>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for november 3, 2022. to enable public participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live. comments are tunlts to speak during public comment period are available by calling

415-655-0001 and enter access code 24863773061. you are also able to join us remotely via webex. the link is on the agenda and web page. we'll take public comment from those in city hall first. speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime. when your time is reached i will allowance your time is up to take the next person. for those calling in to submit testimony when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to press star 3 to be added to the queue or webex raise your hand and when you hear your line is unmuted you can begin speaking. best practice is call from quite location speak clearly and slowly and please mute the avolume on the television or computer. for those

in city hall come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. finally, i ask all us to please silence mobile devices that may sound during the proceedings. at this time i like to take roll. [roll call] we expect commissioner moore to be absent today. first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case 2020-010001. 3753 21 street has been withdrawn. not sure if anybody needs to speak to that but if you care to speak to the continuance calendar now st. the opportunity to do so. if you are in the chambers please come forward. calling in remotely press star 3. i have no other items

proposed for continuance today. seeing no request to speak, public comment is closed. your continuance calendar is before you but there is no action you need to take. if no questions or comments we can move on toconsent calendar. all matters listed are considered to be routine and may be acted by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the commission public or staff request. the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item. 2, 1adath court. conditional use. 2022-002946c after the accident. this is your opportunity to request either of these two consent

calendar items pulled and heard today, as it is your opportunity. you need to press star 3 if you call in remotely or come forward in the chambers. seeing no request to speak public comment on consent calendar is dlozeed closed and now before you. >> commissioner >> motion to approve. >> on the motion to approve- [roll call] motion passes unanimously 6-0. places under commission matters. >> i ask if commissioner diamond will read the land acknowledgment. we are -

>> 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. >> thank you commissioner diamond. item 4 consideration of adoption draft minutes for october 13 and october 20, 2022. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes if you care to. come forward or press star 3 to raise your hand. seeing no

request to speak, public comment is closed and minutes are before you. >> commissioner koppel. >> motion to approve draft minutes from october 13 and 20. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. places under item 5 commission comments and questions. >> any comments from commissioners today? okay. >> i have my- >> go ahead commissioner imperial. >> thank you president tanner. as you know, i am joining you guys remotely because i have covid. i like to request from the commissioners and also the staff and also

public in the city hall to please speak closely to the mic so i can fully hear the conversation going in the city hall right now. that is my request. and also, i just would like to inquire-i got a inquiry during the weekday about the office allocation information and whether the planning department are planning to give us a update on the office allocation and whether to give the length of that update to to beprinted presented for the next planning commission hearing. >> commissioner imperial, yes that will be on the agenda for november 10 as well as a memo from staff. >> thank you very much. >> we wish you a speedy recovery and

will do our best to make sure you can hear us. if you can't please let us know so we can speak clearly or closer to the mic. thank you for joining us and hopefully you are feeling better. >> seeing no other request to speak from members of the commission, we can move to it department matters. item 6 director announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. commissioner imperial i hope you are feeling okay and speedy recovery. one quick update. you will have the office allocation i was going to mention that next week. i think we will do it under directors comment. there is about 200 thousand square feet allocation for office uses, so we'll hear more about that next week. and also commissioner diamond you asked for a hearing around the work around economic recovery especially downtown and we are working to schedule the hearingism we think it is important to have oewd and perhaps other agencies as part of that. they

are leading the city efforts in this work. obviously we are a major partner with them in that, so hopefully we'll have that in december or january. if you remember the mayor issued a press release with oewd talking about recovery and the focus and about 5 areas. filling vacancies and diversifying industries and uses downtown, enhancing downtown vibrancy which relates primarily to public realm but goes broader. maintain a clean and safe downtown, improving access to downtown and growing our labor force. and within that framework, we as a planning department are very much focused around questions of office and future diversification. expanding for downtown whether existing or conversion of buildings, the public realm increasing the vibrancy of the public

realm and specific look at union square. we'll have more on that, but just a preview that will be probably in december or january. thanks. >> thank you. >> if no questions for the director we can move to item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors board of appeals and historic preservation commission. there is no report from the board of supervisors or board of appeals this week. however, mr. star did request that i convey that supervisor mandelman 4 plex ordinance did pass on the second read last week. the historic preservation met yesterday and took up the legacy business registry application for the condor for a second time. after some deliberation a recommendation for approval was adopted. they also adopted a recommendation for approval for the saint

james church at 240 leland avenue and adopted san francisco neighborhood commercial buildings (inaudible) 1865-1965. that will place us under 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 accept agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the pub lrk may address the commission up to 3 minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> hi. it says 10 minutes. >> you are not getting 10. >> i'm lucky getting 3. hi. i hope you are feeling better commissioner imperial. i was looking for something and i found this ad i got in march

about the sale of this house in eureka valley for 7 and $7 and a half million and said i remember that and it was one next door that was controversial and got press so that is why i sent you the updated list with the two addresses in blue and with some of the price history there. i think they illustrate the problem with the fact (inaudible) and demolitions and the housing is expensive. i know that row of houses because i had a friend that lived there in the 90 and are they are nice houses built in the 20, 3 bedrooms up stair. typically family housing. i want to show you on the overhead, please-may i have the overhead, please? there is the one that sold first for 4 and a half million. there is the one next door.

here is the other one during its construction and the other is finished. now, here they are when they are all done and here they are as they were and there is a whole row of them like that and they were really nice. they are fine houses and perfectly livable. anybody could live in them. that is my point. i just add them to the list. it is a continuation of why i where think the demo calic should have been adjusted and still be adjusted as proceed. i want to say one thing. i was looking at the mandal melgar legislation and it says the median sales price of 2 bedroom house trip pd from 2011 to 2021 and those are the years when the demo calcs should have been adjusted and were not.

cant look back, cant make a hypothetical, but the price increase, there is a relationship i think because the demo calc was never adjusted because that was your policy. that was the policy that existing housing is affordable housing and these two houses now are no longer existing housing. just alterations that were extreme. thank you very much. >> seeing no other members of the public coming forward we'll go to remote callers. press star 3 to be added to the queue and when your hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, this is (inaudible) just following up. i haven't seen the department budget so it was approved without being presented a while ago and i hope you will provide that

information. if you did please let the public know where we can find it and in the future please make sure it sees a public hearing. thank you. >> last call for general public comment. again, for items not on today's agenda. seeing none, general public comment is closed. we can move on to the regular calendar, but i don't know if you want to respond? (inaudible) asking about the budget and those hearings are not scheduled until maybe december or january for the next couple fiscal years, so it is forthcoming and there will be hearings. >> thank you for that. >> item 8, case 2019-016230cwp for hozing element update 2022 informational

presentation. >> before this item starts, i as the case in the past need to recuse myself. i actually might be approaching the end of (inaudible) one of the two contracts preventing me from hearing them is now concluded 6789 the work is concluded, but still awaiting conformation from the city attorney office from the second contract so need to request recusal from this item. >> thank you commissioner braun. >> i have to recuse myself because of my involvement in the housing element with my employer prior to me being appointed to the commission. >> motion to approve.

