking and

driving issue we otherwise face. third, safety perspective. people coming home late at night. transit doesn't get you to the door and tncs do. we need to keep that in mind. it drives for many people the decisions to use tncs. fourth, tncs have increased the acceptability of living in a city without a car. we see people are more willing to move in to the new housing units we're approving that don't have parking because they don't need parking. they can use tncs if they really need a car to get around. so i believe that we really need to be careful about regulating to solve certain problems that need to be addressed but need to keep in mind how much of a problem solver tncs have been at this point in time, especially

in the lack of transit access on the west side of the city. thank you. >> thank you commissioner diamond. commissioner moore. >> i would like to join -- other commissioners thanking staff for excellent report. not just for the report given to us but the presentation and all the slides. i do believe that san francisco's bicycle and pedestrian safety first should govern any policy we'll develop regarding land use as well as -- what i'm concerned about, unregulated industry is very hard to capture because they will reinvent themselves to what they want to do. it's not just the presence of

tncs, but simply the way they operate outside those traffic rules which cause additional complications with congestion and creates a significant degree of unsafety relative to bikes as well as pedestrians. where to find common ground to regulate them, it is beyond me. i don't see any kind of enforcement of rules and regulations when it comes to tncs being seen speeding, cutting into other driving lanes, parking in the middle of intersections i would rather see

cooperation and common ground by other established modes in heavy traffic areas of the city are complicated by tncs than outlining areas where other transportation systems don't work. another issue i'm wondering about, i wonder if you are going to include it in your discussion, the interface of what we have, bus, street cars, pedestrians, bicycles and normal cars, with new forms of scooters and other scooter-related type of vehicles. increasing the unregulated mix of modes is why i think we ultimately will lose functionality. whatever policies we have need to start with an understanding

there has to be common rules in how they are in the traffic interface point of view. everything else my fellow commissioners voiced. i would like to take a stronger look at the interface of the modes to gather rules and regulations that simply address how people drive and respect each other driving. thank you. >> thank you. did staff want to respond? you didn't have to. >> no comment at this time. >> thank you. i think my last comment would be as we work towards the transportation element coming back. what is the schedule for that by the way with some of the draft policies? is that this year or next year? >> probably next spring or summer. >> okay. as we look at that, i want to second to commissioner diamond's

questions, tncs and all of the emerging mobility -- this category of new things, av -- it's all the new generation ways to get around the city. they are serving a need and -- at least meeting a demand. there's a demand for that type of service being provided. so i think the questions become, to me two fold, how do we make sure they do so in a safe manner that doesn't block the bike lane or impede pedestrians or cause double parking and lead to accidents. how are they safely operating, that is more of a day-to-day real time enforcement question. what happens when they run red lights or do certain things. if there's no consequence, it will keep happening i would

believe. and how to make transit most convenient. convenience wins, how to make transportation walking and biking win for the most part. it won't win in all scenarios but how to make it the mode of choice to get around. i think it is made harder by mta not having more funding in the interim, but to me, it seems like more bus boarding islands. if we can't make it safe for riding transit, i think we really need to put that first.

and regulations following but we shouldn't be punitive to tncs because people are using them, we should want to make other modes of choice easier and looks at how to get more cross city bus connections. we have a lot designed around getting folks downtown. that's the mode of thinking, everything going downtown. that's not all the trips people need to make and how they get their kids to school. i think those need to be part of thinking about if we're trying to reduce vehicle trips, have safer streets, how do we create a framework that pushes towards that really in all aspects so it doesn't -- i know myself, if it is going to take an hour to get somewhere in bus and 10 minutes in a car, i'm getting a tnc. it is too hard to make the

calculation. sometimes i don't make a trip because of that and sometimes i miss out on something. those are my final closing comments. i don't see any other hands -- commissioner moore did you want to add something? >> i wanted to pick up on your safety concerns. i would like to ask we are or tracking to see any particular numbers for accidents and fatalities regarding tnc-involved vehicles. i'm curious about that because that would be a projected beginning point for creating regulations and enforcement to help integrate them better into what they currently are. that's just a suggestion. >> i think it would -- understanding the sources of fatalities and if they are

disproportionately high, that would be something we want to look at and understand. we're trying to influence not just policies but how people are behaving behind the wheel of the vehicle. staff, any other comments you want to make? >> i just want to end by saying we need a good menu of transportation choices. i'm not saying chuck the tncs, you need a good menu of choices for everyone that makes our city gold. thank you. >> sorry, you made me think of one last question. are there any cities that are further along -- with av development than we are. either with them driving more passengers we can see how they're doing? there's some hopeful future around av technology to be used

for different modes of transportation, that are not just a private individual in the car. i wonder where we are in terms of other cities having advanced their policy or use of avs. >> i have a two part answer on that. first, they have looked at san francisco if we can do it here, we can do it anywhere. they're focused on san francisco. other cities in the u.s., primarily the u.s. that is doing this, pittsburgh and chandler, arizona. chandler's city council have really welcomed tncs and very -- sorry, avs and gave a lot of leeway in terms of regulations. pittsburgh, they have a testing lab there.

in terms of policies, chandler, arizona is probably the furthest along. they're not really appear city, the weather is different and topography is different. wade, do you have anything to add? >> good afternoon commissioners. i would just say once again, we're out ahead. both in terms of the impacts that we're facing as a city from a newer technology and also in trying to understand what the impacts could be and identifying policies for them. i don't have much to add. some other cities have started

to look at it. but the policy options in this report, land use planning, are much further along. >> thank you. i appreciate staff's time and look forward to seeing you back here as the process continues. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. if there's no further discussion, we can move on to item 9a-d. >> thank you. as the project sponsor and staff are getting ready, i'll ask attorney yang if i need assistance to chime in, because

this project was heard in 2017 was when the initial was published, the commissioners need to review that eir as well as the addendum proposed. what we're going to do today, we didn't have that direction until late breaking direction that we got that we needed to review that today. we are going to have the hearing and hear from the staff, the project sponsor and take public comment and close public comment today and continue the item and hopefully we can do it the 14th of july and then take up the deliberateration again on the 14th. is that all that we needed to say? is that accurate? >> that's correct. good afternoon. it incorporates the environmental impact report and as part of the consideration that all of the documents be

considered before the commission can vote on the item. >> thank you very much. i'll turn it over to staff. >> good afternoon president tanner and vice president moore and members of the commission here in the chambers and those remotely. my name is nick foster. it is great to be back after what has been a bizarre 2.5 years. so before you are the entitlements for what is a modified project. i don't know anyone who refers to it as the address range and refer to it as one oak project. it is five lots. primarily frontage along oak street to the north. this project was first approved

in june of 2017 with nearly identical land use program with 304 dwelling units in a 41 story tower with ground floor retail. as mr. yang mentioned, the eir was certified in 2017. in early 2020 when the world fell apart, the project received a two year performance extension, two additional years added to the entitlement lifespan. so today, it includes a demolition just like in 2017 of the two non residential buildings and construction of 40 building. it goes up to 416 of the rooftop mechanical equipment and up to the top of the top of the roof

and elevator overrun. all of that is just like in '17 situated over a 12 story podium and ground floor retail. it includes 460 dwelling units and 100 studios, 159 one bedroom with about 2500 square feet of ground floor retail and includes 112 off street parking spaces and that's a parking ratio 0.24. there are three feet loading spaces, comprised of a larger freight loading space. and then class one and two parking and to help further activate the ground floor experience, this project would construct public plaza in the right of way. the primary difference, huge

increase in dwelling account up to 360 units. there is a change of dwelling, more studios, ones and twos and elimination of three and four bedroom units. the overall land use and design are very similar to that of the 2017 approval. regarding public comment and outreach, the public sponsor has conducted outreach again in addition to the original round in 2017. to date, this project has received 12 letters in support and one letter in opposition.

the letters of support praise the primary goal of nearly 500 units of housing. the one opposition does raise concerns over the amount of and location of off street parking and the inadequate ceqa analysis for study of wind and impact of tncs ironically enough. two small housekeeping items for consideration, first, in your ceqa finding motion, attachment a under section 6, on the second bullet, the dollar amount referenced and van ness market affordable housing fee is erroneous. it should be $8 million. a little note that the section 415 fee is correct. second note is page 17 of the

plan, exhibit b, there's a dwelling unit exposure diagram. it is a 309 exception that is in the draft motion before you. so speaking of the motions, there are three action items before you today, but i believe you are not taking action on. updated ceqa findings motion to reflect updated information and updated downtown project authorization. and lastly, updated shadow findings. elevator overrun is required to service the highest floor whereas in the 2017 version, there was no usable open space on the roof deck.

with the addition of that, we had to have elevator to service the highest floor and that's why we need the overrun. in summary, the planning department still recommends approval of this project. department still finds the modified project is on balance and objectives of the city's general plan, downtown plan and market and activity plan. so, yeah, this would redevelop a keystone parcel. we find it to be the most responsible location to build housing, practically on a transit station. i'll be here for questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor presentation. you have five minutes.

