age youth, families, parents, communities, understand and to be exposed to stem subjects. imagine if that mission one day can be in every affordable housing community. the opportunities that we would create and that's what i'm trying to do with

okay. welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, july 21, 2022. in person and remote will require our patience. sfgovtv.org is broadcasting live. comments for public comment period are available by calling

videoconferencing and allow for remote public comment. the commission strongly encourages interested parties to submit their comments in writing, in advance of the hearing to commissions.secretary@sfgov.org. visit the sfgovtv website (https://sfgovtv.org/planning) to stream the live meetings or watch on a local television station. public comment call-in: (415) 655-0001 / access code: 2487 856 8516 the public comment call-in line number will also be provided on the department's webpage https://sfplanning.org/ and during the live sfgovtv broadcast.

roll call: president: rachael tanner vice-president: kathrin moore commissioners: sue diamond, frank fung, theresa imperial, joel koppel, gabriella ruiz a. consideration of items proposed for continuance the commission will consider a 1. 2020-005176drp (d. winslow: (628) 652-7335) 45 bernard street - south side between taylor and jones streets; lot 030 in assessor's block 0157 (district 3) - request for discretionary review 2. 2021-007672drp (d. winslow: (628) 652-7335) 237 juanita way - south side near del sur avenue; lot 022 in

there are no other items to be continued. public caller? seeing none. motion to continue items as proposed? >> thank you, commissioner. >> [roll call]

>> so moved.. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll place this under commission matters item no. 3. >> 3. commission comments/questions • inquiries/announcements. without discussion, at this time commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the commissioner(s).

>> i don't have any other comments from commissioners. >> we can move to department matters. directors announcements. >> there are no announcements today. >> last week they needed to be continued. this week they passed amendments and all zoning districts and removal for fleet charging to be an accessory use and the ordinance for the planning commission to consider. the amended ordinance with the additional findings were then rereferred to this commission and the other ordinance was continued for one week since the

amendments -- and you will have an opportunity to weigh in on those findings after your recess and the landmark designation for the presbyterian church and the mayor had vetoed the ordinance. >> the vehicle charging, we'll get back the consideration for the fleet charging portion of that consideration. >> the ordinance still has everything else in it but it will have to come back to you because you didn't consider any findings. >> okay, thank you. >> if there are no additional questions for mr. star, the board of appeals did meet last night and though they did not find issues, they did welcome a

new member. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and adopted recommendations for several applications including laguna street, latin bridal and additionally they adopted a resolution in support of a national registrar of historic places under criterion b for association for architect. and finally they adopted the mission dolores neighborhood historic context statement and survey.

d. general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> i sent an email this morning about a project that should have been viewed with the demolition, but i'm not going to talk about that one. i'm going talk about another one that just sold recently and the scope of work on that was the project scope is the remodel of an existing one story building including rear expansion at basement and first

floor addition of two new stories roof deck total of six bedrooms and four baths. okay, here it is as it was. the overhead please. it's that little house right there. and what it is now is that big white thing there. that you see. it's interesting because it sold for 2.75. but i didn't see it for $8 million and what it sold for in june. i thought, oh, my god!, the entitlement sold for 8 million but it was 2.5. frankly this

makes no sense to me. maybe it makes sense to you but it makes no sense to me. there they are. you can see them yourselves. i will send a copy to the commission if they want. there is four categories. but one is percent removed, one is percent remaining, one is percent removed and one is percent remaining and that makes no sense. i tried to break them down as best as i could. one says the linear feet to figure out the rear facade that is 85%. they say 51% remained, that means 49% removed. then they say less than 55% but it's supposed to be 50%. it's very confusing. it's fine. if you want me to send the email this morning,

that's fine taoism all of these houses, i thought it was over, 8 million, 9.5. the one i sent earlier had several price increases. even if you are going to change the code, if you are going to rezone, you have three years before you do it. it wouldn't be a bad thing to do it in the meantime. thank you very much. have a good day. >> hi, is this where you discuss supervisor's planning? >> not quite. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> last call for general public comment for anything not on today's agenda? seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners, we can move on to your regular calendar. >> 6. 2022-001032pca (a. merlone: (628) 652-7534) conditional use appeals (bf 220130) - planning code

amendment - ordinance >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning staff. before i give the staff presentation, the office is here to give a presentation. >> thank you, commissioners. jennifer -- the extent of this legislation is to extend the tenant appeal process. section 308.1 is what we are discussing and the way it comes through today is an archaic rule where only those to the land could be allowed to vote. as some of you may know that i worked at the san francisco tenancy union and it's not unusual to see people that lived there for 30-40 years. it's not true that

tenants don't have an investment in their environment. drafting it, we didn't want to place an additional burden on the public works department. we met with the mapping crew there and we landed on a system where the tenants will self attest that they are residents of the building, sort of like the voter registration process. the crew there also asked that we could reform sort of their form on how signatures are gathered today. right now it's a mess of signatures with different addresses. so we are going to work with them to make it a little bit more easy to verify by having black and white numbers for each page. we think it will actually decrease some of their work and we want to be sure we are not double counting tenants and owners. in that

case, the owner is always going to prevail over the tenant if they are both having to sign. additionally once we started drafting, the clerks office contacted us because there are some things that they find annoying in section 308.1 as far as the respect to appeals and you will see a lot of changes there with the number of days. there has been a couple, two very small amendments that i want to bring your attention to. audrey amalino who is here, pointed out the legislation is silent on the authorized units, so we want to be sure that it's clear that they count because right now they are protected under the rent ordinance and they have rights. so we might as well make them valid signatures. the other change which was recommended in the staff report that you guys have is to

increase the deadline from the commission to transmit to the clerk to 20 days from 10 days. so we accept that amendment too. in conclusion, i don't think that this legislation is going to result in a large increase in appeals to the board of supervisors. however where regardless of this signal to tenants across the city for the majority of the population that we care about this and planning too. thank you. >> thank you. i will keep this short. the ordinance defines what a tenant is and for the cup

appeal and it would amend and modify the timeline for processing cup appeals. currently public works defiance # -- defines the majority of the work. we ask for a little bit more time on the new deadline that was set of ten days, we asked for 20 due to staffing concerns. we do have one member at the public comment, since your packet has been published and that person was in favor of the ordinance. if you have any questions,

please feel free to ask. thank you. >> okay. that concludes staff's presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is an opportunity to address this matter. if you are calling remotely, press star 3. if you are in the chambers, please come forward. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to support supervisor mel gar's planning. i'm a rental property owner and support the renters appeal process. it's the tenants who are actually in the trenches most affected by the neighborhood. their opinion is as valuable or more than me as an owner. it is imperative that they are given the right to voice their opinions and concerns. the city truly wants to improve their efforts in achieving racial and social

equity. those tenants should have a say in their neighborhood. with an i want you to know about the appeal process and it's impossible to determine how many signatures are required in an appeal for an application because they apply for their work with an extremely difficult algorithm. they are told that they must have 20% of the owners signatures within a 300 foot radius but it's difficult because many buildings have condos and multiple owners. they have to determine the percentage which requires painstaking research on the city's various maps. currently the dba wants to tell appellants what the must be is

and they won't tell you gos the numbers until it is filed. appellants need to know not the percentage of signatures but the exact number of percentages needed. the department of public works is setting up for failure with the system and procedures and systemically making the appeal process difficult to those vulnerable citizens. please make the appeal process equitable and fair for everyone bypassing supervisor mel gar's amendment and by requiring bba to give appellants the minimum number of signatures required for appeal application instead of percentages. thank you.