>> second. >> thank you. on the motion to recuse commissioner braun and ruiz. [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are hereby recused. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. before we focus on the housing element content today if you allow me a moment to update you and the public on staffing changes on the housing element team as we head towards adoption process. the housing element was (inaudible) key

support from (inaudible) stepped out in april for muturnty leave. (inaudible) senior planner supporting cultural district and housing element work has been the project manager. in midnovember will be leaving this role in the position in the department after 15 years of service. great new opportunity as director of planning and land use. we wanted to honor both of our colleagues for incredible dedicated work. especially in the many hours working with community members advocates and are resulting policy development this plan wouldn't be anything like this without them. we wish nothing but the best as they step in the new positions. at the end of the month i too am leaving the planning department after 9 years to be sfmta planning director. director tumlen is

very understanding in the challenging timing and while no longer managing the team i will advice the prauz through the end of january. moving forward, we are very grateful to have james pappus who lead the department housing affordability strategy and supported many housing element policy and technical pieces to step forward to shoulder the critical final stage. he will be the contact person for the public and manage the staff completing the final tasks. i also want to note today you will be seeing reanna tongue as well joining today's presentation from the city wide division and she was introduced at remote hearing but the first inperson presentation. >> i want to thank you and the staff for incredible service on the housing element. we are sorry to be losing you and glad you are going to a sister agency and thank director tumlen for his understanding as you transition and

mr. pappus you are very skilled and capability and (inaudible) thank you so much also for your service in the element and also years of service to the department. moving across the country is a big move but wish you all the best and thank you for your service and to (inaudible) listening and sure she is because she is very dedicated excited to see her take on a new very important role even though the housing element is certainly her baby she is leaving but maybe it is good the timeline is accelerated. we won't be without staff too long and mr. pappus you can wrap us up and take us across the finish line in january. >> (inaudible) from the start and be here through the finish. (inaudible) on to the presentation. we will be focus on many technical parts of the

housing element. it is important to remind of the ambition and vision of the efforts. this is san francisco housing plan centered on racial and social equity come comes at a great moment of reckoning for the city. righting the harms done that experienced racialization. a chance to support our populations that are more vulnerable to housing instability or being unhoused and especially those unhoused. a chance to plan for future where people and family have choices and opportunity for the housing they want where they want when a sense of belonging and growth. our system simply need to work better to provide more certainty to reduce the stress that so many people have been experiencing to provide the housing we need in thriving revilleiant well connected neighborhoods. just refresher on the parts of the plan. extensive outreach with technical anal

sis. the first draft submitted in may for state housing community development department focused who was being served through testimony and data and how this informed goals policies and actions centered on racial and social equity. hcd responded in august with support for the plan approach and how it places a strong emphasis on acknowledgeic and repairing harms and propose bold meaningful action to reduce barriers to higher (inaudible) especially communities of color. as expected, hcd asked for more analysis around the existing sites and process and ways to expand opportunities for housing. my colleagues explain more about our subsequent work expanding analysis of governmental and non governmental constraints and proposed constraint

(inaudible) way to organize the plan action towards delivering its commitments. i'll hand it over to james. >> thank you all. thanks for the kind words president tanner. we are looking forward working with you all to get this over the finish line by the end of january. with you guys in december. i'm going to explain a little more about our work on the site inventory with this session. we are it trying to really explain some of the technical components that went into the housing element. so, as you know, our rena increased the city received and we are needs to plan for during the housing element process, tripled from the prior rena. the lighter blue is rena from the prior cycle and the

darker blue shows how much we were able to achieve over the last 7 years. the orange is our upcoming rena, so you can see pretty much tripling across the board and while we were able to meet and exceed our rena target on the above moderate side, the new upcoming targets are considerably higher. on the low income side we struggled to get to approximately 50 percent across the income groups and our targets will be about 3 times that as mentioned. so, we had approximately 82 thousand unit rena total. in terms of planning for sites however, there is a state law sb166 which requires no net loss of sites over the housing element period. the rena period. so, what that means is that as sites

are developed if sites are developed at a different density or different income level then anticipated when you made the plan you have to have sufficient sites to replace the sites that have developed in a way that you-or different how you anticipated. the recommended way to accommodate that is to put a 15 percent buffer on top of the rena, so that is why we have planned for 94 thousand units in this process. you can see that is on the left in the orange you can see the 82 thousand base, the 15 percent buffer and on the right in blue, how we are reaching the total of 94 thousand units. through our site inventory analysis we were able to come up with nearly 60 thousand units looking at a variety of sources which i'll discuss, but still significantly short between 34, 35 thousand units that need to be

accommodated in the rezoning. so, i'll cover the residential development. as you have seen many projects come before you including large development agreements and large projects. some in former redevelopment area. the residential development pipeline including applications that have been submitted over the last few years. we cannot count any projects already permitted so we removed anything that is already has the building permit issued so these are things with an application submitted, have been received a planning approval or are awaiting building permits or waiting to pull a building permit i should say. i know the development agreements have been a point of

consternation. wewould like to see them move more rapidly and there are policies in the housing element to try to support speeding up their development. to satisfy hcd requirements we did have to try to make a realistic assessment of what could be built during the rena period so we are not counting all the capacity within the development agreements. in addition to the residential development pipeline, we also looked at the remainder of available land in san francisco and there have been various changes to state law that require a higher standard of assessment to include sites in your sites inventory. looking at realistic development capacity and also realistic likelihood of development. there were suggestions and stite guidance to reach out to property owners, check lease

status, businesses in buildings and a city of the scale of san francisco we did not have capacity to do that so what we used instead was a model that looked at past development trends and predicted likelihood of development on any parcel that was not already in our pipeline of development. so, that's the basis of the top line of the table you can see. we then based off various criteria in state law assigned the capacity to different income levels. in addition we took ocd estimated additional affordable housing that they are projected to build, add ed that in and estimates on adu and affordable housing preservation acquisitions. so, all that together comes up to approximately 59 thousand units. so, leading us with a shortfall of around

34-35 thousand units, which under the requirements of housing element law we do need to plan for a rezoning to accommodate those units and per the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements and housing element law and the goals of this plan, we are primarily focusing additional capacity for housing in the well resourced neighborhoods which cover a little more then half of the city. the 3 maps you see on the screen right now have been developed as part of the initial work around the rezoning process, and these are exploratory and represent three possible forms that the rezoning could take. these have been developed by the land use team and the city wide division headed by josh (inaudible) here with us today, and again, they represent possible forms of the rezoning could take. they all share that there is

typically suggestion of greater density in height along major commercial corridors and then varying degrees of density changes or height changes 4 to 6 plexes in residential neighborhoods so they represent a range of possible forms that the rezoning could take. in addition, housing sustainability district or other forms of potential facilitation or streamlining for housing development in these areas are heavily encouraged by housing element law and so they are also part of potentially part of the rezoning efforts. one of the key parts of this plan is clearly the huge affordable housing target in it. we are thinking a lot as we

move towards passage and implementation of the housing element how to achieve the very ambitious affordable housing target. a key issue is how we secure the sites we need to develop affordable housing and so we are looking at a range of approaches. particularly both strategic and opportunity purchase of sites to be looking ahead for our capacity to keep-maintain a pipeline of affordable housing sites throughout the housing element 8 year period and beyond. and we are looking at the use of public sites. looking at philanthropic and public/private partnerships, a variety of approaches. funding is obviously going to be key to achieving our affordable housing targets. we included in the housing element latest draft the proposal to have a convening of policy