>> good afternoon. sorry -- >> sfgov tv can you please have the laptop? thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to present this project today. i'm founding partner at build. with me today, my colleagues from build. it's been a few years since i have been here and happy to be back in chambers. the project was originally approved by the planning commission in 2017 for 304 condo units. due to the challenge of financing, a large for sale

project, we are asking to be amended to rental project adding units to the pipeline. the average unit size has been reduced from 1200 square feet to about 800 square feet per unit within the same building height and bulk. the previously entitled building is shown in red and new building in green. the height and bulk remain essentially the same. the building is shifted east ward toward van ness with the flat iron aspect of the lot and intersection and tower shifted away from neighboring site. key benefits of the project include 460 rental units, 44% two bedroom. $57 million in total impact fees. including affordable housing fees equating to 31%

affordability. directive fee agreement that targets specific projects in the surrounding neighborhoods. oak plaza, a pedestrian oriented space. 112 parking spaces, 24 less. activated ground floor frontages including facade and canopy elements. the total amount of open space increased by adding balconies at the cut-outs on the western side and podium deck and ground floor plaza improvements. we don't believe balconies on the tower would be functional because of the wind at the site. we believe bay windows in the podium are a better solution, especially due to the noise and pollution along market and oak streets on the lower floors.

with that, i'll pass the mic. >> thank you. the view for market street looking west design celebrates by pulling it closer to the intersection and allowing clean expression of the corner. the building form remains shaped by the wind. after extensive wind tunnel testing, balconies to the east side has significant benefits to the pedestrian experience. and it gives them the best views possible. in keeping with the residential look of san francisco, there's vertical elements. the facade is characterized by off white frame that keeps with the original character of the

district. the top of the building is crowned with roof profile to minimize the shadow impact. the ground floor plan highlights the creation of significant public open space improvement with enhanced pavement design. the new plaza allows new areas with no softscape and help to mitigate the traffic impact from van ness. this is already a quiet stretch of oak street but we have a pedestrian crossing to improve safety. the ground floor is activated on all sides by the lobby and retail spaces. the elevator view of the plaza shows the wind canopy to avoid

the need for additional structures in the public realm. this elevated detail view shows the activated ground floor as the building addresses the major intersection. the height of the canopy -- >> that's your time. i know we'll have questions. we may return to some more questions to allow you to show more of your design. >> thank you. at this time i would like to open public comment on this item. if you're in the chambers today, please come forward and line up along the side of the room. for calling in remotely, press star 3 to raise your hand. >> former president of the hayes

valley neighborhood association. i was one of the negotiators that helped create this agreement in 2017. one oak added needed housing in our community and i support its construction. as mentioned in a meeting earlier this spring, the changes in one oak under discussion today doesn't change the agreement points reached in 2017. first and foremost, agreeing to the building of dense housing that now includes the revisions at the hub. we have welcomed housing for marginalized communities. access to safe and welcoming streets and sidewalks is

fundamental adding thousands of new residents. i have been reading the press release you have in your hands now, based in 2017 submitted by then supervisor london breed. fundamental to the needed projects -- i'll read parts of the press release. 30% off site affordable housing to four parcels in the neighborhood representing 103 units. agreement that the mayor's office of housing and community development will develop and control ground floor retail space in conjunction with development of one oak. three, one parcels dedicated to affordable housing, that is under construction now. low to middle income two to

three bedroom housing on remaining three parcels. ground floor retail. creation of fully maintained public plaza in the oak street alley below the project. commitment from the planning department to develop rigorous criteria for measuring impacts on bikes and finally, commitment from the planning department to continue to study tncs and vehicle miles travel to measure full development impacts and address parking issues raised in the appeal, supervisor breed introduced legislation to remove the conditionally use options for all new projects seeking more parking. it would remain in place until the hub area plan is finalized. thank you.

>> good afternoon. i'm the field representative with carpenters local union. i represent 4,000 who live in san francisco. we're in support of building the one oak development. build has committed to use of union labor. it will offer training and education opportunities for those entering the trade, this includes women, minorities and veterans. and continues training and mastering of the craft for those who are already journey persons. it will give the members an opportunity for a livable wage, work where they live and spend their hard earned money in the great city of san francisco. in closing, we ask the commission to vote in favor of

the development. members of the carpenter's union know you'll make the right decision and look forward to building bigger and better projects in the city of san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i would like to remind you that one oak was entitled, approved by the planning commission five years ago. and -- more than five years ago. at the time, we were under the housing crisis or as we call, some of the activists housing affordability crisis. i understand that probably the developer does not agree with our notion of the crisis but under the housing crisis, they

came to this body and actually got their entitlement. the question is, if we have a housing crisis, why are they sitting around for over five years and not developing the property and now coming back and asking for more units, there's not even one unit that is being placed on site. not one -- not one affordable unit is being placed on site. that is a huge project, granted, i'm glad they are offering these as rental in a city where 64% of residents are renters but what is the benefit too the community. there's not one affordable unit being built on site and at a time they promised to have a corridor availability in the cultural district, that is being completely abandoned. and the public space is being shrunk.

overall, we don't have any faith in this developer being able to deliver real units. these are imagined units resulting from entitlement the developer is going to get. they have never built anything and we're not sure if this is just a ploy for them to get more units so they could put this thing up and sell the entitlement. at a time when we are having more and more affordability issues, this is not going to be to the benefit of the public. 160 more units, none affordable, no affordable housing on site. it's not to the benefit of the community. so, i would urge every single one of you to vote no on these changes and send a message. you can't get your entitlements and sit around five years and

come back and ask for more. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm here to speak in favor and support of one oak. san francisco's affordable city that is capable of guiding its housing stock to meet ever-growing demands for appropriate, safe and affordable housing focused on the needs of majority. in the post pandemic, carbon neutral focused and financially challenged environment. when you look at one oak, you have an opportunity here that is unique because of the footprint that the building will be going on. it is basically replacing a couple of under utilized commercial spaces and blacktop that is going to allow for improvements in the quality and availability of housing. it is going to be a modern

standard building, efficiency with water and energy. as well as reduction in carbon footprint when built. it is going to be a rental focused property that reduces a lot of the hurdles when trying to access quality housing in san francisco. the availability is going to go up. the project has expanded to meet more demand to 460 units but keeping the same footprint and building height which is very good. one of the other very important aspects of the site, it is co-located to the muni metro station. you have high density housing located next to public transport. residents want to improve the housing inventory, especially next to public transport, making it the best value for all income levels and we'll support one oak and encourage the board to

approve the project. >> good afternoon commissioners. i remember the conversations way back when and subsequent hearing at the board of supervisors regarding this project when it was originally approved and going forward. it was a fantastic project then and is now. the details of the improvements in my opinion were highlighted by staff in the presentation. i'm not going to dive into those stereo too much. the number one reason to move it forward as fast as possible is feasibility. after listening to last week's commission hearing regarding the pipeline and projections we're seeing now, based on those who used to build housing in san francisco and for the most part

now can't because of the overwhelming costs, pushing up $150,000 fees per door, lands cost the amount of time it takes to get anything built here in san francisco. all of that is additive. and they make no money unless it gets built. all of this is a cost. every day it is delayed is a cost. and while i realize that two week continuance is necessary, i will go ahead and say how frustrating it is. we'll continue to try to activate residents to understand you have to show up. if you don't show up at this point in time, there's chances housing gets rejected. these folks more than others

know about the bullshit housing rejection. so i will say though, there's one issue and i brought it up at the time, i have one issue with the project. all star donuts is the best place to get a hot sandwich any time of day in san francisco. i will encourage if there's anything you can do, please -- housing is ultimately more important at the end of the day, so i ask you do whatever you can to move it forward. thank you. >> i live three blocks from the site. so for so many reasons i'm very happy and supportive of this project.

one of which is it's an extremely prominent intersection and gateway to the city and as much as he loves the all star donuts and a lot of people love it, i think this will be a welcome addition. i just hope as the design evolves that it will really serve as a gateway at this important intersection. so having said that, i support the project, there are some concerns that i have. you just heard the presentation by the tnc people talking about how we need to be more aggressive with transportation first policy. i know the developer has reduced the parking here to comply with the plan but if any site in the city can be carless, this is the

site. you know, we know how transit rich it is. it is a walkable site, thousands of bicyclists go by the site every day. it's something to keep in mind. i understand that some of the parking is going to be above ground, too, which is in violation of the market plan. that is one concern that i have. another is the plaza. the plaza is going to serve as the automobile entry for the project and drop-off for tncs and so forth. we have to be careful, is it a plaza for pedestrians and performances or is it just going to be another trafficked plaza. and having said that, there's a pedestrian access -- there's a question about it. if you go to the corner of franklin and oak, pedestrians

cannot cross there at the north side of oak. so i think needs to look at the connection from the international school. finally, below market rate units. i second what gale said, we need to build those below market rate units in the neighborhood. we have a bunch of vacant parcels along the boulevard, a great opportunity to do that. and finally, as a bicyclist, i want to emphasize the wind impact on bicycling. i travel through this intersection twice a day and i appreciate the design to trying to mitigate the winds. we can't regulate them. >> thank you. >> maybe something to make it more comfortable for bicyclists to go through the windy intersection. thank you.