>> it's a good thing. thank you. >> seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers requesting to speak, we'll speak to our remote callers. when you hear that your line is unmuted, that is your indication to start speaking. public speaker: good afternoon, my name is jerry, with the land coalition. i would like to express my support for supervisor mel gar's proposed amendment for the appeal on the conditional use permit authorization and gives the 70% of the residents of san francisco who rent along land use issues. thank you.

>> >> public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners. this is stacy, i would like to say that the land use watch and community members is in support of this amendment. it is in line with policy 1.4 of the housing element which is to ensure community based planning processes are used to generate changes to land use control. including residential and commercial tenants in the signatory, the council filing an appeal of conditional use authorization decisionsen insures the entire community rather than just the owners have a say in shaping of their neighborhoods. as we concur with the memo that was sent, the city with far more renters than owners. it's

rational that tenants should have a say in their ability to appeal conditional use decisions. adopting this ordinance will help with the racial and ethnic and further the tenants of san francisco often long-term residents who are invested in their neighborhoods and as such, they should have a voice in shaping it. the formula for determining the meeting,en insures that no matter the size of the individual units, their voice carries the weight among the building and tenants. thank you. >> public speaker: hi, this is rene. thank you supervisor for

introducing this legislation. my husband and i have occupied a rental for 30 years while we have been paying for the mortgage, yet we have no say about changes to our building. in our case adu's below us. the status of lifetime renter has grown in recent decades due to rising home prices. renters are in this community and renters are aware about demolition. this legislation would help mitigate this vulnerability. thanks. good afternoon commissioners.

san francisco land use coalition. i would like to thank supervisor and her office for this change. working on the national media about san francisco, those of us who actually live here know better and this is an appeal process similarly to the south that is only open to property owners. in a city with great majority of residents are not homeowners. blocking tenants from participating in the appeal process speaks about their races and class reality that we are faced with. oftentimes new millionaires, and it's too costly to bring up to code to get the approval of a demolition of a building. there have been time this commission is -- this change will enable tenants to

appeal their case to a democratically elected body and thanks to supervisor mel for implementing this change including the ones who are remaining. public speaker: good afternoon. this is a legislation needed for a long time. they have done a great job of explaining this appeal. the status quo under weights the property owners who too often more and more own properties and not residents of

san francisco and hide their ownership under llc's. public speaker: hello, this is morgan, the president of the neighborhood association and also the president of the homeowners association. one thing i was wondering about is how does the law impact this legislation. it creates all the requirements and has very specific around

governance as it covers tenants. a tenant cannot vote, cannot be on the board, cannot be held responsible for damages to a building, cannot in anyway represent the association, that is to the corporation which is the hoa. there is some provisions under the access that you can amend the document to allow tenants to represent owners and that would take 50 percent plus one vote to change the governing body document. in terms of having tenants, condominiums to be able to participate, i think we need some clarification from the city attorney as to how that would work, and i just wanted to raise that issue as part of the discussion. thank you very much.

>> last call for public comment on this item. if you are in chambers, please come forward, if you are on the phone, press star 3. seeing no one come forward, this matter is now closed. >> thank you, i have a question to clarify. this is to declare and those waiting and through the diagrams, the diagram would include those tenants who are in the building and waiting around the property, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i think one of the commenters was wanting to know the exact number of signatures needed which my understanding you can't know that because you would need to know how much property is

there and how many owners are there and even though this is a certain amount >>andy: would have a number of signatures, is that correct? >> correct. >> they would be working backwards from their radius and understanding that radius, is that correct? >> yes, it's a different equation. the only time it would be the same if every single lot in the city was the exact same size and the exact number of owners on the lot in the city but that's not how this city is. >> just so i understand for the owners unit, the example, the condos and multiunit, is each

owner of the condo would need to sign and it would be counted, i don't understand that. >> yes, some of this is going to be for dpw, but my understanding for a condo situation, it's basically who is on the deed, who owns that property. so if the owner who is on the deed for that percentage of the property on the land scenes, that's the percentage that goes towards the total. >> if they are on the deed, they should sign for the whole amount standing. >> the city attorney should chime in if you have any questions. >> city attorney, do you want to chime in? >> you are not incorrect. that is how it is calculated. >> okay. then we have another question about the david sterling act and i only know

about this because of my own hoa's and how the laws govern the hoa and towards procedures. i don't see any conflict unless the staff or city attorney are aware of. >> that's correct, this is the city attorney christin generous on through the chair, and there is nothing in state law that prohibits the tenant. the fact of 3.8 allows a single owner and the only change is the tenant who rents a condominium can also be a signatory to a conditional appeal. what is described really govern the relationship between the individual owner and the hoa or the individual tenant and the

hoa. the private contractual relationship, the city does not govern and responsible for accounting for in our legislation. >> thank you. i want to recognize -- >> thank you, i have a question. in terms of the types of buildings that are going to be counted as tenants. are you talking about in terms of accepting or codifying the authorizing units are you talking about building single family homes that can be counted where there are tenants or unauthorized tenants? >> absolutely. yes, it's any building that has a residential or commercial unit. the leaseholder and/or property owner may not sign on. >> okay thank you.

>> commissioner koppel? >> thank you for being here today. i couldn't be happy to hear about this today and i'm in full support. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> i want to say about these that i'm glad and what you said

about owned by two people, they can be owned by two people but only amount to one voice. you do not have two votes, you have one vote. >> thank you, commissioner moore for that question again. this is city attorney deputy jensen. this comes down to the way the property owners are on the deed. unfortunately that's going to fall to our friends at public works to determine if there is any question. if two people own the property as 50/50 owners, it's one thing, if it's several ownerships, it could be another. it could be different forms of ownership. >> i was unaware that people can't own 50% of the unit in a condominium and have two voices. i have people in my condominium.

those were two sisters and each own half but only one voice. that is specific to where i live but i think there are subtleties to basic ownership with regard to that. >> to be clear, i was not just referring to condominiums because a single family home owner could be used towards an application and i was speaking about residential properties. >> what is complicated to be clear the ownership is a union counted in the portion of the land to that radius. now their entire unit counts towards the

calculation. >> i'm glad you are saying that because that was my understanding. thank you for taking the second on that. i appreciate that. >> is that all the questions? >> commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: the proposed legislation, the question that was raised in my own mind was not the nuances that people brought forward in public testimony and written testimony. the question is whether the people of this city have the ability to come forth or against land use issues. in the entitlements that are associated with it. it is my opinion that

people have those privileges in the city. and i'm not going to bring it forth in terms of how the brief talks about the racial and social equity. the question is how much process there is in this city and whether it allows people to come forth, and we see it in the 20 odd years that i have been involved in land use issues, we see it at every meeting. so, it's my opinion that this just adds another layer. the city has already more processes than it needs and i'm not supportive of it. >> thank you, commissioner fung. i think you bring an aspect to this decision making in this

city. i generally agree with your purpose because it becomes so complicated and no one can understand and when is the right time to engage. i don't think this legislation solves that problem and i don't know that it makes it much worse and expands the access and clarifies at least who and how it's performed but i don't think it addresses the questions of how we stream line the process and make it easier or difficult to participate versus having a layer of scrutiny. with that, commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i support the appeal rights to verify tenants. though i want to add on. as pointed in the staff report for the next matter on supervisor's legislation, we

need to be mindful that the cup process is time consuming. i think that in order to improve the feasibility of housing projects and other important policy objectives such as revised tourism and in downtown, we should exam whether this process is really necessary in erving assistance. if we expand the right to bring a cu appeal to tenants, i think we should also be examining whether there are cmfau requirements to be eliminated that are otherwise getting in the way of important policy objectives. >> i might support that sentiment. are there other commissioners who want to have comment or make any motions? >> commissioner ruiz?