makers, elected officials, advocates experts to try to identify additional pathways for funding. additional regional state and federal funding is going to be absolutely key. we've had constraints on tax credits and other key federal sources of affordable housing funding, so getting more support from the region state and federal government will also be very important and exploring additional ways we can fund affordable housing. leveraging inclusionary housing will be a important tool providing housing and our construction cost have gone through the roof and effecting all kinds of housing development. they effect how far our affordable housing dollars can go and so continuing to look at ways to lower cost for development will be key. with that, i'll turn it over to reanna tong who will talk

about our constraints analysis. >> thank you james. good afternoon commissioners. sorry, give me one second. sorry about that. i'll talk about the constraints analysis and this analysis requires an analysis of potential and actual governmental

and non governmental constraints to the maintenance improvement or development of housing. the categories that are required by the state for review include, land use controls, codes and enforcement. on site and off site improvement standards. constraints for people with disabilities. process and permitting procedures and fees and exactions. in our view we also included institutional barriers to producing and preserving affordable housing and decision making so we could include some of the processes and context specific to san francisco. constraints listed here on the right side are some of the major buckets that were identified in the constraints analysis and these lead directly to policies and implementing programs that reduce the identified constraints. for example, we found that governmental constraints such as a lengthy review and approval process and non governmental constraints such as high land and construction cost contribute to low feasibility of small

and mid-rise multi-family development. the policies include reducing governmental process toward the housing type and well resourced neighborhoods. taking actions to reduce non governmental constraints and facilitating this type of housing for middle income households. the constraints analysis on the governmental side reveals while there are cases where one point in the process lead to large impact it is accumulation of these uncertainties that create the biggest challenge. for example, certain projects require general plan referrals, which adds the need for professional services, time and fees to projects. some projects require conditional use authorization which requires hearings and time and uncertainty to project progression. the analysis helps understand where to reduce constraibts so little by little we

chip away at the impact they have cumulatively. for example, we can updated implementing program proposing to eliminate general fund referral and conditional use authorization for certain projects and certain geographies. required state categories for review of non governmental constraints are land cost, construction cost and availability of financing. portions of the availability of financing were included in the governmental constraints, particularly regarding affordable housing, and in the section we also included a section on san francisco cultural and political context that offers insight to san francisco's tradition of public involvement in policy and projects. a major component of this portion of the constraint analysis, the non governmental constraints was a financial feasibility study on three group

of housing project types across san francisco which found projects with 1 to 4 net new units construction cost are by far the largest component of development costs. the study helped us understand that for non governmental constraints they can be reduced to have a bigger impact on the feasibility of projects. a 10 percent reduction in construction cost could improve the feasibility of 3 to 4 unit buildings by 300-380 thousand dollar. there are some changes to governmental constraints that may help in the reduction like applying fees to fund creation of home owner assistance and construction workforce training programs that help close the feasibility gap. these constraints reductions identified were then included in a larger list of implementing programs for the housing element update which shelly will introduce

you to. >> hello. i will close out by talking about implementation. all the analysis that we shared so far points to how critical it is that this plan implementation is well organized robust and coordinated closely across the city family. this is necessary to insure we act oen the commitments this plan offers to our residents, but also to insure this city stays in compliance with housing element law throughout the next housing cycle. we expect to implementation program to become an accountability tool with greater significance then previously held. to facilitate implementation of the housing element policies, and more clearly present the information required by the state, the team is in the process of organizing the actions previously listed

under the policies into a new format. the programs include list of actions, organized by the primary functions of our local agencies. timeframes that fall within the 8 year cycle. funding sources and measurable outcomes such as the number of units to be constructed at various income levels resulting from particular programs or the number of people served by our housing services. the existing policy document 300 plus actions are organized as a list under each policy. the implementation program we defined 9 program areas and fit the actions into these buckets. these program areas bundled the action in a way that reflect the city existing agency structure and programs making it easier for each responsible agency to find their tasks and report on

their progress. the first 3 program areas on the left focus largely on how we assist people impacted by affordability crisis including affordable housing production, housing assistance, stabilizing tenants and preventing and eliminating homelessness. the next set in the center focuses on directly advancing equity by readdressing and preventing discrimination, center communities and planning and serving groups with special needs and the last set of program areas focuses on expanding housing choice and capacity and improving neighborhood quality. each program area will [audio cut out] we do continue to make refinements. we are continuing to make refinement to incorporate public input we continue to receive to clarify language to insure

that everyone understands what to expect from this plan and in the process of building out the information to publish it next thursday on the 10th. so, when we come back here on for initiation we can give a deeper dive into what the imp lementation plan looks like. in this draft we bolster the plan with expand ed actions and the following ways. in order to address the critical affordable housing funds needed highlighted by james earlier, as he mentioned we intend to convene city experts to publish a funding strategy by january 2024 and that work will be supported by better representation of affordable housing investments in the budgeting processes. in order to address the earnancy of the housing needs we added actions to jump start housing projeths and well resourced neighborhoodss and that includes establishing ministerial approval for housing and well

resourced neighborhoods that net more then 2 units and meet tenant protection and relocation standards. we are also looking to eliminate hearings on code compliance projects within resource neighborhoods subject to housing accountability act until 2027. these are new actions published in october. the rezoning program we added measures to stabilize residents vuliable to displacement while increasing the viability of small multifamily housing. to increase accountability and transparency and reduce uncertainties in the approval process we are calling for new efforts to document and streamline our process. lastly, to insure empowerment and accountability of the communities commit to complete community lead processes and priority equity geographies and hope to facilitate project to fast track projects

that support needs. our next steps are to complete documenting the implementation program with hcd input and public input over the next week to spend more time during the initiation hearing familiarizing the commission and public with that. we received comments on implementation and specifically questions about the rezoning program will be flushed out so assure you and the public engagement will be starting in the spring and we are sharing all the input that we continue to receive about rezoning with the team so there is continuity. there will be public engagement as we kick off the working group to strat guise and

continued engagement how to priority actions and housing element that best serve their needs. also in 2023 the city will form the interagency implementation committee that have a key role insuring agency work plans are aligned with the commitments in the housing element. i will end on next steps just to ground us again in the process. we will be publishing the packets for initiation next thursday on the 10th. we will be back here on november 17 to initiate then we will be working towards adoption hearing here on december 15. i also want to remind everyone yesterday november 2 the department published lesponse to comments for the draft eir and you can access the document by going to the website under the housing element eir

page. and we will be back here for initiation to certify the eir at the same time we initiate. that concludes our presentation. thank you and we are all available for questions. >> that concludes staff presentation, we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on the housing element. informational item. here in the chambers come forward and calling in remotely or participating via webex raise your hand or press star 3 on your telephone. we'll take comment from those in the chambers first. feel free to come forward. >> good afternoon commissioners. tom (inaudible) executive director of livable city. we appreciate all the incredible efforts that has gone into this. reading through the hundreds of pages of stuff it is daunting having to

write them (inaudible) we appreciate that. we also appreciate the strong emphasis on racial and social justice. this focus is long overdue and glad it is there. in the letter and we went into in greater detail, we feel it is do or die moment. one is sustainability and climate. the other is health. we are in a physical mental health crisis and there is a lot of evidence the built environment are key components of both health and sustainability and we really like to see this housing element have a stronger much more rigorous quantitative focus on those things. we think it will strengthen the racial and social justice focus as well because we think about racial and social justice and how those work,

environmental equality and justice, health inequities we work a lot on shape up coalition are major ways racism manifest. (inaudible) we like the focus on the well resourced neighborhoods. i think we need a form based code one that address the essential requirements for liveability in new housing, but eliminate unnecessary barriers to producing housing. one to integrate the design stuff we put in guidelines in san francisco with the requirements of the code. as you move forward think about a form base code for the city. propose one as part of this. we think that will allow for incremental infill in these well resourced neighborhoods to produce the housing we need but also going to be great livable housing, make a positive counts bution to the neighborhood.