>> i've been actively involved in the project since it started and helped to negotiate with then supervisor london breed. the terms of agreement commitments for the project back in 2017. to be clear, i want this project to be built finally. two, i welcome the higher number of rental units opposed to the lower number of luxury condos. three, i'm pleased with the developer honoring his commitment to go to 2.5 parking. what i do not approve of is removal of the community benefit plaza at the corner. removal of the art contributions then designed as part of the wind mitigation, art was supposed to be part of this corner. three, going against the city

market policy of street level parking being requested. i've seen no details on the upgrade of the muni elevator which was in contest at the time and in these added five years, i would have hoped they had been worked out. just as a comment, i like the project and want it to go forward, but if you want it to have a model of bait and switch, those with long enough memory will recall, this was presented as the most stunning design, which was then thrown out as too expensive. another team did the last revision. dramatic. different.

now it's pushing eastward to eliminate the plaza, that was supposed to be the entire parcel not even owned when this was approved. now it's shall we say simpler design. to go back to the agreement, i have very little time, you all have copies of london breed's memo, but, again, supervisor breed, community members and developer proposed one oak and came together on a ground breaking community benefits deal. later supervisor breed brought appellants and developer together after countless negotiations, a win-win compromise to include comprehensive community benefits and city wide improvements for

future development impact. supervisor breed mentioned that the request -- >> thank you. that concludes your time. thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll move to the remote callers. if you wish to speak on the item, press star 3. when you hear the line has been unmuted, you can start speaking. >> hello commissioners. i live and work in san francisco. in fact, my office is maybe three blocks from the site. familiar with the project. i think it's a great project. it's more housing units. i actually believe the design is better. the community benefit is housing. in response to -- i heard a previous comment about build has never built anything.

this is untrue. they built -- they have a plaza adjacent to another 360 units or so. i don't think there's a problem there for congestion. and then of course recently, high rise that they just completed is leasing up right now. again, i think it's a great project. i would ask the commissioners to approve it. especially in light of last week's hearing regarding projects being stopped.

thank you. >> hello, a member of the hayes valley association. i participated in early talks about the project and i have looked at the proposal for changes. i have a great deal of concern. some of the most important things are not having affordable housing on site. hayes valley is the furthest away that any replacement housing could be put. it is good that it has rental housing, but i would deny that the rental housing meets the majority of san francisco residents. good grief, it's another expensive building. other concerns are the on site

parking -- grade level parking which does violate the market plan. and it eliminates some of the businesses that were going to be there and other kinds of art and plaza services. you can't have people driving across both sides of the building and then have a plaza at the same time with various events. it is a bait and switch. and any delays here have been due to the sponsor of the project, not the city. so don't give them a pass for their own problems. we need the public space there being sucked in by this building. and the building on this corner, these four corners is supposed to be a monumental building. as far as i can see, the only thing monumental about the design is its height.

otherwise it is pretty blah. i think we need housing, but again, who do we need the housing for? i respectfully suggest that housing is for people at ami over 140% doesn't serve us in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm asking to vote no on the changes. i'm happy to hear that the developer of 1 oak street is planning to rent units instead of selling them, but none of these units is below market

rate. he shouldn't add more units and abandon public open space and cultural amenities that were part of the condition of the original approval. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm representing the bay area council. we supported this very good project in 2017. we support this great project today. the project sponsor outlined that the city will get over $140,000 a door in community

benefits. we have 250,000 lowest income residents from those states every year. you have an opportunity today to approve 460 units so 460 san francisco families are not -- [indiscernible] >> hello commissioners. i live in district 5 and i'm a homeowner and lived in this district and in the city for

many years. i have never owned a car. my whole life. and so i walk, ride my bike or ride public transit every where i go in san francisco. like almost everyone who has spoken today, i am basically very enthusiastic about this project and hope that -- i'm glad something is finally looking like it will be built on the corner to provide much needed housing for people of san francisco. like almost everybody else who has spoken today, i have grave concerns about the project as it is currently proposed. my number one concern is, i don't know why we can't build anything with no parking in san francisco. if there's that site in the city

where zero parking would be feasible or desirable it has to be the corner of van ness and market where so many pedestrians and bicyclists so much parking is being added to that intersection and neighborhood, the cumulative effects are overwhelming. and all of -- most of the objections people have such as the pedestrian plaza is going to be compromised by user conflicts if it's trying to accommodate both cars and pedestrians, the impacts of tncs and transit and wind effects on cyclists, all of these could be mitigated by eliminating the parking and focusing more on how you can benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, artists and the

other people in the community by designing this project with them, for us instead. so, those are my main concerns as well as a lot of people have stated the fact of affordable housing is not required on site. i think that's scandalous. i don't think they should be able to dodge their responsibility of having people at different income levels in the same building. please just approve this project but improve it. put something forward to benefit not just people who need housing but the larger community as well. thank you. >> last call for public comment. if you are calling in remotely,

press star 3. we have a few more. >> i sent letters to the commissioners on this already. i'm asking you to -- you have already going to get this continued. that was announced at the beginning of the hearing. i ask you to have the staff provide additional information about pnc, number one. there should be something for tnc and package delivery use function for more housing and more residents on this site. that is -- that was raised in 2017 and it was not addressed in the eir.

you have more information right now and that should be part of the addendum that is coming to the commission from the staff. please do that analysis. the other thing that you need to have presented is the mayor's settlement negotiated in 2017 by the people who presented today. supervisor breed negotiated with the developer and agreed to certain conditions and they were transmitted by jason henderson. the planning department staff should take that analysis, take that document and analyze how this project meets or doesn't meet that. basically you're not going to get that information in the next

week. so continuation of more than a week, more than two weeks is necessary and additionally, some documents need to be provided by the planning staff and environmental review. it's not asking for the world. it's asking for information. this is a good project but it's not the best project for the site. right now it needs to be tweaked and one of the things that needs to be evaluated is ground floor uses. jason henderson sent a letter dealing with the issues and please continue for more than two weeks. thank you. >> that concludes public comment. public comment is closed and

commissioners, the items are before you. >> i want to thank all the folks who commented on this topic. a lot of great thoughts. i do have a couple of questions for the project sponsor. they relate to the design. i'll probably need the overhead and you may have slides that will relate to this. they're not in any order. >> whatever order you want. >> i wonder if you could talk a little bit about the plaza and art that was supposed to be in the plaza and what you have planned now and maybe explain some of the changes regarding the plaza we see in terms of configuration. >> can i have the screen on? so this is the bird's eye of the plaza. essentially, you can see the crosswalk across oak street, a table, level crossing across from one side to the other. we have narrowed the street to 20 feet, one way.

the difference from the previous plan is the building has been pulled toward van ness 20 feet maybe. that has shrunk that area where you see the elevator structure. >> can you share about the shift in the building -- is it to accommodate more units? what caused it? >> a couple of things. yes, the bulk of the building hasn't changed. it is sliding the whole thing forward. it gives regular shape to the building and like i said before, recognizes the flat iron aspect.

it's a way to make the building more economically feasible. it is simpler to build than the curved space. the interior spaces are better. the curve of the building makes the interior spaces very difficult, problematic. >> in that regard to the plaza, we lost space between the elevator and maybe the nose of the flat iron. has the part on oak changed significantly? >> it's essentially the same. we originally wanted to close the end of oak street to pedestrian traffic, not to pedestrian traffic, to automobile traffic. we couldn't do so because the fire department insisted on access through that, the wrong way, but through that space to get to van ness from the fire station further down oak street. >> can you talk about the art? i know we had -- we've heard

comments about it, i any you mentioned it briefly. a change in the art and how it will be incorporated. >> you know, we understand that these are concept drawings essentially. the ground floor facade of this, on all three sides needs to be active. we understand that very well. not only -- it's changed because now we have a canopy instead of a free-standing wind screen that we had before. what we plan to do is enhance the ground floor up to the canopy and include in the canopy as well as the ground floor, as well as the ground plain, in our design and utilizing the 1% for art fee in those locations to make -- you want this to be the best ground floor facade around. and this will be the fourth public plaza we have done.

we did dog patch arts plaza, linden alley, the eagle plaza, this is the fourth one. we're getting good at it finally. but we want this to be the best experience for the people coming through the intersection, for the people using the building, so people coming out of transit there. for the art students across the street. for the theater across the street. we want this to be a hub. it is the hub. so that's our intent. it's not clearly shown in these drawings if you look at the previous work, you'll see that we do it pretty well. >> when you talk about the art, activating that ground floor, do you imagine exterior, interior, sculptures -- do you have a sense of that yet? >> i have a lot of ideas but nobody listens to me.

maybe it's lighting installation that includes the canopy and facades. maybe it's pieces that are sitting certainly we have to address the elevator box. keep it from looking like that. so, it will be included in all aspects i think. it will be a greater piece. that is what it should be, using that and our own design to make it the best space it can be. >> a couple other questions for you. if you could talk a little bit about the parking set up and what kind of parking you are providing. i know i'm happy and others are happy there are fewer parking spaces but i believe in are some on the ground floor before it goes into the underground level.

>> yeah. ground floor parking is on the first floor. stackers go two high and three down. there's five total. i believe -- it's all permitted. there's nothing -- we're not asking for a variance, we're not putting parking on the second floor, which is prohibited. and frankly, we're asking for 112 parking spaces and i don't think we can get near that because of the site. >> i wanted to talk about the units. i think it was noted from staff -- you all mentioned the average unit size is now 800 square feet, no more three or four bedroom units. could you talk about the unit

design layout and i believe -- i'm concerned about, i don't think there are some with compliant exposure. >> we have no embedded bedrooms in any of the projects. every bedroom has a window essentially. part of the reason for the change in unit mix, we went from 1200 square foot average condo to 800 square foot average apartment. there's less opportunity to include a three bedroom unit. you know, we've looked at the plan, there's a couple of larger units in the tower that if you can tolerate embedded bedroom, we could probably make those three bedroom units and provide some of those. it's a trade-off obviously but we have run out of building facade essentially. >> yeah. that makes sense. and i think -- was i reading

there are units without compliant exposure. if you could talk about -- it makes me nervous when folks don't have compliant exposure. maybe talk about the units and their set up. if you want to talk about it, that's all right. >> so, i think it's 24 units in total of the total 460 that don't meet the requirements. all of those are located in the inner courtyard that faces the property to the west. on floors three through eight. the higher you go up, the more exposure plain wider becomes. with three street frontages meets exposure in every unit in the tower itself.