>> commissioner ruiz: i would like to ask and this is already a standing option and this just implements equity in a process that is already within our system. i feel like we are seeing more and more discretion removed from the commission and opportunities for the community to participate and changes that are happening in their area. so, if there are steps to reconsider, where there are cu's in place, i really do think that needs to be done with the community to ensure that our changes are equitable. so, i'm supportive and i would make a motion to approve this item with modifications. >> second. >> thank you, and i don't see other commissioner hands-on this topic. i think you were going to make the motion.

>> okay, if that's the case, commissioners, there is no further deliberations. there is a motion and second to approve this with staff modifications. [roll call] >> so moved.. commissioners, the motion passes 6-1 with commissioner fung voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 7. >> 7. 2021-012246pca (a. merlone: (628) 652-7534) planning code - single, two and three-family home bonus program (bf 211234) - planning code amendment - >> good afternoon, commissioners. department staff. i thought you were done with four plus but that is not the case. supervisor is here to speak on his ordinance. thank you.

supervisor safai: good afternoon, there was a vetoed version voted on and there was a couple other ones and by the time it made it through the board's process it was so, i wouldn't say watered down but amended so many times with so many restrictions. it actually in my opinion and i think the mayor agreed would actually harm the production of housing. you would get far less than even what you get today. when you put a requirement in that someone has to own a piece of property for five years prior has to be in that property or own that property for five years, what you are really saying at the end of the day is the only people that can develop this are people

that have extreme wealth and that is just the fact. yes, there are people that are house rich and cash poor, but if you are cash poor, you are never going to be able to develop anything. that was an amendment that absolutely. the second thing that was a problem with the version that passed through the board of supervisors it did what the city of lossaltos did and in contradiction and to undermine this production of housing. i only say this because you will spend the next number of months already speaking and writing and working with staff all about our housing element and the ability

to produce 80,000 units. how are we going to achieve that? we have to create more housing. the version that was there because i said we needed to do more work and if we could achieve and there is independently and economic analysis done to get some affordability. i did talk to and did verify with multiple developers that they can do it, but that doesn't mean that everyone can do it. i was open to the idea that with the independent analysis came back that was not feasible and in some cases the illegal of feasibility for every project is difficult given the construction costs and labor costs and the inflation rate as it applies to lending cost, all of that makes it difficult. i was open to that

amendment and we come back today open to suggestions that came in your report. we agree with most of those recommendations. there are some that we still think aren't necessarily the best path forward to increase the production of housing, but in general, our four plex, one of the first things we did is we are in agreement request is to remove the eligibility requirements on lots to be a minimum size or distance from a major transportation. we agree with that recommendation. our original interpretation needed to be from further advice and your advice. that is not a requirement. so we are happy for that amendment. and we know that there was another version, another recommendation that talked about the like requirements for projects that meet certain criteria for

certain condominiums for pathways and that can be achieved through a separate legislation that is separate for conversation. i do know in los angeles that is playing out and it has created a more affordable option to individuals because of the restriction of condo conversion. they kept the price of those purchase options more affordable. so, san francisco as you all know still have a viable tenancy market and this might be a way to achieve that. so i did not vote in favor of the four plex version that the mayor vetoed today. i think that preserving s. b. 9 is a crucial element. i think having the ability to facilitate for four and six units is important. i'm not

talking about rent control because we talked about that with adu's and i don't think that might be a deterrent for property owners that want to do that but open to that conversations, but definitely want to get some feedback from you all today, and tell you that i think this is the best version of what four plex should be. certainly that we would streamline, we would move things through the process and we would encourage, and then obviously it's up to you as a separate piece of legislation, separate ordinance, but discourage people from building the larger monster single family homes. there is still value and some people don't want to have anything more than a single family home and an adu. i can speak from personal experience if i were forced, we

are doing a two unit home right now. we wouldn't be able to financially do more than two units. i think with penalties can also disproportionately impact middle-class and working families who might want to create more density. that's something we should talk about more, but certainly once a single family home goes over a certain size, there should be a disincentive to not have more on that site. i speak to that recommendation and wouldn't want to include it in this four plex legislation. the thing that is interesting about this conversation, so many homes in my district and other districts have already transitioned into mull --

multifamily housing. i can tell you from person experience because i have knocked on thousands of homes and seeing many people in one and because of the lot sizes and the transition of some of the houses

that's a great alternative. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> i see commissioner imperial. thank you for indulging us, supervisor.

>> supervisor safai is here and i don't know if he's going to leave right away. >> supervisor safai: i have item no. 8 too. [ laughter ] i may not stay for public comment. >> okay. first i would like to say that you are open for rent control because here at the commission when supervisor mandelman's legislation came here and the purpose of a resident controlled, i believe that s. b. 9 is also in protection of demolition rent controlled units. so if that's the, if the goal is to have it in dispose of

s. b. 9, i think that would also be my recommendation in terms of having the rent controlled status. >> can i respond to that? >> i think that there is a lot of conversation right now about that. i think that if you really think about it, a single family home is the only one that's not going to be impacted by rent control technically. if it has an unwarranted unit utilizing then that does then and it gets complicated and one of those cases came to the board of supervisors even though it was empty, the board shot it down and was not allowing them to be converted. what i would say is i think that if you are having anything more than a single family home or a single family home with an unwarranted unit, i think it should be the replacement that have unit as rent control at a

minimum. but from what you are saying is there a conversation, is there an openness to have that be the conversation going forward, should those additional units, should you have the two and if you add four, can those four units be rent control, if the others were not. or if there is a single family home and you add three, i think that's a worthy conversation to have. i don't think that inhibits the financing for smaller projects is very different and once you get into the larger. if you are talking about larger projects over a certain size, then the financing is different and then the lenders won't lend and investers won't investor if you have a small construction loan, it's very different. it

actually impacts the control for the sale price and the value of the project going in and that controls on both ends. i think the market would adjust on that manner. i don't think it would be something that would prohibit development in these cases. i think as we have seen in the adu's people sign the agreement and they are like okay, i will take the additional unit and i know going in its going to be a rent controlled unit and i don't think it's going to be an inhibitor. >> i think it's more in the effort that is in protection for the tenant. and in regards to you mentioned living in three years, having a

tenant to live there three years. has there been any kind of findings that we can see here at the planning commission that we can see in terms of what that would look like. >> i might let staff but i know she wants to do her presentation. all i would say in practice if you think about the availability of units or properties that would apply to this, anything over a single family home or even a single family home, how often are you going to have a situation of something that sat vacant for three years. maybe i'm misunderstanding it, but what i would say if someone hasn't been evicted, that's one thing. if you have a rent control unit that is more than a single family home and if you replace

that unit, if someone hasn't been evicted, i'm okay with. >> commissioner koppel: thank you, supervisor for being here. i think we are getting a little bit closer. i'm looking back to 2015 when mayor lee had housing goals, 30,000 units, 30% of which were supposed to be affordable and 50% middle income which hasn't materialized for a number of reasons and not even close. and to call from former discussion about densification and more flats that are going to be more affordable in general for the missing middle income. thanks for bringing this today.