third thing and we don't need to do this with this, but we feel there needs to be strong commitment to neighborhood planning in the code. you go back and work with specific neighborhoods to create neighborhood plans or update them. it is one thing to say urban renewal was terrible and racist, sorry it is is another thing to go back to the western addition or to bayview and say we are going to work with you and create a community based plan. we think the plans should look for opportunities for housing, especially affordable housing, but should also focus on stabilization on the public realm (inaudible) we like to add that to the work plan you commit to working at least in these 4 neighborhoods and ongoing process of neighborhood planning where-integrated in the ways we talked about. thank you very much.

>> hi. (inaudible) i gave copies to the staff. this is for the commission. i just want to amplify my written comments submitted on october 13 page 19 of the packet. here is page 14, on the back of yours, the staff memo about sb9 and raises the issue of cashing out and i think that is a concern. i keep thinking in my head concern under any densification as stated by staff and it should be a action plan to address this. if the policy will be to allow demolition of single family homes there needs to be a plan to insure a second unit isn't hidden away that is part of the existing house. particularly in neighborhoods where cashing out may be a issue. for example, on my block, there are 4 such units and not official units but

they are there and they are occupied or could be occupied. in the draft governmental non governmental constraints on page 37, it says the ttd process is "time consuming and challenging". however since section 317 has never been properly implemented or applied, that statement seems erroneous. it is a straight forward calculation if people want it to be straight forward so please see my comments number 4, 5 and 7 on the page 19. also, the cashing out thing, comment 6 in there. please see my comments about the constraints, in the draft on page 112 and appendix 3 about that project in noe valley. when it is mentioned as a example. i went to see it when it

opened in 2018. when it was sold the units were sold the prices ranged from 1.1 million to 1.8 million dollar. the 2022 first quarter pipeline for total and affordable units, see comments on 1-3. (inaudible) that's the pipeline. if some decide to discount this current pipeline for the first quarter 2022 that is published in the paper and you published then logically why should any new pipeline that emerges from the housing element be discounted as well? i think it is wrong of the state to say you can't count certain things, but that's just my opinion. thank you very much. have a great day. thank frz s for the time and thanks to

everyone for all their work. it is very hard. >> seeing no other members in the chambers coming forward, we'll move on to our remote callers. again, when you hear your line is unmuted, you can begin speaking. >> hi. good morning commissioners. this is jessica (inaudible) i wanted to talk about how the housing element needs to be in compliance and hope you guys do get it in compliance in january so that san francisco does not lose out on money for affordable housing in san francisco. i hope you rezone the city for a million housing, not 82, but a million houses. that's all. thank you very much.

>> hello, my name is christopher roach a resident of san francisco, principle of (inaudible) chair of the san francisco public policy advocacy committee. i'm here speaking on myself. want to commend the department and the team for all the hard work on this housing element. it is an incredible amount of work and sorry to see some of you move on, but glad to see it is getting closer to the finish line. don't have comments specifically on the content, but just want to echo actually some of the points that mr. (inaudible) made in his letter. policy advocacy what we really want to see in

the adoption of this housing element and parallel with that is process reforms to remove barriers and streamline implementation. as we know, the housing element is the subsequent rezoning are wishes, a vision of what the future might be but to make the future happen we need to remove barriers to actual implementation, so things like overuse of conditional use requirements, relaxing some of the density limits et cetera. we'll be putting together a more specific letter and comment, but just want to commend the team and look forward to working with the department on these process improvements. thank you. >> good afternoon

commissioners. alex (inaudible) research advocees director for san francisco electrical construction industry and working closely with the san francisco building trade. i want to echo-first of all, thank you for all the work that staff and the commission has been doing trying to expedite the housing element. (inaudible) by surprise in terms of having the (inaudible) i think the response from that has been tremendous so i look forward seeing you all push this thing to get it over the line and make sure that we have a compliant housing element. i do want to (inaudible) comments that we in the building trades made a number of months ago regarding the housing element. i think some are reflected in the draft but think it is important to keep these things at the forefront. we call for the adoption of a (inaudible) housing production to actively promote multifamily

infill that center labor standard in housing construction. i think the effort to do housing sustainability districts throughout the west side is a good one because it is going to incorporate the labor standards. streamlining process (inaudible) permitting process are absolutely critical, because even if everything is streamlined immediately, you still have over a year, year and a half to go in the department of building inspection side and their efforts to coordinate among the various agencies to get projects committed so anything we can do to expedite i think it is important. the report is discussing constraints to development. i think one of the biggest ones is sort of (inaudible) question of labor, labor capacity. the housing

sustainability districts are critical to helping address that by developing a skilled work force by developing a pipeline of workers who can do this work and proving skills and training and productivity so they can do this work more effectively. one thing i think a lot of people dont recognize is the hsd are important equity strategies. a, because we bring people into the trades it's mostly from the communities targeted by (inaudible) local folks providing them with opportunities for careers. also, with there inclusionary zoning and the way to make sure that new construction is integrated. new housing isn't grated and we provide space for folks throughout the city and don't

have to wait for the projects that come from (inaudible) >> thank you sir, that is your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. jason price on behalf of the housing action coalition as many callers have already mentioned we greatly appreciate staff and the commission diligence throughout this housing element process and appreciate all the work you all have been doing. the housing action coalition has been working to activate our numbers to provide feedback to both sf planning and hcd about the process that building housing in san francisco as we look towards the housing element. we all know at this point that we need a compliant housing element by january so not to lose vital funding for transit and affordable housing

but what does a compliant housing element look like? that is a important question to consider because compliant housing element must prove capacity to build 82 thousand homes by 2031 and it also needs metrics to determine success and real accountability in the avent the housing isn't built at the required rate. to achieve this we hope the programs included in the housing element be legally enforceable. this is an important time for san francisco to (inaudible) and insufficient housing element will not help us achieve this so thank you for your work and best of luck. >> good day commissioners, (inaudible) low income senior tenant (inaudible) i agree with hcd assessment

san francisco planning department needs to present a more compelling strategy for reaching our city's affordable housing development goals. it is my opinion that if housing production is based solely on market based strategies then san francisco affordable housing goals (inaudible) 46 thousand affordable housing units in the next 8 years wont be realized because the housing element as drafted will only yield between 20 and 30 percent of housing affordable to low and moderate income. san francisco residents are already being priced out of housing and relying on market base housing strategy for housing production through the use of inclusionary percentages will only cause further displacement of san francisco residents who can barely afford to live and work in the city. (inaudible) market based solutions for production of affordable housing