95% meet exposure. >> can you show the laptop? thank you. >> you can see my curser here, it's these units in the inner courtyard of the lower level, maybe three through 10. those are the units that don't meet exposure. >> thank you. >> one more note there, if you notice there's building next door is built, the oak, oak 2.0 as we call it. there's a passage light well throughout the entire building and we have aligned ours to be with that. essentially, yes, it doesn't meet unit exposure to the property line, but you have another 60 feet of light well in that direction. >> great. i think those are all of my questions for now. and i will call on other

commissioners. i see the zoning administrator wants to weigh in as well. >> thank you president tanner. i figured it would be good at the front end before other commissioners start their conversations to touch on the variance. it is somewhat parking related and some of the other issues. there are two actions i'm looking at, the elevator overrun, well explained, necessary and an exception that can be granted. the variance for required set-back off the street. we require a depth of 25 feet. if you're going to have ground floor parking, you have to set it off the street. in this case, both off oak and market, they are varying degrees areas where the parking area is not quite 25 feet. some places it is very close and some areas it is less close. i think it is important to think about the context of the site. it is unusually shaped corner

parcel with a lot of frontage. it doesn't have a lot of interior space to work with. and the nature of how the parking is proposed is from a floor area perspective, it is fairly small and set as far from the corners as possible. it is as far off van ness as it can be. i think it's helpful to look at this in context of the rest of the intersection. this property is not -- we talk about the corner and this hub, it is a whole hub and we've had in the near past, three other very large projects come before the commission and be approved at 1500 mission, the old goodwill site, 10 south van ness and 30 van ness. all different sizes but all of them were essentially as large or larger than what we see today. and all of those parcels were

much larger than the site, less constraint. i think when you look at the shape and size of the lot compared to the permitted height, it is going to create constraints on the ground floor and that's why we're seeing what we're seeing in the proposal. and the parking is 0.24 and could go up to 0.27. i was just checking, 30 van ness was at 0.25 and 1500 mission at 0.5 for residential. in terms of thinking about what is proposed here in line with what else has been approved around the intersection, that is helpful information. >> commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the staff in terms of what we're going to expect in the ceqa addendum. as i'm looking in the some of

the commitments, are there going to be included in the analysis, impacts on bikes and other things such as tncs analysis in this addendum. >> yes. so the eir addendum in your staff packet did analyze tncs and ecommerce delivery. we found there to be no impact. there's an explanation as to why. i can do a dial a friend right now with my colleague on the line if she is available to join us from environmental planning to unpack that further or -- >> yeah, if you could -- or if the staff is available right now. >> i think she's on. >> good afternoon commissioners.

long story short on the analysis of tncs, we look at the impact of delivery and tnc and travel demand and loading analysis. so, the trips associated with tncs and ecommerce delivered are accounted for. where we find typically look at impacts for particular projects, we're looking at loading. i think this was raised by several commenters. for this project -- ecommerce delivery typically those deliveries are accommodated within freight loading space. we did calculate the project and all of the freight loading demand is met within the garage. passenger loading, sponsors required by code to have a plan and within that, there's a requirement for the project sponsor to apply for 22 foot

passenger loading zone next to the project driveway near the residential lobby. we calculated the passenger loading demand for the project and that one space would accommodate the demand. if you need further information, i can go on. >> thank you for that. just a clarification, there's public comment in terms of how one oak plaza -- you're talking about the in terms of the loading and unloading zones in that area? is that correct? >> yes, unfortunately i don't have any of the project slides. i don't know if it would be helpful for nick to put up a slide that shows the streetscape plan to show where it would be located. it would basically be to the west of the project's driveway on oak street just between the driveway and property line of 55

oak. >> sfgov tv can you please show the laptop? thank you. >> thank you for that clarification. those were my questions. >> do you want to point it out? >> yes, thank you so much. the proposed off street white curb passenger loading -- just to the west of the garage entrance. subject to approval. all the freight load is off site, within the priority property lines here, including the 88 spaces and parking stackers here. >> thank you very much. commissioner koppel. >> i was here for the earlier hearings and my main concern was the parking.

i'm happy to see it mitigated with the current design. >> thank you. commissioner diamond and then commissioner moore. >> i have a question for the project sponsor. assuming the project is approved, are you willing to work with staff during the architectural refinement project to see if there's a way to add three bedrooms back into the project? >> yes, we are. >> thank you very much. so with that, i believe we need to follow the city attorney's advice and continue this hearing for two weeks. i am hoping that staff will implement a process that alerts all of the commissioners at the time that the package goes out for any hearing when it's important to review documents from prior hearings prior to the time we get to the actual

hearing. i'm hopeful staff will implement the process so we don't have to have this kind of continuous again. i move to continue two weeks. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> it is kind of with a heavy heart i sit here today and address a project which does not much look like what was approved in 2017. the reason i say that, none of you has the ability to have a full presentation of what was approved then and tremendous amount of work, thoughtful community process and community input that came from the design, to push this project into what was a great building. and while the building that is

in front of us today kind of looks like what was done at that time, it has lost vibrancy and dynamics and most and foremost, it occupies far more space than what it did in 2017. it's a different building and i think we need to face that. a more daring building and one that was presented by building who did everything to answer all and every question. today, it is a different building and it's being described as not many changes. yeah, i feel a certain amount of pain because five years ago, five years and two weeks ago, i

asked and looked straight into their face and said gentlemen, this is a very, very high-end ambitious building, will you be able to deliver this building without any dumbing down this building. and at that day, not only did they promise it, they said verbatim, if this building switches to rental, which is always a possibility, we will only provide 76 parking spaces. today, we have a building that has -- still whatever parking spaces and another 150 units but also in the course of doing so has become the building encroaching on to van ness avenue and losing the dynamics.

i'd like to ask a simple question. perhaps it will be sent to the architect. you worked [indiscernible] many years ago on the building or the architect on local record we talked about this building, activating market street, moving toward downtown to the west and facades that are pedestrian on the market street side and connection between the civic center district and the art district on the oak street side. facade animation is an element in pedestrian animation. and on the market street side, i

see a reduction from the 2017 building to today from 81% to 63%. this is a stark contrast to what you are doing on the oak street side. both sides on the building of this land need every inch of people seeing of what is going on as a commitment to retail that was part of the settlement agreement with then supervisor breed, a wonderful balance to create another community supportive agreement. the parking shows that was granted to you in 2017 helped you to what you say was tipped

the scale for you to market it as luxury condos. you got support and everybody was extremely willing to give you that support. today, we don't have anything. but we still have a building that is reduced in quality and doesn't do what it did before. i'm not talking about my complete support for your unit increase, that could have been done differently, it could have been done in the tower.

the city deserves a spectacular building and then gets a second rate building for rental. this building is the most transformative sight -- i think it will set an example of how good develop -- people who

picked up you setting a high bar in 2017. i'm looking at the building next to you, 5054. i'm looking at buildings in the outer tier, each time they came to us and many approved after you and you were the last ones, the example you were setting. today you come back with something less than. i appreciate you listening to me about that. >> commissioner, did you want the architect to respond to comments? >> perhaps think about it and respond reflecting a little bit more between the previous and this building the next time around. i should think there should be additional work done with unit design, insufficient and not

even door swings in an accounting of unit numbers, not anything about quality of units. a little more work could be done, including addressing the awkward shape of the canopy and lack of transparency on oak and market. that would be constructive. i think it would give this commission should have the possibility to hear about the other building to make a fair decision. i think the public will be disappointed not seeing this commission take -- [indiscernible] that's a constructive comment and leave things a little bit more open than just take it or leave it. i want to support the project with additional work done on the project. >> thank you. thank you commissioner moore. i do have just a few more questions and then we'll take up

the motion. did you want to speak to the continuance? >> i have a question for the project sponsor but you can ask first. >> commissioner moore addressed it and some of the speakers, kind of the time. 2017, now it is 2022, maybe it will come out sometime soonish. maybe you could talk about the delay and then related but kind of separately, what commissioner moore brought up, the 76 parking spaces if it is rental and certainly there's fewer than before and i appreciate there's more units, maybe that is part of that. maybe if you could talk to the lapse of time and the parking space count. >> yeah, we are obviously all held captive by the financial situation. the macro economics that surround not only this project but as you heard last thursday,

every project in san francisco. someone said earlier, we don't make money by letting it sit. it costs more -- millions of dollars more every year not to build this. we would have built it then had we been able to secure the financing to do so. we were not able to do so. the economic situation just eroded away from us as we went further and further. we're hoping we're at the bottom, we're hoping there's a bottom here and we can move forward with this project. god willing, the creek don't rise. so, i can't say anything more than that, it was our intent certainly to build the project at the time. we would have built it, we could have built it. we would be better off had we built it. we could not build it. we just couldn't. so, you know, we have a more

buildable, more financeable project here. and to answer commissioner moore, to respond to her, i think we can -- if this is still very much a concept. we intend to build a beautiful building. that it is symmetrical, a chance to be elegant. i think we can build a beautiful building here and one that is a gateway. >> thank you. >> obviously with any kind of smaller site tower, there are constraints on open space and trying to get as much as you can. i was asking the second floor, where the courtyard starts, the units that need the exposure exception, on that second floor, there's like the roof level above the ground floor but not to be used as open space by the

units at front. i wondered if there was a specific reason that area was being left -- if there was a constructions issue or would it be possible to have that area made available to the units on the second floor -- >> it hadn't occurred to us to use that yet. i think if it's there, we'll use it. >> yeah, we can use it. >> good idea. >> more open space. great. thank you. >> excellent. i would second commissioner diamond's goal to work on having some three bedroom units, even nested bedrooms, support that effort. i don't see any other commissioners with hands up. i think we're ready to vote on the continuance. >> great. thank you. >> go ahead. >> could i raise a question, if the continuance would be closing public hearing and deliberate or keep it open? >> my endeavor, the public hearing would be closed, of

course if new information is provided, i don't know mr. yang if we need to open the public hearing, if there's new information provided between now and two weeks from now. that would be the only thing i think would require us to reopen public comment. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm understanding the question is under what conditions would previously close hearing need to be reopened? i believe what you have articulated is correct. if there are new basis for the commission's decision being incorporated into the decision making, at that point, you might need to reopen the public comment period. but absent to that, i believe

public comment period can remain closed. >> thank you commissioner diamond, was that the intent of your motion? >> my intent was close the public hearing and continue for two weeks. >> thank you. i will second that. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to close the public hearing and continue the item to july 14th, 2022. (roll call vote) zoning administrator? >> i'll continue the variance item to july 14th. >> thank you commissioners.