>> thanks. >> i'm very excited to be talking about this legislation today and when you talk about getting this process out of the way to get this build. two things, one is to have a commercial unit with one above this would be eligible? correct? i think that would be great because we have many of those shop keeper units that are not being used. >> too many versions. >> just to go back to your example, if someone says, i want to do this but only can do two units, i can't do 4, i can't do 6. in that scenario, they would not have to pay the affordable fee? >> the affordable fee, i'm glad you stated that because i

started that legislation with a key element but if an independent study came back to say it was not feasible, i was willing to remove that. staff recommended rather than infuse that in the four plex conversation let's dissentivise the monster home. i agree, if it's not feasible, i would absolute move that requirement and i believe this is the best path forward to achieve more units. >> thank you for clarifying that. would you also want to have one of the units to be affordable to ami or rent control or is it let's see -- >> ami we are removing to say it is not feasible, but we are open to the conversation about rent control on the additional bonus units whatever the size of the

existing property is. >> thank you so much. i'm excited to talk about this. >> i believe that is a great compromise. >> i agree. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: supervisor there was one comment made a second ago which i would like you to clarify. while i understand the idea about the adu, you also suggested that someone could deal with this component, correct? >> no, maybe i cited incorrectly. what i was saying that if someone had an adu, and that adu then qualified that property for rent control, i was trying to make the argument that only

single family homes would be the ones not be impacted by the conversation of the demolishing a rent controlled unit except if a single family home had an unwarranted adu would qualify that property as a rent control property. my argument was that you would only leave a level of properties for that rent controlled unit. in response to that i think the requirement should be if there is an existing rent control unit, it is replaced. if you had a single family home with an adu, then that would be a required. if that stays at two units, one of those would be rent controlled, if it goes to three, two of them would be rent controlled and one of them not. you have to start with where you are. if it's two units, both of those

fall under rent control unless it is new construction. i think you base it on where the current status of the property. >> thank you. i will wait for the presentation. >> thank you, commissioner. >> okay, i think we are ready for your presentation. >> >> all right. thank you, commissioners. i'm very excited to give this presentation. the proposed ordinance would allow up to four units on interior lots and corner lots. would pay an average per the proposed unit and supervisor safai has made it clear that these new ordinances would be open for amendments.

this is back for you today. the first ordinance came to you february 10th and there were so many changes and we thought we would have it back before you today for reconsideration. the changes are increasing the allowable units to corner lots from six units from four and also allowing one adu per site on top of the four or six unit density. creating the in lieu option instead of the on-site affordability requirement which sounds like leaving this legislation shortly and also exempting non-historic qualifying projects from our section 317 of conditional use requirement for demolition. so as the supervisor again talked about the feasibility studies, we had one of those in relation to four plexes available to you the last time you heard this item, we have

since then had another feasibility analysis but actually taken into consideration in lieu option and affordability requirement option. so again the february 2022, memo, that analysis found that all the property types they analyzed in all neighborhoods with a feasibility gap and the cost and rental rates and single family home prices, the feasibility for demolishing the single family home for developing new triplex and four plex would be challenging. the information in may this year, the in lieu fee would result in a maximum of $170,823, that's based on the maximum unit size of 140 square foot. this

fee although is less extreme than to provide an on-site affordable unit, it's still an existing cost on top of the feasibility gap. i will say there are many aspects to this ordinance to increase the ability to do these projects. what we mentioned the six units on corner lots, allowing adu's and the biggest one for removing the conditional use authorization and already attained discretion from review and 311 neighborhood notification. the big one here, all of those things cause time delays, project delays, can cause a lot of uncertainty in the process which is a lot of extra cost for the applicant. the big one we see for that is 317 cu. if you want to get out

of that, getting out more is the most expensive way to get housing out of the 12e so the cu comes to most of these projects and will have to do demolition and in many cases it will trigger this requirement. because we have so many standards to be able to use the inception, it feels it is necessary and we should be encouraging these types of projects in the city and removing the hurdles to do so. overall we support supervisor safai's ordinance. we recognize the need to increase density in areas that have seen little house production and seeing affordable housing choices. the question really came to us, did you tell this ordinance accomplish the goals in it that are shared by the department and the supervisor. we found that with some of our proposed modifications that that actually

can be accomplished and that it could actually be sfublg in producing some new modest density in our districts. the commission, the department's recommended approval with modifications would be as follows.. the first is to remove the eligibility criteria that requires the lot to be minimum size from major transit stop. so it would essentially apply to all of our h lots. i believe the supervisor stated he is in support of that modification. the second is to refocus the fee to projects that are not proposing to increase density and instead require on-site affordable units or in lieu fee of utilizing the exception. and first time home buyers. and

trying to reshift the focus where we are charging people these exorbitant fees. we should do whatever we can to remove the fees if this is the type of housing we want to see. the third is to require 1/3 of proportionality requirement to get at the idea that there are different unit sizes needed for different types of residents in san francisco and we also want to discourage the sham unit to get around this inception and the lovely benefits that come with it. the fourth recommendation is to pursue the adoption in the recommended guidelines and we introduced this to you through the four plex ordinances and one way to remove this from the applicants if they are only subjected to register design standards. the fifth recommendation the is

to amend the division code for projects that immediate these requirements to be able to apply for new condos with the new construction pathway. i will say we were recently this morning made aware that there is a long standing interpretation by the former director of streets and mapping at dpw and that interpretation does we believe allow for certain projects in residential districts that are adding units to get around the condo lottery and to apply for condos, the new instruction pathways. we think that's great if the proposals apply to that context. that recommendation is not meant to make any other condo conversion pathway more restrictive or stringent. i know there was some concerns from community members that might have that affect based on the

interpretation from dpw, but recommendation is there just to essentially say we would like to make sure we are not promoting the demolition of housing where we don't need to and therefore these projects, if they want to retain a unit while adding more through this program should have the same opportunities to form condos as a new construction project. i wanted to be sure it was very clear. the sixth recommendation ask excluding properties from the past three years or those that have an ellis eviction within the last 15 years and don't allow rent control units. this properties for the last 20 years is to avoid the displacement of tenants even though effective the first right to return, with how long these projects take, if it takes years, they are unlikely to come back. that is

where we are getting at with the no tenant within the past three years, but we are certainly open to modifications and conversations about that. the last recommendation is that historic properties seeking to utilize this density exception is not for the historic properties using this ordinance because they will be subject to cu demolition as with other processes and getting the processes through our entire process knowing we have standard for historic properties feels like a heavy lift for a 180 day turn around. with that in addition to myself and i believe the supervisor plans to come back at some pointed -- he will be back. oh, he is here.