needed would even our housing in balance. (inaudible) i'm encouraged san francisco planning has recently begun to collaborate with race and equity (inaudible) council of community housing to develop strategies to implement funding and affordable housing. evidence in draft 4, update policy 22 to create an affordable housing impment ation and funding strategy to provide specific recommendations and responsible path to achieve and sustain the substantial public funding needed to support the rena targets of over 46 thousand moderate and low income units by january 2031. in fact, we recommend that the affordable housing implementation

and planning strategy be completed within the first year. i am concerned community voices will be stifled and important community considerations will be discounted because of the emphasis on streamlining projects and the remedies planning has put forth in this document are not adequate. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. first of all, thank you and thank you to the planning department staff for hard work on the housing element. [difficulty hearing public speakers] today i have three requests. first of all, you all should have received the process receiving letters from 72 as of right now members of area cities likely

impacted by rezoning and these members are very excited about this and just encourage you to really listen to that comment and make sure that (inaudible) second request is, i know we are running out of time in terms of the housing element, so the only suggestion for change would be to include here (inaudible) hcd has been asking for to make sure we have a legally binding commitment for the city to rezone further and make alternative action if the numbers we are aiming for are not achieved. and then my final request would be, all this work will probably not be valuable if the board of supervisors doesn't approve the housing element in the end so ask you to advocate with board of supervisors to make sure we have compliant housing element by january. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is robert

(inaudible) i want to thank the planning department for hard work on this. there is is lot going on between now and the end of january. there are still major components (inaudible) there is not a coherent strategy for affordable housing and feasibility is very poor in most cities. the draft element says in particular that paraphrasing nearly all sites are infeasible for development in san francisco. we are proposing (inaudible) the city focus on strategies for affordable housing that rely number one on social housing, which is municipally and focus on revenues

from properties. we think that at this time it isn't appropriate to rely on inclusionary requirements when those requirements are promised on developments being feasible. we think there should be stable funding mechanisms bonded against future social housing rents and as well as revenue sources from the city. there is also a need for the city to comply with state law. not convinced that the city has (inaudible) we also are fairly certain that hcd will not be satisfied with the housing element in the current state due to the major components missing such as alternative actions in case the housing pipeline is not realized.

accountability (inaudible) greater changes are needed and hope (inaudible) by next week and thank you. >> hello. my name is (inaudible) san francisco housing development corporation. i want to start by saying thank you to staff and commission for all your hard work on the issue and we appreciate the focus on racial equity. racism is at the root of the housing problem in san francisco and across the country. i'm encouraged to see staff broach this. we need to (inaudible) we can't achieve our goals (inaudible) glad they provide the 22 percent affordable recommended by inclusionary or required by

inclusionary. (inaudible) the first option was the best. includes both (inaudible) over a larger area, and eliminate density restrictions with (inaudible) we need those options for small scale and middle housing (inaudible) on our affordable goals, we need to make sure we prioritize affordable housing in the plan. (inaudible) 33 thousand units low income affordable housing, under 80 percent ami and 14 thousand units of (inaudible) the

funding plan be completed within the first year if the housing element is passed. thank you staff and commission. hope to get this done by the end of january. it is tight turn around so time for bold action. thank you. >> my name is mike (inaudible) i run an organization called glen park (inaudible) support the good faith efforts of the city to put together a compliant housing element that allow our city to grow and meet the needs of the next generation but confused when i saw the scope of the draft element exclude the entire eastern half of glen park because this is a wealthy neighborhood with excellent transit, great schools, we have variety of merchants within walking distance. it seems the place we should have multifamily housing not just single family. i know

my neighbors support this. you received letters from 3 dozen of my neighbors who are expressing similar sentiments. when i reached out to planning staff to ask how the boundaries was drawn they said it was based on the census tracts marked as high opportunities resources in the latest reports and the thing is though, if you look at all the other scores available the question was marked as high availability resource. it only in the latest report that it dropped below the threshold and it is because of the environmental component of the score plummeted in one year because of a cleanup projects on the opposite side of san jose avenue. a neighboring tract there was a parcel where dry cleaning chemicals were found in the soil which made the score drop for one year. they are doing the clean up it is proceeding formally and will be completed and it would seem once it is done we once

again are declared high opportunity presource so i propose in order to avoid the situation where a one year blip has a impact where the next generation of housing will be built we should maybe not look at the one year but include any census tract that met the threshold in 3 out of the last 5 years so we smooth out single year aberrations. thank you for your time. >> commissioners, this is loreen petty. senior long time affordable housing advocate. i are wrote you previously (inaudible) i'm here

to take issue with the draft housing element classifying community opposition as a obstacle to building because it slows the process. that is like saying voting is bad because it takes too much time. we should be able to build without denying certain participations. population brings agency to people. guarantees inclusion of peoples voices (inaudible) when the developer is not listening. planning staff suggest (inaudible) we need

strong commitment to insure the (inaudible)

thank the staff for acknowledging the (inaudible) i hope in the crafting of the housing element (inaudible) thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is (inaudible) i live in san francisco in district 7 on the west side. speaking today because we need to have a compliant housing element by january to make sure we don't lose our

vital funding for transit affordable housing and want to encourage here we have a realistic plan to build the 82 thousand homes we have it by 2031 and we measure that with accountability. how to measure that to make sure we have success and put that into the plan so that everyone can be assured that we are going to be on the track and if we are not on the track we automatic adjustments to make sure it steers in the right direction on that. i appreciate the hard work that the staff and commission have done with this and want to encourage everyone to get this done as thoroughly and quickly as we can. thanks. >> okay. last call for public comment. again, if quou are you are in the chambers come forward,

remotely star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no additional request to speakers, public comment is closed. it is now before you. >> thank you staff. commissioners, does anybody want to kick us off today? commissioner diamond. >> question to director hillis. i have a number of questions and comments. some directed at staff and the rest are comments and kind of interspersed in no particular order. the director hillis, the staff that has prepared to date has done an amazing job. our thanks to you for

delving deep into this incredibly complex topic listening to the comments that you received responding to them and keeping the document marching forward in a way where we can potentially meet the deadlines set. even with it being shortened by several months at the last minute. hats off to all of you. my concern is that january 31 isn't the end of this process. it is actually in many respects the start of the more complicated and important next phase of the project which is rezoning and implementation and i dont know if you thought that far ahead. assume you have, but who will be leading the staff effort on the rezoning given we will be losing some of the incredible talent that has not all mr. pappus i know (inaudible) who do you see as the team to lead forward on the next implementation

stage and in particular the monumental rezoning effort that will be starting? >> we are doing more then thinking through that, we are already assembling the team. mr. (inaudible) is here from the current planning division in leading that effort on the current planning side on the rezoning. i also want to be clear it is more then just rezoning. there is so much more in the housing element around building affordable housing, working on community lead plans in priority equity geographies that are community equity division will be part of it. in essence what comes out of the housing element is all most our department work plan going forward. not only our department we need help from economic development and from the office of housing and community development, the health department and other agencies throughout the city.