now the discretionary review calendar for item 10. at this time, we're going to take a short five minute break. very short. be back in five >> this takes us to item 10. 1301 18th street. >> from ach. staff architect. the item before you is a publish request for review of knowledge permit ap-- building permit application to construct a vertical addition to a three story apartment building over ground level commercial for a

roof stair penthouse with washer and drier to this building that occupies nearly the entire let. the building is a historic resource built in 1955. d.r. requesters at 312 texas street, neighbors to the south of the project are concerned the project is an attempt to provide access to roof to convert to occupied roof deck to set a precedent for spent houses. it encloses as laundry and should not be exempt and should be considered a story and exceeds the height limit. the alternatives to locate laundry and closet on second and third floors. there is one letter in opposition pan no lettering in support. the planning department review

as it conforms to the planning code and design guidelines. it is within allowable height limit and buildable area. no deck is proposed. if a deck were proposed it would be reviewed by stefaccording to the deck policies and guidelines for the privacy impacts with appropriate setbacks as deemed appropriate. views from private prompt are accepted. we recommend no discretionary review. thank you. >> thank you, for that. we will now begin with the d.r.

requester's presentation. you will have five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. i live south of the project with my wife jennifer. our concern is the proposed addition will impact privacy and safety of our home and lead to increased activity on the roof without safeguardings roof decks provide. jennifer and i are trying to find a solution to work. we don't understand why the hallway closets aren't viable. we hear it is less deserving to the tenants. they made the suggestion to put on second and third floors. it is an issue of cost or soundproofing we offered to offset the cost installing the laundry on the roof would be the least convenient for the

neighbors. we did not want to file. we wanted a compromise. we hoped we could avoid the hearing. we are willing to work on a solution. we ask you to grant the request to continue the discussions. i will turn it over to my attorney. >> good afternoon. they have worked hard to find a solution. the project sponsors insist placing the laundry on the roof. it might seem odd. why does it matter? the larger issue they are calling it penthouse. they have very specific definition. essentially they are only allowed if they are strictly necessary for elevators or stairs. because they are only allowed when necessary they are exempt from code requirements. penthouses don't count towards

height limits or floor area they don't require any of the safety features occupiable space requires. the sponsor's are proposing a laundry room for tenants to use pass occupiable space with up of the code required feeters. this is to -- features. if the penthouse limitation is isnot enforced. there is nothing to prevent bike storage, greenhouses to avoid the code requirements. i would invite mike to speak to the code issues and viability of alternative. >> good afternoon. architecture in san francisco. the structure is tenant amenity and constitutes occupiable space and adds fourth floor.

we had conversation with building about it. it is confirmed. it does not seem to comply with building requirements and not feasible as designed. california building code defines an additional story f.four stories include seismic analysis of the building, stair enclosure. it cannot be used for laundry equipment. the project encourages tenants on the roof with no roof deck load. it is not allowed under this application. design doesn't fully follow-through. an option the hallway closets on the second and thirds floors require accommodations for full-size stackable washers and driers. the scale drawings show the

closets to be large enough for equipment installation. utilities in the same manner as rooftop laundry. issues can be addressed with walled details. there are buffers next to the sensitive areas such as the bedrooms. hallway option seems superior for ease of access. rather than multiple flights of stairs, facilities on one floor seems more practicable. thank you. >> just to close. i will note the residential design guidelines and roof deck policies recognizement houses have adverse impacts on neighbors. disfavored and should be minimized when possible. that is particularly true where there are other code compliant options supported by the tenants. at the least the sponsor could reduce height or width two feet

to limit impacts on neighbors which is what the residential guide lines require. we request you require it to install on alternative location or reduce the size of the rooftop structure. thank you. >> we will hear from the project sponsor. you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the architect for the project. i can have the overhead there.

>> it is a grocery store. circulation path up the main stair goes down a spinal corridor on the second and third level. this corridor basically serves the four units on the second and third floor each, eight units total. i think one of the code sections, i believe, d.r. requester failed to mention that you cannot have utilities in an exit or under section 1006. basically laundry rooms and utility facilities cannot exist there. the roof penthouse was an ideal situation. i think more than 30 years ago there was a roof penthouse that did include laundry facility. existing drain and water supply

up on the roof. we can separate the sound issues better on the roof than in the hallway. the hallway is really a place where we have to take away from very small units additional space to try to make that work. basically,. >> the yellow line we have a stair cover over the stairs. it was basically covering the stair as enclosure. we decided after talking to the d.r. requesters to reduce this to have it by itself.

the diagonal yellow portion of the penthouse is the area that is reduce from the actual proposal. i guess going back one slide the area in yellow which is over here constitutes the area of the glass that covers the entire top floor of the adjacent southern neighbor. i do have some photographs of the building. this is the building. you can see in the background. you can see thepenthouse. you can see the glass from the

front to the south face of the building. you can see how much glazing that top floor and then they have a roof penthouse to occupy the total frontage. this was approved as a glass wall on the property line. i am not sure. i think my clients were talking about potentially adding another level. they are talking now about solar and minimizing the gas usage and using a mechanical or battery storage. they intend to use this to accommodate laundry and mechanical facilities on the top floor. my clients are not interested in a roof deck. if they decide we will come back to visit it with the planning department. we could address that issue at that point.

thank you. >> at this time we will take public comment. if you are interested in speaking please come forward. remotely press star 3 to raise your hand. there are no individuals wishing to speak. public comment is closed. rebuttal of the d.r. requester. two minute rebuttal. >> just quickly. they confirmed this is occupiable space. the project sponsor has not resolved the code issues that michael has addressed. this project was not designed to

meet code requirements or occupiable space. the roof is not a convene yet location for tenants. this wasn't supported by the people who live here who would use the laundry. nobody wants to go up three flights of external stair in the rain to go up to the roof to do their laundry. there are other options and we are puzzled why the project sponsor insists on laundry on the roof. hallway closets are less impactful to the neighbors. if you have any questions on the code related issues, mike is available. with that it is a win for everybody putting it in the hallway closets. we respectfully request you grant the dr.

thank you. >> project sponsor two minute rebuttal. >> yes. we have looked at every aspect of this building as you come down the back stairs. when you come from the bottom of the stairs, you can see some compressor equipment at the back. when you come to the bottom of the stairs turn ride, there is an exit to the right to the outside of the building. the compressors that exist in the back would be an ideal location for the laundry. i don't think that works. that is outside of exit passageway. outside of the grocery store they have the storage facility. it is full. it is part of that tenant

repbetal space. i don't be think we could take that. looking from the other direction. compressors. water heater there. later we might consider going to electric heat pump units. the code issues related to the building requirements are done through the building plan check review process. i am sure we could address those issues as we come to it if we need more coverage. we could go back and cover as opposed to removing. i thought the additional mask would be helpful to the neighbors. they are cavalier about taking the glazing to think they are not invading other people's privacy in a matter of -- i am not sure. thank you.