james -- is here if you have questions for him. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, that concludes staff's presentation. now we have public comment available for the public. if you are here, please come forward, if you are on the phone, press star 3. >>h public speaker: hi, i mailed you with a bunch of questions more than comments. the first thing i want to say is i thought about because on the back of my mind with this whole four plex saga and what was in the staff analysis for s. b. 9 and the dangers of that and i don't know if that's been taken care of and

to me that over hangs everything beyond the 317 stuff. i guess i find it as a member of the public somewhat disturbing the idea of getting rid of 311 notification, and section 317. that's why i asked those questions like how often does discretionary review find or correct errors in a project? what is the housing policy rational for section 317. i know it's 10-12 years old but it has the rational, what was that. what was the commission and the city trying to do when everybody loved it and passed it. what's the intent of the conditions and the conditional use regarding the outcome of a project. i also want to mention brieflily go 2 because that has been percolating around. that's why i think the six units on a corner

makes the most sense and the best compromise brought forward by commissioner fung. you have egress and exposure and you don't have a problem there and you have larger lots. that's the other thing, physical constraints. i include the article from the chronicle where it says it can't do four units because theel elevated stairs and the lot it was done on, it had a street in the back and that's a very different lot, almost like a detached lot and most of san francisco with 314 with know egress in the back. ates -- and that's the issue and the physical constraints, whatever the process is, it's not going to change on the physical constraints. finally, i think you need more information. you need to hear

about the s. b. 9 projects that you've had already and what they are and you also need the updates on the policy to be sure what's implemented. there is a flat being worked on near me and there is not in the change in the policy. i don't know what's going on there. and please read my e-mails with regards to properties. thanks a lot. thank you, supervisor. >> we'll go to our remote callers. public speaker: good afternoon commissioners. i don't want to spend my limited time criticizing this legislation which frankly had too many holes. but i do want to bring up to your attention particularly

both commissioners and supervisors that this is not for developers that you are going to have to look back on the building. something you may not know but almost every state legislation that has been created for the sake of upping the densification, does have the clauses to make sure tenants are not going to be heard in this densification program. secondly, if you take the time to open this, you will come to the conclusion that every tenant occupies a home be it a single family home or otherwise. anywhere from 30% or even 100% cheaper than the vacant home that come up for sale. so i don't know how supervisor safai can justify that this is going to be hardship for

developers buying a place and holding onto it for 3-5 years. they are already getting a huge bonus when they buy a building that is tenant occupied. i assure you knowing from the figures that are being published, would you have tenants that have to vacant and after they are subject to renovation. they don't get anywhere as much for damages that the new owners would pay them to move and getting evicted. so there are lots of fallacies that were presented and i just wanted to bring this up and i hope the department one of these days is going to have to produce statistics that shows this and

how much these new units are going to be on the market. some of the rent control buildings is essential. and it does not actually get in the appetite of developers for the building and they don't have to even go through demolition to get rid of their tenants, evicting them and putting up replacement buildings for market rate housing because they have to pretend they are remodeling. that is something that is brought up in this conversation and to say myself and in coalition stand in opposition to this legislation as presented by supervisor >>

public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners. this is jessica, your realtor. and about s. b. 9 and the bill and the state having the capability unit place it because it was invading state law s. b. 9. so i think you guys should add amendments to this to make sure it is state law in the hopes that the state does not -- do something to navigate state law. thank you so much for listening. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am focused on the housing

element. i am concerned about how this would apply to the housing element. the feasibility is optimistic and determining what is acquired and no exemption would occur and even with those exemptions up to $5 million. it does not appear our supervisor would allow for developers which are more feasible under s. b. 9. in 2020, the city received a general -- from consultants which are generally in favor. that was included in the draft housing element. and in 2022 analysis, shows that would not change under this bill. further in this bill tends to have zoning overlay. guidance from the california department of housing and community development states that

presuming overlay in the housing element that must create feasibility which is greater than that of the underlying zoning. again i do not believe that is the case of this analysis which shows that projects under this bill would be, would have a feasibility gap anywhere from $300,000 to $5 million not counting the inclusionary zoning provisions. so it still appears to be the case that s. b. 9 will create more feasibility for four plexes or equivalent projects in san francisco. we are not -- we are still seeing a very small quality of projects under s. b. 9. i believe it was 14 at the end of last month. i think that

if we have this project, the state will not accept it. it's really hard to say that building 28 units a year roughly is going to be replate # -- replaced by a bill for creating this housing project. we should aim higher. thank you. >> any last call for public comment on this item. >> good afternoon. we worked on this four plex bill with the land use committee, and one of

the things that i have to point out is that this is supervisor safai's bill and this isn't anything to do with homeowners wanting to create more wealth for their relatives equity. this would be developers who would come in like safai is saying, buy it lots and build. and then get all this stream leaning # -- stream streamlining put in there and build for the homeowners and this is not an improvement and especially because it leaves the five years back. the owners of the units have to live there for five

years to qualify through a project. this would prevent speculation. speculation that leads to displacement of the whole community and of the tenants, of course. thank you. >> last call for public comment. seeing no others registered to speak, the item is yours, speakers. >> this is a difficult one to tackle. i'm glad there is only one legislation instead of two. what i might suggest, commissioners, is that we try to organize our comments, if we can't. it's great. we have eight staff recommends to modify the

ordinance. we of course have the base ordinance itself. of those topics, some of the, we can maybe take them in order with the modifications and start with the legislation to get through to get through folks comments. we can try that. i understand that folks just want to make their comments and we'll try to track what everybody is saying. with that perhaps we can start with any comments. i would say i really applaud the streamlining provisions and the processes adjustments to our city processes to make these projects more feasible. i think it doesn't get them to being feasible, however, as we heard a few weeks ago in this chamber and emphasized for the reporting that no project is feasible right now if you do the feasibility analysis whether

it's a high rise project or adu, the cost is really astronomical. it may change and may not qualify for a housing element because it's not financially feasible at this time doesn't mean there is a good policy and which may be feasible. i'm very much in support of the legislation and these amendments that are proposed. are there any comments for staff just on the base legislation? >> commissioner imperial? >> i know this is already going to the board of supervisors and the processes and constraints

and how we here at the planning commission at the planning as we are having these conversations about conditional use and there may be coa's that need to be revisited but i think we need to look into that. we are looking into ways that of course in the forum with the community as well. in terms of this process what makes me think about eliminating cua's and how much is in the # process that gets in the way and we have had already conversations about what's being built and not being built and entitled many projects but it takes years to build them and also because of the market unpredictablity because of that.

there is a lot of criticism on our process which it is valuable because there are inter agency issues that haven't really been tackled and now just been tackled. but i think it needs to be thoughtful. in terms of the physical constraints, again, i think we have had these kind of conversations in terms of the corner lots and what's ideal in the corner lots to be built. one thing that part of it too is i agree with commissioner fung back then. however, i feel this still needs to be vetted out in terms of how it's going to impact in terms of no you i think of how is going to impact our housing element and the term of policies that commissioners have with policies and mergers, those are going to occur when this legislation passes and how

are we again looking into that or adjusted to that. one thing i haven't seen and a public comment about the natural versus the tenant occupied versus the vacant. i have not seen a financial capability on that and the displacement. how are we defining it in terms of financial ability. i know she has been mentoring us about this housing control and i know we had conversations about this and a plan about this but we haven't had a thoughtful kind of conversation in terms of financial feasibility versus at risk of displacement.