it's-i don't want to point to mr. (inaudible) saying he is leading the effort on implementation because it really is in all area of what we do as a department. yes, on the rezoning we are thinking through in staffing up already on who will be working on those projects. >> thank you for actually adding that detail, which is incredibly important and i guess my follow-up question to you on that is, will all those work areas be identified in the budget planning, because it is clearly lots of new levels of work. some areas we already worked in the past but new levels of intensity and the budget planning which i recognize will start shortly if hasn't already needs to reflect the work effort in all the areas you just mentioned plus others in the plan. >> absolutely. >> okay. >> some of-you have seen it here in past

meetings work with sunset forward or tenderloin or (inaudible) that work continues and intensifys along with the work around rezoning. yes, it is starting and you will see it intensify in the budget. >> great. thank you. some of my questions will dive deeper into those areas. i are wanted to comment first on a article i read recently in the paper since we last met about the committee that is meeting now and dont recall its name that meets every few years to set the inclusionary fees. >> technical advisory committee. doesn't tell much about it. but yes. >> the article said the jurisdiction is limited to inclusionary fees and yet it strikes me from the developer perspective and looking what the costs

are that get in the way of moving forward with the projects, it isn't just the inclusionary fees it is the cumulative impact of all the fees. each of which has nexus studies that back up and really important fees whether it's parks or childcare or whatever the issue but when you look at the cumulative impact that could be a factor making the project so costly. is there somebody-some entity, some agency, some commission that looks at the cumulative effect and not just the inclusionary housing when they are trying to determine what the appropriate rates are going forward? how does that play itself out? >> that committee is not only-it looks at the feasibility of project jz how the cost of construction and rents and our fees including inclusionary

obligations factor into the feasibility of the projects. we are doing similar analysis as part of the housing element work, part of rezoning process, so you and the board of supervisors as decision makers have that information and can make adjustments as needed. >> that analysis is done not just looking at inclusionary rates but the total package of fees and exactions imposed? >> feasibility. don't know if james or josh you want to add to that. you are right the tac is focused on inclusionary rate but in order to get to that, we got to develop sample pro formas for project and analyze whether they are feasible. james talked about part of that is construction costs. if you want to give more- >> the technical

advisory-i should note the study is from the controller's office, the chief economist of the controller and the tac advises and can opine on the results and so i think they are looking as director hillis was saying creating various pro formas that reflects prototype projects around the city and they will be looking at all the cost that go into the project jz we have done that as part of work on the 4 plex feasibility and cars to casas and different zoning proposals that have come or coming before the commission. they are going to look at that as part of the process but the focus primarily is on the feasibility of inclusionary. that is what the recommendation will focus on. >> do you report back to us on or can we get a report on the tac recommendations?

>> sure. i forget-i think the tac advice the board but can have the findings of the tac and the team attends the meeting and report to you on the findings. >> part of the issue here is the silos. we are looking at the housing element as a whole and the tac is a constraints analysis is the major focus of the work in the last month or so or throughout but what we are seeing is the results of the work in the last month or so. it feels like the tac work is really an important factor in the constraints analysis so i think it would be important for the commission to be made aware of whatever the tac concludes if that is possible. >> yep. >> i really want to thank all members of the public who wrote very thoughtful letters to us that we have been receiving and reviewing in

conjunction of this. incredible amount of work and time has gone into pouring over the various parts of the housing element and providing feedback from a number perspectives. i wanted to comment in particular on one letter. i'm sure everyone is worthy of deep consideration, but the letter i thought that really struck me was one written by mr. bettal, land use attorney from the (inaudible) who wrote on his own behalf i recall not on behalf of any particular client, and the reason his comments seemed worthy of a lot of note to me is because my understanding of his work over the last 40 years has been representation not only of for profit developers and not for profit developers and i thought he did a incredible job on point by point code

analysis of the provision that are worthy of more attention. change elimination and request staff spend time looking at each of his suggestions and determining whether or not there are-that they are issues thought about. you will be doing anyway. haven't thought about. worthy of pursuing further or for reasons he didn't mention or ones we ought to drop. i wanted to commend that letter to your attention. in the same vein but more generalized terms, the letters by sper and bay area council i thought offered very interested regional perspectives how our work in the housing element fits into the broader whole and that the suggestions were worthy of great deal of time and

reflection. of course i don't mean by focus on those 3 to diminish the substance of the others but those were 3 that caught my attention and wanted to spend a little time on here. the next question has to do with dr. of course many of the letters said we should keep dr as the comments today ind icating that is the opportunity for citizen input. others said we need a charter amendment to get rid of it entirety. it looked like we split the baby and recommending eliminating in some areas but there was a phrase used that causes me confusion and that you recommended prioritizing the use of dr in certain areas, and i don't understand exactly what that means. does that mean that dr filed in certain parts of the city will be heard first and that

dr in other areas are still heard but will be heard later which means that drag the process out even further or did you mean that you thought dr should be permitped in certain areas but not in others? i was confused by the terminology prioritizing dr in certain areas . >> i think this is a critical correction question because a lot of the pieces fit together. if you look at the highest number of dr in the city it is primarily in the high resource and higher resource areas. i think when you look at that map and also imagine ministerial process and how that might happen-the housing element has a point of view and actions active that pieces that move forward but don't know which form they take because under the city charter discretionary

review is built into it. we might have a housing sustainability district. that is action we recommend especially as a jump start program that works with rezoning and focus on well resourced neighborhood but could be another path. we have things on the ballot coming up quickly and one of the options may open up future option in a way we haven't before. we are also reusing sites which requires under state law to be able to find ministerial pathway for sites used for the cycle of rena. of course we have ab2011 so implies there are certain state sites eligible through that program. there is a lot of different ways minterial will happen and that will automatically accept thinshs out of the dr process. >> that is what you meant by prioritization? >> that is one part. there are areas of the city removed from that

and dr still available in other areas, particularly in our priority equity geography where we do community lead process which takes a while. many of those have been mentioned are happening now but the picture of time there are important convarsations that need to happen on the ground in the community around uses and maybe the dpround floor use and residential project in which that probably still needs to happen. eventually one would want the structural changes and access into this process to be fundamental so you wouldn't need dr in the future but this will go on some time and public voice is still really critical. >> thank you for that explanation. in the (inaudible) letter they seem to suggest we need to pick one of the 3 scenarios. could you explain-i

know that isn't the way we have been proceeding. i was deeply appreciative that you included the two other scenarios so it didn't look like we already pre-selected a scenario and there were three that are quite different. i will say for me personally the two new scenarios make more sense. they add more housing. they are based primarily on the commercial corridors. not on the residential side streets. i just really am much more supportive of the last two scenarios, particularly the third one. i was surprised to see in the letter that they thought that we should be picking one now as a backup. could you give us your thoughts on- >> that is more a recommendation. the scenarios exist in the eir. they are in the-they are showing how we could specific changes in zoning we could get to the 80

thousand plus units using the policies that we developed in the housing element. there is probably then 3 ways to get there. there could be elements of scenario 1 and 2 that we marry and get to it. what we are focused on is we get there from the elements in the policies proposing in the housing element and that is what hcd is looking at. the eir is more how specifically we get there through- >> you do not believe we are required to pick one? >> no. >> as a backup of whatever that means for the housing element? >> can i are ask a follow question because i had a similar question. they were specifically indicating putting the saw nario into a form which i was curious if that is required as part of the housing element and so in some ways we need to choose something because we have to submit to hcd