>> commissioners the item is now before you. >> commissioner moore, did you want to speak to this item? >> i have a couple questions. it is great the landlord is concerned about his tents. there is a laundry across the street. why wouldn't the landlord over the tenants to put the washer and driers in the unit in the closet? given that you want to do that? the stacked washer and drier is about $1,300 these days. why spent $10,500.

the washer and drier in this penthouse structure on top of the roof? this is a simple question. those tenants that don't want the washer and drier go to the laundry three or four blocks away. it is a little question. it is an offer to put one washer and drier not conveniently accessed. you don't know when your laundry is taken out. why don't you ask the people if they want washer and drier in the unit. in addition to that i think it should be unoccupied roof. [indiscernable] the architect is an unoccupied

roof would know it is not just set up for the permitting. those are my comments. >> i will pick up on that. the architect wants to speak. i had a similar question. interesting solution to the washer and drier issue. why not do in unit washer and drier? why go through the exercise of adding something to the roof versus other solutions? >> the closets are a little too small for washers and driers. there would have to accommodate a wider opening. the units are limited in size. storage needs are required. i think the roof penthouse which is mechanical, they are looking at solar panels.

the convenience for just accommodating the penthouse for everyone on the roof as opposed to modifying each unit and providing water and drainage to each location. additionally, the unoccupied roof we can state that. they don't have a need to be unoccupied. they might have a need in the future. why put those limitations? i can put limitation under this permit this roof is unoccupied for the sake of this permit. we don't have a problem including that in our proposal. >> i agree with that. part of the reason for the penthouse are solar panels there so they can service more easily. >> that would be probably two

batteries back up that could become dated in the space. we will have to see how we accommodate the locations for those. we are looking like something like that. >> okay. i see commissioner diamond in the queue. sorry commissioner koppel and imperial. >> all of us appreciate you saying the unoccupiable nature of the roof. even more so will be going with staff recommendation. >> i do appreciate this. i look at this in more as looking into the tenants' needs as well. it is in my opinion more

practical to have it in the home. i do not see the reason for the tenant to go up and down the floors and for the penthouse. perhaps it can be an occupied space in the future that we do not know about. dr is about the washer and drierment house. as i look into the blueprint. i see one washer and drier in the penthouse. i agree with commissioner moore it would cost more than perhaps working with the tenants around the hallway. it sounds -- like you want to do it because of the noise of the washer and drier? >> that is one issue. first of all, the code

requirement. it doesn't allow under the fire and building code allow utility to exist inside exit passage wall. that is the entire hallway. 39 inches wide. it would exceed the clearance required. utilities such as laundry and garbage rooms, other utility rooms and such can not exist in that hallway as part of the passage way. the other item. they are looking at the penthouse for future mechanical needs as well. this is a mechanical penthouse as well as laundry room. we are not saying this is strictly laundry. we are using it for mechanical penthouse. we did entertain adding another story. we are not there right now.

they would like to accommodate needs of tenants. putting the laundry in the hallway will not work under the code. >> even in the units? >> the closets are too small. we would have to reframe, provide drainage, electricity, water at each location. that means tearing up walls and floors to accommodate that. when you add all of that up the eight units it is a today tally different animal. on the north side closets are smaller. we cannot accommodate those needs. we are struggling to have something. the fact there was a penthouse there years ago to accommodate laundry facility on the roof. i couldn't find the evidence. from the neighbors in the neighborhood they did say that

there was a penthouse on the roof. just not using the pents house on the roof. even if we put a deck there. there is basically precluding anyone from doing anything there. under the planning code it is not protected. i understand that it is about use to some degree. that's not the issue. we are trying to provide a service for the tenants by providing this penthouse answervig to accommodate solar panels in the future so we can have this facility. that is where we are. >> we received a e-mail from the tenants concerned about the noise. have you talked to them about

noise mitigation during construction? >> i read that e-mail. there is existing water and drainage on the roof right now. we have a ceiling and roof system for additional isolation between the units and mechanical room itself. when we add a floor on top of that and build the penthouse that is the acaccuse city cal policies. we address vibration issues if there are vibration issues. all of the concerns came through the e-mail. we don't want to disrupt the tenants. we want it to be built quickly to accommodate the neighbors with a facility they could use. >> thank you. that clarified a lot.

>> thank you. >> we heard from the requester concerned that the d.b.i. may not allow the laundry facility in there. not in your department. i am curious if you find that to be true. two. maybe we don't think it is a problem. what happens to the laundry room in that case. >> i stay in the lines but i know how to be dangerous. the answer is i don't know. can you put a laundry room in a room -- well, i think you can. it is a room, not part of egress system. the stair now comes through opening to the roof. >> in closing the laundry

facility at the top of that stair. that is my building code knowledge. it there is a problem they will notify the project architect there are problems. you have got to do this and the other thing. if that is still an offensive thing that somehow the d.r. requester believes the building permit is issued erroneously they have process through the board of appels to address. >> with that. >> moved. >> commissioner diamond in the queue. >> question for the architect or project sponsor. building department can't find a way to permit this.

do you have plan b? there is room for this given the closure of the laundry facility. >> we look for plan b. looked in the commercial spaces. the tenants in the commercial space would not like to lose space on the storage. >> the project there be a lot of work. i know they are too small to accommodate the laundry facility. the cost might be a wash in terms of the work inside each room, whether the project sponsor would entertain that to begin with. he has tenants with the lease agreement as to whether they want laundry or not is a question they would have. we don't know if that is going to work. plan b i don't be see it

existing. i think the penthouse is going to accommodate mechanical needs as well. this is overlooked. this is an important fact especially solar panels are going to switch out the gas service and other services that consume a lot of energy and power right now and a lot of money. over time this will serve them well to pain tain the penthouse. >> i do belief that it is a quandary. for me i appreciate you are trying to provide this amenity. i don't like the solution very much. i think it is inconvenient for the tenants to walk up to the top floor. i wish there was another place to put the laundry that made more sense. worry about vibration on the

roof or in the room unless it is the ground floor. it will create problems for the tenants. maybe it is easier on the roof. i don't know. that being said. people who brought the right to review. i don't believe this is extraordinary or exceptional. i don't think we should take dr. i encourage you to find a better solution especially with the building defendant that it is complicated to put the laundry there. >> if we put it on the ground level then the transition to ground level from the third left is greater than second and third to the roof. i think about accommodating

future mechanical needs as well. >> you have a bigger plan. we only see one tiny piece. it is an odd one. the complete man would have made more sense. if it wasn't an occupiable roof until you come back to apply for roof deck and i would not support taking dr. >> thank you. >> i will make a motion. >> the labeling. [indiscernable]

>> we can work with staff. >> unoccupied roof at this point is stating the obvious. >> the intent of the permit. if you wish to have that memorialized in the permit it doesn't permit a future permit from coming in. >> i make the motion to not take dr and trust that you will label the plans unoccupiable roof until such time as they apply. >> second. >> on that motion to not take discretionary review and approve project. commissioner ruiz. >> aye.

>> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> 7-0. that is your final item 11. 2021-005907. drp-03. 750-779. 79-81 homestead street discretionary review. commissioner tanner. the time limits on this item as

well. there are three d.r. requesters. anything else you may want to add. >> we will do one minute rebuttals if there are three. i want to make sure the folks in the chamber and online responding to public comment. if you are part of the d.r. requesting group. speak during the initial presentation or rebuttle. i want to make sure folks are aware of the procedures. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. item before you is a public initiated request of building permit 2021-0512-0274 to raise an existing two story two family residence and garage at street level to reconfigure front and rear stairs and decks. existing building is category c

low historic resource built in 1909. there are three requesters. first joshua, catherine. 65 homestead. immediate neighbors north to the project. they are concerned it is inconsistent with residential design guidelines. related to scale, light, privacy and the maximum envelope development. they would eliminate two on-street parking spaces. proposed alternatives. replace hip roof with gable roof and provide garden apartmentment. second d.r. requester 70 homestead street neighbors and across the street to the west of the project. the project is inconsistent with the guidelines related to scale,

intrusion, light and privacy. would eliminate the parking spaces. similar to d.r. requester one and three. replace hip roof with gable in the front. remove garage and provide apartment and reject the one car garage. roger norton to the east is concerned the project is inconsistent related to light and privacy in the backyard and scale and intrusion. alternatives to replace hip roof with gable in front. remove garage and provide garden level. to date no letters in opposition and two letter this is support. planning department's review of

the proposal conforms to the guidelines in planning code. as it exists this is the shortest building on the block with subgrade flat resulting from previous regradings of the street. presents itself as tall one story building faces to tall two story building. this does not encroach to the mid block open space but fits within that footprint. several changes have been incorporated into the revised drawings of the project 5/5/22. removing hip roof and reducing raised height by 2-foot 6". second and third floors three feet from the north they were property line and 12 feet from the southern property line. depth of the decks reduced to

extends 5' 6". the proposed garage compliant be with planning code and criteria in bulletin 2 and standards by the san francisco public works. the year yard of the building is not circumstance related to the guideline. privacy intrusion to the rear yard as directly to buildings. it is common place in the city with height and density of buildings. staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving as modified to reduce deck and stairs of the removal. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> commissioner president i want to confirm the time for each

presenter. five minutes? >> five minutes. one minute rebuttal. >> first d.r. requester. you will have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i am one of the three. >> i will pause your time. sfgovtv. thank you. >> i am adjacent to the property in question to the north of the property. at the time of the review these issues were of similar concern

and we have been in discussion with the owner and have clarified our concerns further that is why you have the additional packet in front of you. we have made efforts and head way with compromise. we have a few specific issues which are here today. my objection to the proposed build. one. privacy concerns to the adjacent neighbors. into the structuring themselves not backyards. two. masking out of proportion in the rear. de facto merging two units to a single family home. four. potential for pop-up solar. five. parking concerns. i would like to show a few images regarding privacy.

>> she has included the opinion that raising her existing building up will include privacy for surrounding neighbors. this is untrue. in both units of her home she has lot line window this is place. with the guidelines it suggests windows are avoided. they look at rear decks to neighboring homes if it is 12.5 feet or more those would look to the bedroom of my property at 65 homestead and 85 homestead neighbors to the south. effort to estimate the sidelines we flew a drone where with windows will be. it is in the materials received. there are two site lines pointing from her deck and from her kitchen to my bedroom which is located at the dip of the red

arrows. you can see over the aerial photograph the site lines drawing as well. elevation this is the plan looking from both windows up and downward to the bedroom windows -- doors that exist at that point. this is a rendering based on the drone photos from the two sites where we would intend to see or likely have those showing those. window on the east and west alallowing light to the space as true for every home in the city. removal of lot line windows will not impact the lighting. we ask that the lot line north

and south facing windows be removed and replaced to prevent views into the bedrooms. the concern is the size of the building from the rear. the front of the building is contiguous with the streetscape. the we were is the problem. over 12 feet will cause it to be large and imposing on neighbors due to the downhill aspect elevation of the space. we ask the rear pop-up portion of the home be left as it is. main part raised up. this demonstrates a popout in multiple views. as you can see raising only the main body would minimize the complaints from the rear and floor plan decreased 100 square feet and fit more with surrounding homes following

residential design guidelines. third concern merging of the units. we ask permit be required. they intend to utilize as single family home. we believe these requests to be on appropriate to mitigator concerns of the community and allow her to address concerns about improving safety of the property. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two.