so those are kind of like for me, that i'm pretty sure supervisor safai has a really good intention of what we are trying to achieve overall, however i'm also connecting this and how it's going to impact our housing element and also the anti-displacement strategies that we are trying to achieve as well. so, those are my comments. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner fung? >> the only question that i had raised to staff on this proposal was what happens if it goes through and gets adopted given the fact that the the legislation was approved by the

board of supervisors and sent to the mayor. the fact is what is put forth by the board of supervisors is nothing close than what this commission went through in discussions in the past. i don't think i said this to public but to individuals. i don't know if people know what a camel is, which is a horse designed by committee. the fact that all the changes occurred there was no way that that legislation would have come back to us, i would have supported it the way it was changed.

not that my decision making is all that important. this is not entirely similar to what we have gone through the first time, but it's closer and much closer than what has been pushed forward by the board of supervisors. at this point i can support this as an approach. >> thank you, commissioner fung. the other commissioners? commissioner diamond, is your hand up again or is that from before? >> no. thank you. i just wanted to say that i completely agree with commissioner fung in that camel and the personality and i'm prepared to support the ordinance with recommendations and leave it up to supervisor safai to work through at the board of supervisors for the

recommendation. >> thank you. i know that the commissioners were very involved and i know there was a lot of advocacy from community organizations and community coalitions representing our under represented community to ensure that equity is included in any type of appealing measure that we passed. so i know we need to build and i know we have housing crisis where a lot of people say an affordability crisis, but i always question at what cost. just because the law says we need to build, i don't feel like we need to do so at the expense of low-income communities. so i just want to ensure whatever is passed and successful and forwarded by the mayor has some

level of protection for low-income communities. so, i know that folks have utilized the conditional use authorization as a way to participate in community process. i'm a little concerned with the removal of that, that it will take away from the discretion from communities that want to participate and ensure what's happening in the neighborhood is equitable and served not only the extremely wealth individuals in this city. i do believe there needs to be some component with staff and i believe we should implement fees for those who are not increasing density. that for sure needs to be implemented. in terms of not retiring on-site affordability or in lieu fees because of feasibility, i'm not enthusiastic about that.

with the five year look back with ensuring that we own homes that we don't see experienced developers buying a bunch of properties and immediately developing. i think that is a very fair inclusion especially to target homeowners. why is a five year look back a big deal if this is going to benefit homeowners. i think that's something that i would really like to see and just in insuring that we are protecting tenants and homeowners. i hope that some of those equity amendments are made while also concerns remain and

how we can help everyone and not just a specific population and income in san francisco. >> thank you, commissioner ruiz. >> with that, i don't see any other hand. >> i feel pretty much put on the spot because of this process has been so far and the last minute and seeing this legislation vetoed makes me feel uncomfortable because what is in front of us has not gone through the same kind of rigorous determination. it appears that it is a

competing legislation on the day when we are supposed to make a quality decision. in our aspect to the decision which i support which are interesting and in an a deal world and supervisor safai and working with legislation and challenging it where there is disagreement and where there is consensus. the issue of affordability, tenant protection, did protection, five year look back, the physical attesting of higher density and lot sizes density is a new component for me personally should really be weighed against what we have with the legislation. there is a concept that we are trying to find the appropriate

form of densification for san francisco. s. b. 9 is something which is moving all of it and item not ready today to support what is in front of me today, but i would strongly encourage that we see a four plex legislation in suspense at the moment that the board of supervisors and their teams work together to come up with a solution to combine the best of both of them. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i will make a comment and see if we are willing to move towards a motion on this item. looking at the provisions, one

of the things that is beneficial about this is for s. b. 9 and some of the requirements that are part of that legislation. i think it's great to have both available to property owners in the city. one of the questions i had is about no let loss but we have some that may be 20 of them and an apartment and that we down zoned. and those would not be able to decrease and eliminate the units. because we have moved that provision that would want to demolish a 20 unit apartment building. >> to be sure i understand your question, for buildings, say you have a four unit building in rh 2, you want to be sure that they

can not utilize the intention and where they demolish four and bring back 3 units. that is not the supervisor's intention as well. that's a great thing to be sure that there is no loophole that exist for that. i can't speak to it, maybe the city attorney can, but i can't speak to it now whether there is a loophole. >> okay, that is something we may want to look at closely. usually we don't allow, we have a big deal when there is an emerged unit and make sure that those provisions that prevent the loss of units that apply to this legislation. that is something that needs to be looked at now and when it goes to the board but i want to be sure that it's captured because

as if someone had a larger apartment and an adu unit. in regards to the rest of it, i think it sounds fine. to homes being treated as construction and a condo and i see lower costs and finances. so i'm kind of torn knowing this that i have seen many condos and san franciscans who want to be homeowners and want to see this in the house because it is so great. it does make sense to allow a new four plex to become a condo instead of being a tic because of the cost, but then the purchase price is lower.

maybe it's good to have some variety. as far as the look back for theel # -- the ellis act and we don't want to evict a tenant. we are trying to prevent the vision of that tenant and retain that property and not to have a vacancy that occurs. whether it's a 3 or five year term is what i'm comfortable with. but not to have been evicted. perhaps it's not enough time for a historic property to be evaluated. it's a decent amount of time to be looked at, part of

this are we trying to discourage them from developing these historic properties. that's my comment and part of my idea on the fee of a larger home to discourage mansions being built and to density to item no. 3. those are my comments commissioners. i don't know if there are more comments that would like to be made. commissioner koppel? >> i was going make a motion to approve. >> approve with staff recommendations and modifications? >> is it clear that the modifications are out or in. would you like to make that

recommendation to the board? >> that would be amenable. >> okay. >> commissioner? >> to the supervisor and staff, do they understand what the potential changes were and is there any agreement? i think the question is from commissioner fung about the modifications and if there is any misunderstanding about the staff modifications going toward to the board? >> the way i understand it, is that those are staff is recommending support with those modifications and we said which ones we agreed on and which we don't and might be dealt with separate pieces of legislation. we understand what's being put forward today and we'll work

through the process. i just want to say for the record through commissioner moore, we did produce our own piece of legislation initially. this did not come at the end of the process. we have come back to you because we made modifications on the land use committee gone forward after it was completely changed and amended. we have been in this on going conversation since day one. we just felt ultimately at the end of the day that what went forward is not true to the spirit of what everyone was trying to achieve and getting forthwith this legislation. >> with that, did anybody second your motion? >> i did not hear it. >> i will second your motion. >> this is to go forward with approving all of staff's modification and i would like to hear explanation on the

affordability component. >> i thought the affordability component was going to be removed because of the feasibility study because it's not listed with modifications. >> it should be clear that is on the list no. 2. >> there is no further amendment, simply to approve with staff's modifications. >> [roll call] >> >> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners ruiz, imperial and moore voting against. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 8 for case no.