a set of sites. >> there is a form required and we have submitted a form as part of the site inventory. we have put all three in there. designating and showing all 3 because we want to be clear there are options. there is interest in having things more anchored as a way to demonstrate the density and zoning proposed on individual sites and so this is a request they are making we have to evaluate whether it is the proper path but think it isn't in the housing element law you only have to do one. >> as long as we have the form completed. >> the form is the appendix that came out a couple weeks ago that goes to every site in the city. okay. along the same line there is a lot of discussion in the letters about a circuit breaker. could you elaborate on what all the commenters are getting on? >> the circuit breaker

was in hcd letter as well. they asked us to provide that. the circuit breaker intent as i understand it is as you had brought forward previously that this is the start of the process. the housing element is critical and must be in compliance and need it certified by the date then rezoning comes forward and other actions come forward so we need to maintain certification and that is a process ongoing which is why we are talking how we will do this work as a department and other agencies. we need to be doing the pieces that allow for that additional capacity but also need to make sure we are putting those other pieces in as well. the circuit breaker says that if we the idea of is if we are not achieving our goals and the rena goals are extremely high, there will be annual checks on sort of the advancement towards that and we know the conditions are extreme and difficult from a feasibility standpoint and funding for

affordable housing something will kick in. the housing element has a-it makes suggestions on the ways to achieve things. there is some idea i think from some groups that it could be more anchored or mandatory in certain ways and this would be a way to create something that is mandatory effect that would require additional legislation to kick in which allow for additional height or additional density or additional bonus for example that would automatically kick in at a period of time if we are not achieving those goals. that is what the goal is around that particular- >> that language circuit breaker concept is not currently included? >> this is not in the action. >> is your initant- >> we are studying it now. >> okay. thank you. >> it is also to see because we are already doing rezoning we want to facilitate housing

now. >> few more here. thank you for indulgeing me. this version of the housing element we saw said that the eir didn't identify any su. any significant unmitigated impact that constrain our ability to go forward with these scenarios. yet my recollection from reading is it did point out that there was concern about sufficient transit and wastewater capacity on the west side of the city, and i don't know they rose to the level of su, but there were assumptions about capacity and plans moving forward and wonder how we coordinate moving the housing the same time as we work with public

works and whatever other agencies out there, particularly in the areas of transit and wastewater capacity which were the two areas that caught my attention in the eir and wonder if you can address that. evefen they are not constraints that preclude moving forward, for people who live on the est west side they are concerned about transit and wastewater capacity and want to make sure there is sufficient for the amount we are rezoning there. how do you reconcile those? >> thank you. james pappus with planning staff. so, for the sites inventory requirement we need to show a base level of infrastructure that can accommodate sites and that is basic sewer and water and electrical service. all that. there

wasn't a concern that that existed. i think the language in the eir, it does study a longer time horizon and are larger total amount of growth, approximately double the rena for the cycle. i think that is a key difference in terms of the possible capacity issues that could be faced. that is what i recall the eir bringing up is there could be capacity issues that need to be addressed further out in the study period. so, i don't-we didn't perceive there was disconnect between the immediate growth to be planned for within the rena period for the housing element and the longer term growth studied under the eir. >> commissioner, i want to add that both the housing element discuss the number of actions as part of the

housing element that the city needs to take in terms of coordinated with mta and other infrastructure aejsss so agency (inaudible) the department and city are undertaking other major long range planning efforts that support the growth including the update to the transportation element and see rolling out over the next year so working closely with mta and transportation authority and hope to come before you in the coming year with a lot of that. the mta published on the blog within the last couple weeks west side story if you will on everything that is currently underway that the mta have this on the radar, all the efforts going on as well as long range plans that they are also on the radar and you see coming out over the coming year. >> my question was just to make sure that

we are tracking the work not only with transportation but wastewater capacity and making sure as a planning department we do and commission doing whatever is necessary to push all those along simultaneously. >> very much so and in coordination with sfpuc and public works and they have reviewed the housing element projections and planning for that as part of the urban water management plan and aware of all the projections. >> thank you. my next question has to do with the-may become a pet peeve for the commission a state density bonus project that changed the height limits, and i wonder if you could describe how the height limits analyzed in the draft eir for the housing element which project 85, 65,

55 feet, how you reconcile that with developers ability to do state density bonus projects? are we likely to see projects not 85 feet but 120 feet or is 85 feet where it is proposed as a height limit with or without a state density bonus? >> under the eir when the allocation of the units and the way we look at that it was about height. it wasn't taking into aconsideration how you get to the height. it it could be a 40 foot zone and get additional height because you use state density bonus which isn't always height. it basically didn't take that into consideration in terms of the mechanism, just look ed at the overall scale of a project and how that would be therefore impacts would be accumulated. >> when we look at scenarios and ultimately pick

numbers as part of rezoning, will those numbers be lower then the 65, 85, 65, 55 because we assume that many of the projects as we see will take advantage of state density bonus to get them up to 85, 65 or 55? >> that is part of the design of the package and what the rezoning is. it could be we the change height. if it is local bonus you can only use one or may be we rezone the two heights. i think that will be part of the conversation and there may be different advantages because state density bonus requires on site inclusionary for example. that is part of the rezoning package. again, the design of the mechanisms and considerations of other things happening in the state because they are certainly housing accountability

act. >> most of the planning we have done in the past was pre-dated the time we saw many projects coming forward. i think the exception is the hub where we factored in that you could take advantage of state density bonus. the bottom line is we'll work to heights whether you get there with state density bonus or not. >> okay. thank you. i just feel like now that we know that the state density bonus is out there and seem to be very attractive to developers that we in setting our heights for which we analyzed the impacts of those in the eir that we assume that the max we will go to unless we want to do another eir that that's the max we will go to with state density bonus. >> that's the

intention. >> as we denseify the west side, which seems to me to be clearly the direction we are going in and very supportive of that, the issue about shadow on parks becomes incredibly important. we are as we increase height on commercial corridors we will no doubt shadowing many residents backyards. increasing the number people on the west side. how we think about making sure that our parks don't get additional shade and the quality be experienced in that park remains to be an incredibly important part of city life for people on the west side. that is the place kids will play. the soccer fields are. backyards will get smaller and smaller as we increase density. it strikes me we need

to focus oen making sure the quality of the park experience is not diminished and probably needs to be enhanced because we are adding 82 thousand new units with hopefully many filled with families with we have older adults and children utilizing the parks or sitting there. we are very very conscious about when we do the heights we are not height increases we are conscious about insuring that we are minimizing the amount of shadowing on those parks, increasing the how we use the parks. clearly converivation with the park and rec department but i want to make sure we are not losing the subject. just two more here. you mention at the beginning of the hearing and raised multiple times before, the downtown revitalization plan. i feel like the focus of our efforts needs to be on the west side, i don't want to

lose sight of the fact that numerous articles are being published all most daily about downtowns succeeding across the country and the commonalty of success are those 24/7, combine multiple uses, not just office or bio tech or tourist use but really places where people work and live, and i know that our zoning allows for residential downtown, but the cost of conversion of the buildings as we heard before and seen in many reports is extraordinarily high so where does the conversation occur but incentives needed-a, do we agree doing everything we can to incentivize residential downtown is a good thing? that strikes me as something that should be in the housing element. where does the conversation occur about incentives