>> i am going to focus on the conditional use permit, impose deed restriction against pop-up solar and angle driveway. we had a predr mediation at supervisor's officer and two mediations with mr. winslow. produced zero project changes. the owner cut off negotiations in the e-mail on may 18th. in your packet is transcript of the owner explaining that she intends to occupy the whole building. this occupancy follows an ellis act eviction. she told this to 15 maybe this is preappliqueing. 317 requires additional use when two rent controlled units are merged to a single occupancy.

the new interior staircases front or separated by one food conconveniently connect the garage, first level above the garage and the top level. the merger of this property has already begin. the owner decommissioned one of the two electrical meters and she merged without the permits to start. discretionary review is not the same as loss of rents controlled due to ellis act eviction that would result in the conditional use permit was used. 812-816 green street mergeder was reviewed for impact of the ellis act conviction by staff. neither merger nor eviction were mentioned in the staff report.

it has not caught up with the e-mail we copied to mr. winslow. there are many letters reading what the report was two weeks ago not current status. we listed prior renters. neighbors. don is missed. susan is on the phone from southern california. don is hr professionally. when he moved away the owner in the ellis act evicted susan in southern california. on the phone until 5:00 p.m. if there is any possibility to talk before she has to leave. it gives you a feel of the loss of tenant buffer hurts the neighborhood. the 75-year-old high school principal has borne the brunts of don not there any longer. she spent 12,000 on a two day

permitted sewer repair for lateral connection. it went downhill. she spend the day yelling hat the sewer workers and demappedding they carry away the dirt and don't bring back the next morning. there was nobody living in the morning. it was easier to give in than resist. the building department indicated they have a file on the owner. the units are lost by the ellis act. invection should not be rewarded by endorsing the proposal to add the garage and elevated the view of the three bedroom home. second, the flat room is only an improvement over the hip roof if solar panels are not replaced

by tilt up solar panels. we had a 3-d model built of the property because we couldn't get the architect to let us manipulate the 3-d model used in the mediations to view from the perspective we cared about. this shows how the proposed flat roof would look with built up solar. if tilt up solar is allowed it will be out of character with surrounding homes. we heard that curb space is the hottest property in san francisco. we proposed slanted driveway so we don't use two car occupants.

>> that concludes your time. you will have one minute rebuttal later. >> d.r. requester number three. five minutes. >> good afternoon. roger norton. could with my brandon here. we expressed our comments are represented by the discretionary review applicants. i yield my time to them to continue. >> is this consistent with procedural rules? >> repeat the question. >> the d.r. requester wants to give time to another requester. i don't be know if that is

consistent. >> this item has a number of d.r. requesters. they each have a number of individuals associated with the d.r. requester. i believe it is permissible for the third one to allow somebody else with that group. >> it is back to the other two requesters. if they didn't have anything to add it is time for the project sponsor to provide their comment. >> if you want to speak, you can't yield back. anything to add? thank you. >> we will move to the project sponsor presentation.

you will have 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. mark thomas, architect 7981 homestead representing helene. it is one of the mallest streets on homestead street. slide two shows how it sits between d.r. requester's large buildings. they are both remodeled and added on to. slide three shows her building is not raised up to the new grade of the street.

7.5 feet below the sidewalk. with that said this project consists of a couple of things. first raising the building. slide 4 shows raising the building to get back up to grade inserting the garage below the grade. slide 5 shows the street view of the proposed remodel in context. 6 rearview of the proposed remodel. slide 7 shows compromises we made with the neighbors including rebuilding. -- sfgovtv. >> it was showing then it went away. >> i can slow down. >> tell me where you lost me, please.

>> the cords got disconnected when the computer was moved. i will slowdown and go back to slide 7. it shows the compromises we made with the neighbors that include for building smaller decks and stairs that set further away from adjacent properties. second item remodeling and updating interiors. slide 8 is the plan configuration of each unit and the lower floor that houses

garage and common areas. they are shown in the shaded areas. it is worth noting all work is in the building envelope far from maxing out the buildable area of the lot. no horizontal additions. i would like to discuss the neighbor's five asks we received two days ago. c.u.a. for the dwelling unit merger. that is not here. we are not asking for a merger. there are two units now. there will be two units if you approval. helene has no intent now or in the future to combine units. second, privacy. d.r. requesters are asking us to eliminate all north south windows on the building. slide 9 shows existing position of helene's south kitchen

window. >> the new position -- slide 11 shows existing position of north kitchen windows. slide 12 new position of the same windows. nothing exceptional or extra ordinary. nothing changes here. slide 13 shows floor plan view of how helene's north windows that we just looked at in elevation relate to 65 homestead top floor bedroom. there is no direct privacy issue. it shows that when you stand inside of the kitchen looking out the windows facing north which have high window sills you can't look into the adjacent

bedroom next door at 65. 14 is examples of other buildings on the street with north south facing windows that look into other properties. it is normal and regular in this neighborhood and in the city. not exceptional or extraordinary. third ask. neighbors want to eliminate the popout at top floor unit. slide 15 shows this lops off the kitch open the top floor and takes away 121 square feet of floor area. 14.5% of the floor area of the unit. this is a view from 85 homestead. 16 is a small loss of extreme lateral view of the blue shaded

area. 17 shows 85 view before helene's building is raised. slide 18 shows same view after the building is raised. side 19 shows look at the expansive view from 85 a little further east. if you turn your head it is completely unaffected by helene's project. fourth ask to prohibit tilt up solar panels. we do not propose solar panels. nothing on the plans, drawings or specifications. last ask is parking. the d.r. requesters want to angle the driveway four feet. angling the driveway eliminates one car space on the street. slide 20 is keeping the driveway

how it affects removal of one car. this is different view angling the driveway four feet eliminating a car and makes it nearly impossible to maneuver in and out of the compound sloped driveway sloping down to the garage. shifting four feet won't work. it doesn't net any more off-street parking. finally, we have been through a process. helene has listened to the neighbors and made a lot of compromises, lowered entire building, removed peak roof and put on flat roof for the sake of views from across the street, completely reworked the decks and stairs to accommodate privacy and views for both neighbors. received support from 12

neighbors on the street, two of them sent letters to you. we sent the petition signed into i the other neighbors to mr. wins low. we are hopeful that you will approve this with the mod affections we made for the neighbors and we have shown you today. thank you very much. i am available for questions if you have any. thank you. >> we will open up for public comment. members of the public, please come up to line up an along the screen side of the room. press star 3 to raise your hand. >> if we can do the caller online. there is a time crunch. then we will go to speaker in

the chamber. >> you have two minutes. >> you may begin your public comment. >> good afternoon. this is and asstacia, member of the san francisco union. the property owner asked to remove two flats from residential renting and the remaining tenant now proposes to raise both units to make room for garage. irrespective of effecting the tenants i oppose bringing more cars and pollution to the

neighborhood. it is not to build more garages in our neighborhood and for the environment to have more pollution. thank you. >> we will take callers and then in person. >> i am susan. i am a tent certain -- tenant of the upper unit of the rent controlled buildings. evicted november 2019 through ellis act after 10 years. the other tenant moved out in july 2018. these were taken out the market. for some reason which is

undisclosed. the landlord occupies a separate home with a garage. remodeling these for personal use. landlord has no intention to combine. he can return to the market when the ellis act time restrictions expire five or 10 years. he stated this on page five quote. the ellis act can you hear me okay? [indiscernable] if i need a home healthcare worker or anything like that i have an option. there are limitation to ellis act how many years you are free to charge the market rent. it couldn't say i couldn't change my mind. when i am older than i am now

whatever. there are limitations that it could be done. i hope i answered your question. end quote. this landlord skirt the law and violates tenant privacy that allows access to certain areas of the unit. it is harassing behavior including taking away part of the lease as well. i was a tenant there. >> thank you. that concludes your time. >> members of the public. >> good afternoon. neighborhood council on san francisco coalition. i would like to echo the comments particularly the tenant that was done wrong. you received my letter. i truly believe the planning

department has disjointed policy. if you are allowing two units off for represent while allowing it. it doesn't look like an extreme project. i agree these are not the units. i am speaking to the policy. clearly the owner in this case if they were not planning on building a garage they were not going to ellis act these tenants. it is a matter of one causing the other to happen. it doesn't look like that on the surface. my question to this commission is are we going to at what point are we going to implement a policy to take housing into account for everybody? not just homeowners. we have to take into account

what the construction is going to impact the residents. i am not talking about in terms of noise or inconvenience. those who will lose homes. i would really appreciate you taking these into consideration. ms. cohen to do what she did. it wasn't too long ago when somebody would show up with a construction project that would displace tenants and this body would stop it because they would say it would send the wrong message. it requests nothing like a garage. let's see what the cost was. >> thank you. we will move to rebuttal portion of the hearing. d.r. requester. if anybody is wanting to public

comment stand in line. >> introduce yourself for the record. >> i live on homestead street. >> you aren't able to speak on this problem you are part of d.r. requester number two. if you are a signer on one of the dr applications you are aren't able to speak during public comment. thank you. >> on the other hand if we understood that you were talking about anybody who signed we would be eligible for 10 minute coordinated presentation. >> what you have. you are signatures with five minutes each. in that time whoever is part of the group can speak. that didn't happen. now it is for people not parties

to share their testimony. >> you are declines us to have the 10 minute presentation. >> that is not what we are talking about. if a member of public not a party now is the time. >> the primary objection to this project currently the building that 2.5 stories popout acceding the neighbors on both sides and beyond. each have one story popout. this plan raises two stories. rear elevation is unreasonable and out of proportion with surrounding structures. second, we would like to consider a conditional use permit. we believe the properer intends to merge the units. i was on the property 21-22.