8. 2022-004725pca (v. flores: (628) 652-7525) temporary safe overnight parking and cannabis retail uses [bf 220542] - planning code amendment - >> good afternoon commissioners, veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is a temporary safe overnight parking and cannabis retail overnight parking. brought forward by supervisor -- who left the room. i can proceed with staff recommends. the item before you is to amend the planning code to allow parking overnight within parcels designated and authorized for use as vehicle triage centers or safe parking program sites for temporary use. currently this use is only

allowed on block no. 6973, lot no. 39, commonly known as 2340 san jose avenue. this is where the upper yard previously operated. such ct was only allowed for a temporary period of up to two years. the proposed ordinance would now expand this to eligible lots throughout this city for a period of up to five years with two potential sentences of up to six months each. the ordinance of the amendments related to cannabis retail. previous legislation allowed grandfathered cannabis dispensaries to temporarily operate as cannabis retail as they went through an official process to establish this cannabis retail use but this expired in january. the ordinance proposes extending the date for declaration of cannabis

temporary retail uses to january 2024 active of january this year to provide continuity. without the proposed ordinance, the grandfathered mcd would receive to amcd and this is consistent with the planning code. to date, we have not received any public comments regarding the proposed ordinance. i also want to note that after the packets were published, staff noticed and error in the draft resolution stating the ordinance is exempt from ceqa and the ordinance stated in the staff report is that it is not a project in ordinance 150 section

c sub section two because it would not direct a change in the environment. if the future, it would require separate environmental review. this would be corrected in the final declaration for you. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance because it helps to protect and support our most vulnerable population. specifically this ordinance where safe overnight parking would be permitted where there is rising particular homelessness. additionally extending the date would provide home business owners another two years to respond to licensing delays. >> now i will ask supervisor safai to speak to this

ordinance. >> supervisor safai: thank you, commissioners. i previously asked to allow for the safe parking for staffing in the upper yard. we provided space for over 30 vehicles, 24 hour security, improved lighting, electricity, bathrooms, access to showers and potable water. rv pumping services. the idea was we understood at the time that the city's unhoused population, the fastes growing segment was people living in vehicles and we have seen that all over the cities particularly in areas where there is residential parking all the way to lake merced. since that time and from that model, we were able to house 39 people, 12 households transition to permanent supportive housing. since then, we have increased funding for additional safe

parking very triage cites, we have established a new one in bayview that has 135 spaces, 200 plus people and all the services that i mentioned. its estimated more than 1300 people live in vehicles and that population is spiked by 45 percent in the last two years. each time a new site is identified, they have to go through this process all over again. the intent of the legislation is we would allow a planning code to allow parking on the lots and staff already spoke about as it pertains to medical cannabis dispensary. i can't stay. i have to take my son to baseball practice. i ask that you support this and

something that is greatly needed and i will continue to work and identify with my colleagues. we fought for additional funding every year in the department of homeless housing as part of the budget. i thank staff and star and team and veronica for all of their support and help through the process and when we established the first one, your team was very helpful as well. thank you. >> thank you for bringing this forward. it's sadly very needed and hope we have a unanimous vote as well. >> thank you, everybody. >> that concludes this presentation. now we'll open up to members of the public for public comment. those calling remotely need to press star 3. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed and it is now before you. >> commissioners, it's back to

us. i think, i don't think this needs much explanation. i think sadly we have a lot of folks living in their vehicles and these lots provide a route for those folks to get connected to services and have stability so they are not out everything night or causing challenges if they are parked on the street and with the cannabis wide issues as well. >> i have a question to staff. i have followed the reading to these two legislations particularly when it comes to general equity and plan and recommendations. you didn't know what applies to what, and i

believe while each has its own consideration and merits, reading them together is not only confusing but i think somewhat inappropriate. for the first portion of the legislation, overnight parking is an extremely important issue, and i am in full support of it. the question i would ask which sites have been identified and satisfied. i heard from supervisor district 10, at this moment it's not particularly trying to overburden bayview hunters point and i believe it has something to do with the mention of recreation area.

regarding this issue with the recreation area and property which it states a number of years ago and cost a significant amount of money for these neighborhoods. again, we do not have any rights for state lands. i'm wondering how this particular site is mentioned and why. as to the cannabis, i'm surprised that this particular type of recommendations does not fall under cannabis since they are the ones handling the application to cannabis and why it has to come to legislators is somewhat confusing to me. i will ask staff to answer my questions since the supervisor is not here at the moment. >> good afternoon. with

homelessness and supportive housing. in terms of the question, commissioner, about the bayview vehicle triage center, this is our second and active vehicle triage center that the city has right now. it is on state land at the candlestick recreation area. we mentioned it because the pilot that we piloted at the balboa upper yard was very successful and led us to have this partnership with the state and utilize the state land for the second iteration of the model. it is a little bit -- we have a temporary two year lease with the state for that land at candlestick, and we are still exploring as the supervisor mentioned, additional options for a second vehicle triage center that we have funding in

the budget and looking to add in the bayview or more funding becomes available for more space. >> commissioner moore, i have a second question. >> would that second site be as well? >> the second site we have on the west side of the city given the number of habited vehicles. >> thank you so much for jumping in and answering the questions. this is in the staff report and i should not be asking the question. i'm very supportive obviously if the state agrees to give a portion of the recreation to that use likely to go temporary for overnight parking where we did not have families

living with those needs and now it has become a type of an emergency housing situation. for example, with the streets surrounding the safe way and the marina struggles with moving large vehicles which reappear again and again around the exterior perimeter of safe way where there is not enough room available and moving about these larger vehicles that is a very small number. so i'm in support of that aspect. to answer the second part of the question, why is cannabis not being handled by the office of cannabis rather than this legislation would be helpful. >> thank you, commissioner moore. both of these uses, they

are temporary uses under section 205 and the cannabis portion is more of a clean up which is why we were able to add it to this portion of the legislation. the office of cannabis is in charge of reviewing and issuing the licenses, however, after that process is complete, the applicants or the business owners still need to seek the official change of use for the land use with the planning department. we are still involved in this process. so you are behind in processing those land use process applications? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> i'm very supportive of this legislation and i would like to make a motion for approval. >> second. >>

>> okay, seeing no additional request for speaking from commissioners. [roll call] >> so moved.. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> it will place us on the final item on your agenda today for case 9. 2018-004217gpa (d. ngo: (628) 652-7591) 2022 safety and resilience element update - consideration >> this is a request for you to initiate and schedule a hearing on or after -- >> >> contact, welcome back to the

planning commission hearing. we are at item no. 9. >> 9. 2018-004217gpa (d. ngo: (628) 652-7591) 2022 safety and resilience element update - consideration >> this is a request to schedule a hearing on or after december 2022. i think we have a staff report from a virtual staff member today. >> >> hello, i'm from the planning department. thank you for having me today and presenting remotely. i will start my presentation now.

>> ms. neil, we could not hear you. you are muted. just unmute yourself. that's fine. >> thank you so much for letting me know. again, my name is danielle ngo. i'm here to share about updating on the policy for safety & resilience and the general plan amendment and schedule adoption later this summer. to guide, we will begin a presentation with a context setting by the director citywide in person today who will expand the significance of the initiation and how this project fits in relation to other work

to the general plan. over the past two 1/2 years that has led to this hearing, explain action today and close with a pathway to adoption should you choose to initiate the amendment and schedule the future adoption hearing. i now pass it to an marie. >> thank you very much. i'm an marie rodgers, department staff. we have made our efforts to coordinate this plan. i want to share with you and the public the context which this plan sits. the general plan is san francisco's document policy, not just your document but the city. it is mandated by state law in the charter and gives this commission sole responsibilities for initiating changes in the

general plan. that's what your action is today. without action from you, the general plan would not change. so, today we are not asking that you actually adopt the proposed changes. initiation should you just do it. simply means that you have received the potential amendments and you are noticing the public that at a future date you will consider the adoption before you.. today's proposed changes are happening within this larger context. let's look at the other work that is underway with our general plan. these are the components of our general plan. in some elements like the safety element are mandated by state law, while others, the urban design element are our own creation. as a rule, these policies should guide all our policy action for 20 years and some have been updated recently while others

have been several decades. we are working to change that. this safety element is four active updates to the general plan and we are working in coordination to the other elements moving now and the housing element, and as well as the update to the general plan. the safety element is the first in line for your consideration. in january the housing element, the environmental justice framework and the dominate of the general plan will be before you. we have plans for a couple more phases should we get passed those. should all get adopted this is a complete refresh of the general plan by 2030. this commission has the unique authority to initiate changes to the general plan and then later recommend those changes to the board of supervisors. the final adoption is the legislative act who we do need the board of supervisors to

approve the proposal in order for the general plan to become law. >> thank you. >> now we'll talk specifically about the safety element. we came to the commission last december for the hearing. a bit of information for the material and action. today's hearing is for initiation of the general plan amendment. non-profit content per say. still it's important to provide an overview of the content that you may consider later at the adoption hearing. the first content is to involve the meeting itself is the community safety element and proposed to be final for safety and resilient element moving forward. resilience is key for the city's capacity to provide and adapt and grow from all

hazards and for resilience and other aspects of daily life. with this plan update to the safety element, this commission could strengthen the general plan policies with the depiction of this slide. this is the neighborhood plan. the geological, weather related, fire related, biological and toxic hazard this city is facing. notably what is depicted in blue is being exacerbated by the climate change. the safety element incorporated the plan by reference as well as the climate action plan. these are other documents in relation to the safety element and these are details of the safety document and they are

typically updated more frequently and more acknowledge i will process in the again plan. we already have a sound foundation in san francisco. this proposal is building on top of the most recent safety element adopted. it has a structure for resilience planning starting with mitigation, emergency preparedness, response, and recovery and reconstruction. the policies do not just sit on a shelf. there is many examples of these policies in action. for instance, safety element policies have helped sf mta with a complete program for exercise during this pandemic emergency. this proposal is driven by several factors starting with the left-hand column there are two state laws, s. b. 379 and

1,000 for general plan for climate resilience and environmental justice. the second column to implementing documents. the hazard and climate resilience plan and climate action plan. in fact proposing to add this knowledge to the general plan with knowledge about sea level rise and flooding and wildfires and poor air quality. with the right hand column to increase focus on racial and social equity and lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic. if this commission and the historic preservation commission and incorporate general policies with specific benefits to the american indian community, black community and other communities of color. this covid-19 pandemic

is a unique prolonged emergency and the city learned a lot about racial disparity and emergency operations. through this process that we have been in conversation with the department of emergency management and the office of resilience and capital planning to revise other efforts for implementing documents such as a recovery plan for rebuilding post disaster. through these columns at the state and local levels, these are all opportunities to see what the proposed 2022 safety and resilience benefits. now i will talk about what we are looking for initiation and to understand what is later in the adoption of the hearings and what is involved in this document. ultimately it is up to you to realize the general

policies so that san francisco is safe and resilient for generations to come. so, our team has conducted virtual outreach and engagement for over a year. we have heard from dozens of community based organizations and many other agencies in subject matter experts and incorporated that in the feedback as part of your packet today. so these are some of the major trends out of hundreds of comments we received around safety elements. on a high level, we got other feedback of coordination and resilient and incorporating the environmental justice committee and the report from the emergency management,

new -- and cultural preservation and syphilids and adding housing justice for individuals and families experiencing homelessness into recovery and reconstruction activities and other general plan updates. again streamlining and modernizing the general plan. in the goals objectives and policies, our team aims for everyday language so that resilience planning is acceptable to the audience as much as possible. it's in a supporting text where we add additional detail. this proposal would organize the safety and resilience elements in the way you see here. there are six goals shown on the left hand side in red. each goal has a set of objectives and policies

that reflect over the past year. the first goal are brand new, all goals to be safe in communities and climate resilience. each new goal places kriement resilience, environmental justice and racial and social equity and the emergency preparedness, response and recovery and reconstruction. that means if you pass resolution today, staff would advertise an adoption for that day. here is what the next steps would be for today's action. in addition to the hearing today, we have a series of informational hearings with other commissions. we recently presented to the planning

commission. national weather service week we'll present at the environmental commission and a week after at the historic preservation commission. we will be thrilled to return to this commission in august to discuss the content in detail. of the 2022 safety and resilient element to strengthen resilience and environmental justice and racial and social equity for the city. if you do recommend approval, this could lead before the board of supervisors by september. that is the action before you now and we are available for comments and questions. >> thank you very much. >> thank you danielle. that concludes staff's presentation. now we'll go to public comment. this is your opportunity to make

public comment. please come forward. we have no one calling in remotely. public comment is closed. >> we will go now to commissioner comment. >> commissioner moore: i only want to express my enthusiastic support for initiating this. the augmentation with two additional subject areas which is center to what we have been talking about the last year now is essentially and you are embracing it and the clarity of your presentation is commendable and i am in full support. i move that we initiate it.

>> second. >> >> seeing no further deliberation from the commission, there is a motion to initiate and schedule a hearing after august 25, 2022. >> [roll call] >> so moved., commissioners, that passes unanimously 7-0. >> thank you, commissioners. we are adjourned. >> thank you.

>> so the march started in 2004, there was a lot of action going on at the time against transgender people. so an email thread went around and everybody decided to meet here at the loweris park and really send out the message to the community that we're here and just because the legislation does not validify who we are, we are still here

and we deserve to be loved and empowered. >> so for me trans march is a safe place where i will not be quiet and i can be unapologetic against my trans siblings to be in the community and say okay, you can bring yourself to the safe places. we're normal human beings and we can exist. >> this is one of the largest

trans marches that happens in the world and this space is ours. we can at least have one day where we are seen and not over shadowed by the greater pride, hostilities everywhere. trans march means so much to me. but it means so much more for me and my community. >> we really felt it was important to have a special day just for transgender people where we can have our voices lifted up and specifically seen. >> after coming, i feel so proud of this place and also

this whole movement. this joy is strong. so maybe trans march that is a lot of joy. >> my partner is transgender and you know ,z we've been together for 25 years. and i learned a lot about trans generaleder and her what it means to be transgender. to give people pride of who they are they are beautiful and an important part of society and they should have equal rights.

>> for me being here is an act of celebrating myself and feeling okay in my own skin. >>ed we have a lot of momentum here at trans mart, we have a lot of community for support from our sponsor to our tal ept, everybody is happy to support this event because we all want to be together and after two years of not being able to be together this year, people were especially excited. [applause]