a truck was double parked. remained at the window as the truck was parked. waiting to hear to answer the door. the proposer identified herself and asked to disconnect and remove second set of utilities. technician asked why? it was her intent to merge the units. he could not disconnect, not remove second set of utilities. long story. this is discoverable. she signed the service order removing the utilities to merge the units. thank you. >> public comments. anyone not part of d.r. requester come forward now or

press star 3. no additional public comment. public comment is closed. we will start one minute rebuttal. d.r. requester number one please come up. >> thank you. my primary concern is the question whether raising this unit will impose additional privacy concerns into the bedroom that was shown. i am going to utilize the prior slide from the requester's representative of side 13. at that point there is a direct line of sight to the bedroom from both kitchen windows in a way that seems to violate the goodwill of removing privacy concerns from the building. that is my concern to the room not to shared spaces which seems irrelevant such as the backyard.

thank you. >> d.r. requester number two. >> i don't think that you have forms for drp02 or 3 in your packet. you were doing three copies of drp01. you have to decide when de factor merger is something that you should take into account. that is just a legal issue. council will give you good advice on that. with respect to the solar. there was no objection. no current plan to putting solar. there should be no objection to the deed restriction to put in something to take away the benefit of the proposed compromise. the owner admitted in the papers

filed on may 18 that nine parking spots will be reduced to 7.5 parking spots. two removed from the street. >> d.r. requester number 3. no rebuttal? project sponsor. you will have two minutes. >> mark thomas architect for helene. i want to summarize the project. i will speak briefly about the ellis act and what i know about it. confluence of circumstances for helene that you can invite her up and talk with her about a loss of long time tenant and major health issues all taking

place at the same time. that influenced her decision. she intends to live in this building in one of the units. the other unit is for her daughter and granddaughter. in general to summarize. first, this project is in conformance with the planning code and residential design guidelines. there is pro horizontal addition proposed. the scissor type stairs rebut with more compact stair and decks. third, changes we made on behalf of the neighbors include removing hip roof and putting on flat roof to reduce height of the building. fourth, the proposed garage will all comply with the standards of the planning code and the san francisco department of public works. they will be minimum required to

get a car in and out of the building. fifth. privacy north south facing windows. because the kitchens face north and they have a countertop in front of them and windows have an elevated fill height you would be hard-pressed to reach over top of the windows with your neck and crane your neck to look into directly into the bedroom space or another living space in an adjacent residence. >> thank you very much. available for questions. >> thank you, commissioners. the item is now before you. i do want to ask about my perspective. i don't see it as unique or extra ordinary except for the ellis act. that is my major concern. that is why i will focus my

questions. the other issues. only building issue i want to hear from project sponsor and architect regarding ellis act. property line windows my understanding we do not support more property line windows. could you help me understand why they aren't set back? i am trying to understand. my recollection and my feelings on the board of appeals people are upset the neighbor is covering property line windows. they are not protected. i understand the fire code. >> two-way street on that. we don't say you can't have property line windows if you apply for them. there are no special restrictions for the window removed and replaced in another property builds next to it. this is a case where there are windows. there is no attitude from the

department you should remove them unless, of course, by doing so it creates unusual extraordinary circumstance, privacy as they contend. what can we do about the windows. my case report didn't address this. the property line windows were sufficiently analyzed with respect to the fill height and proximity from countertops. the bleakness of the angles didn't present that circumstance. >> on the wall with the windows? >> building code issue depending what you are doing you keep what you have as existing nomcomplying condition to such an extent you may need to come into compliance up to the building department. >> that was my concern. the other issues.

i can see why people have concerns. i would love solar panels. they are adding parking spot within the code. privacy i encourage folks. i have a great set of curtains that i can close and open. that can protect your privacy. issue of the ellis act. i don't know if the architect or the owner wants to answer. i will tell you what it looks like. it looks suspicious. it looks like persons were evicted. we her from susan in 2019 that she was evicted. take it off the market. helene's statements quoted do not look favorable in terms intentions here. a.d.u.s are not required to be represented. if she were to live if they are

not actually merged she can maintain two units. i have serious concerns a tenant was evicted to have a unit it is empty in san francisco. somebody needs to tell me why we should support this. >> mark thomas, architect. regarding the ellis act. there is no intention to merge the units. a lot of the quotes taken were nicely cherry picked to run them together. i will turn the rest over to helene to answer your questions directly and you can talk with her. >> good afternoon. just to give you a little brief history. i have owned the building 42 years. bought it when i was 25 tenants

in common with my best friend and her husband. after my mom died she left me money. we said do this. i said okay. i lived in the downstairs unit for years. they wanted to move out for the son to have their own room. they are only 830 or 840 square feet. they couldn't fit. i bought them out. i moved upstairs after four years. i rented the downstairs apartment. then after four more years my daughter was born so i moved to the sunny side neighborhood so she can have her own bedroom. that was after living there eight years. then i rented the building for an additional 31 years. 34 years altogether. i had great tenants all along.

long-term. rent control. didn't makeny money. that is nothing. you know, i had the tenants. they were great. i rented the building. then in may of 2019, i got notice from my longest tern tenant 17-years moving for bigger and better things. we had a great relationship him and his partner were moving. they moved in july of 2019 they moved. in september 2018 i had an emergency surgery. i am not going to get into details. major surgery. when i got done in may i was still recovering. he was leaving. the house wasn't upgraded. i thought, you know what?

i am not feeling well. john is leaving. i am turning 65 that december. i cannot continue to do this. it is 44 years. a lot of work. i raised my daughter by myself. a lot of work. i spoke with a lawyer. i have done everything legally with permits. i decided i have to go out of the business. i did it for a good amount of time. i have to go out of the business. i am 65. i am turning 65. i can't restart again. i went out of the business. then i thought i love the unit, my daughter loves the units, she was born there. she is 35 now. she was born there. my house where i live i did it for convenience. bigger. i could sell that to a new family with stairs to go up to the bedroom.

getting older. i can live in the unit and my daughter and granddaughter to have the other unit. we don't be know what is going to happen down the line. this took three years to get almost 2.5 years. it is going to take another year and a half or so minimum to get it done. i will be almost 70. i want to enjoy the house. when you are in the house you are on one level so you don't have to go up and down and up and down. there is more medical stuff. >> do you own any orintal properties? >> i only own this house because we have 27 and you have 47,

let's do this together that is the reason i could afford that to begin with. when i was living there when i was 27 three years later my father passed away. that is how i was able. i was married at that point. i was able to put down payment on the sunny side home. i am not a landlord. i want to sell to a new family, move back to the house near and dear to my house where my parents died while i was there. i want to get there. my daughter was born there. two perfect units for us and big family or another family can live in my house. >> one question. right now are you occupying the premises? >> just to say i have no desire of merging it. i love 7981. i never applied for it.

everything is two units. who knows in the future. i want to keep it two units. you have to keep nit the city. the pg&e man somebody was describing. i go to dig in the gardens and clear out the weeds so i don't have to call the garner. i like to sweep the front streps for the mailman so nobody trips. i am there once or twice a week for maintenance purposes. i went there about four months ago and the down stairs unit smelled like gas. why? this is after two years of being vacant. never used the stove. just garden. i go home, think about it. i don't want this to blow up. i called pge we are coming now. meet us there.

i drove back. met the guy there. comes in and does the thermometer thing. there is a gas thing. after you remodel you have to address it. i am turning off the gas. i have a picture. he is down there. the meters you have to climb down over the stair railing. they are unaccessible. he turns off the gas for both units. electrical panels are still there for both units, gas boxes both units there. it is two units. he turns off gas for safety reasons. that was it. >> i think you answered my question. commissioner imperial you are next. thank you very much. >> i appreciate that question. the ellis act is not a very -- it is heavy.

usually in terms of discretionary review the way i would see things is match the stories of the project sponsor and the blueprint. i watched the pre-application meeting. i believe in my opinion from watching the pre-application meeting that the project sponsor is not speculative landlord. i believe the landlord wants to live there. there are differences when we look at the blue print and see people are exploiting. i do not think it will be one. i do not see it will be a residential merger. i also appreciate the conversations. it looks like the project sponsor made a lot of amendments on the property as well. in my opinion i take this staff

recommendation. >> second. >> that was a motion and second. on that motion to not take dr and approve as modified. commissioner ruiz. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye. >> fung. >> aye. >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> mover. >> aye. >> president tanner. >> aye. >> very good. that has been approved 7-0. that concludes your calendar for this evening. >> we are adjourned. thank you.

the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood.

as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language] >> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe,

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