needed to make that happen? you could do it now thin books and nobody is doing it because it cost too much money. what are incentives needed in order to encourage residential downtown? >> just a couple thoughts on that. one, we always encouraged mixed use. everything since it downtown plan adopted we pushed for a mixed use downtown that included residential. the fact was office development was economically preferred for developers and others who were building that. as downtown expanded to the south the central soma and transbay and mission bay, we put things into our code to encourage and incentivize residential or require residential in order to get what we wanted to see happen which was a mixed use downtown. i think

that's always our premise as we planned original downtown plan. we'll continue to do that. i think what we need to see is where-how this shifts-how people are working changes the demand for office space and whether that will lead to long-term vacancies downtown office space and how easy to convert and what changes we may need to make to the code to convert. i think the fact we haven't seen-we have seen a lot of residential downtown but haven't seen conversion. office is preferred economically to residential. that may shift on its own as we move forward and residential may be more economically viable. >> we don't have the report yet from oewd

in the downtown revitalization plan but it seems the articles in the press that for the older office buildings class b and c they have (inaudible) lend themselves many leases may not be renewed going forward given the shift where work is being done and that picking up on the themes of access to transit and sustainability we got these existing buildings that are under utilized. what is it that encourage a landlord to convert the building from under utilized office building to residential building. is it a problem with the building codes? are the fee s too high for that to occur? i just feel like that needs an intense focus. >> that is part of our work plan around recovery downtown is looking to see the feasibility of conversion and what may be standing in the way of that conversion. if it is

just that office makes better sense financially we are probably not going to see a lot of conversion. if office takes a bigger and bigger hit and residential becomes-that is the thing we are looking at is why those conversions may not be taking place especially where you have significant level of vacancies. >> i want to make sure we are not being reactive and proactive. do we think it would be a good idea to have more residential north of market downtown and if we do what can we do to incent vise that behavior? the eighty-first question is do we think this is a good idea? >> we always thought that. >> as a result of the pandemic is it more important to have people living there who can be shopping at the small retail shops. i'm sure everyone had the experience now walking through the embarcadero and seeing

empty store after empty store that used to be filled with workers and the question is, if we think that retail whether it's in the business district or union square area would benefit by having more people living downtown, then what are the policies that we want to adopt to encourage that conversion? i'm hoping that is part of what oewd is doing? >> it is part of what we are doing. >> my last comment is picks up on the comments made earlier today about the benefit of the community plans and i would like to broaden that concept beyond just the priority areas we have been talking about. we are adding the bulk of these units to the west side, and i think that thet work done by sunset forward was incredible. we all commented how we

really thought it was so enabling and hopeful to us to see in small area plans like the sunset, everything addressed in one place. child care, parks, open space, seniors, housing and as we talk about denseifying the richmond and the central part of the city it strikes me that we need to figure out how all this density fits into the neighborhoods. we are trying to move towards objective standards and support that and think we should move away from conditional use permits. we talked about housing sustainability district but the planning to continue to make the neighborhoods feel like neighborhoods because that is what people price about living in san francisco is the sense of identify with their neighborhood isn't displaced by adding vast amounts of density and that we can do that as a planning department with objective standards and with the community planning tools that we just see

are done so successfully with plans like sunset forward and strikes me that would be a excellent tool to use to reassure the neighborhoods in the inner and outer richmond and central part of the city and marina is based upon the work to make sure the neighborhoods feel like neighborhoods. we are not just adding density without thinking about the consequences for the people who already live there who will be subject to significant neighborhood transformation over the next 10 to 20 years as we denseify that area. i don't know if that is on the work or add that in. great. thank you for indulgeing me on all those comments and i'm done. >> thank you. great comments. i will call on commissioner koppel >> this is a very complex topic so i think it warrants this amount of attention and question. thanks again for staff for

putting up with our questions and concerns. this is a urgent deal. i wanted to touch on what i think is another under utilized tool that we have in our tool box. the housing sustainability districts. thanks again to member david chu authoring a great tool to streamline get more affordable housing built without a lot of developers complain about the eir and there ceqa requirements. i think that is a very under utilized tool i think more developers should look at. to put that in context last night i attendeded the city build graduation put on by the mayor office and office of economic work force development and it is just a really heart warming night to see a lot of residents a lot of city kids primarily from the 94124 and mission districts that

are finally getting a chance to participate in our city and the construction and building of our city. what happened over the course of the years with multiple mayors and supervisors, is we dropped the barriers that a lot of residents have typically complained about get nothing to these trades. what city build is is a 12 week very very stressful rigorous preaprintsship program residents can sign up for and upon completion with perfect attendance and b average these students are able to by-pass what is typically the roadblock, entry exam to get into the trades. it is a huge tool that i think is under-utilized through the housing sustainability district because these kids-what happened over the course of the year, it used to be

still mainly male dominated classes. i go and speak to the kids and let them know the opportunities they have in front of them and when those graduates have gotten into our trade i'm their mentor. i like to see the look of the faces when they graduate and don't know what good cool stuff they have in front of them and it is a chance to have a career. years past it is mainly male classes and last night at least a half or 2/3 of the graduating class was women of color. it is a really big deal. it shows what is happening within the city thanks to all the city officials involved. there is a lot of instructors and resources and schools located down in bayview hunters point, but if housing sustainability districts are used these graduates that are going to be trained within labor carpenter operating

engineer sheet metal workers plumbers and electricians get to work on projects in their own city hopefully town starting at a low wage creating incentives for developers for cost savings and also be starting their career and hopefully able to stay in san francisco the city they group up in. i just want to see that used a little more often because we do hear complaints about the getting approvals and by-passing eir that is a huge benefit and guarantees 20 percent affordable on site. if that could be encouraged in any way shape or form i think it is a good idea to get us more housing built faster. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> thank you fellow commissioners for all the questions and comments. they are all compelling comments. i also want to thank the

department, the staff that is working on this and giving us up to date presentations. but i do have some questions when it comes to affordable housing. one presented by the staff is that, in terms of the pipeline for the low income, which i (inaudible) there are still 12.353 in the pipeline. what are the discussion or i guess conversation happening right now in terms of how to fast-track this pipeline in terms of low income? >> james pappus. there is a variety of tools. there is a call for additional funding. a substantial number of those low income units

are within the large development agreements, whether treasure island, candle stick. some of the hope sf sites sunnydale or potrero so there is funding tools and infrastructure investment helping the large developments get the groundwork laid so that the development can proceed and that would help facilitate the entirety of the development being built out. i think that in those very large projects, there's the particular challenges they face. there is funding issues, and i are think those are some of the main strategies that we are looking at and of course the cost issues we are seeing on the affordable housing side as well as throughout the housing development world right now. >> thank you. i guess

it is part of the implementation of strategy in terms of convening of different entities and looks like it (inaudible) >> director shaw in the hearings as well in terms of asking for regional and state and federal funding. it is going to take a lot of effort in our site as a city to lobby different kinds of funding. in terms of the-i do agree in terms of what the staff presented about affordable housing target. expanding the

sites acquisition. and then trying to also cross analyze that the target that we still need for low income is about 18.700. we are identifying expanding sites acquisition but at the same time of course identifying other strategies as well. i guess my question on this, i guess my dilemma, there are still pipelines that need tab fast-tracked and 18.700 units that we identify is needed. as we are trying to think of rezoning the west side area and trying to implement or at least jump-starting in terms of the approval in code compliant projects, is

that something that affordable housing is part of that in terms of ministerial approval? approval for affordable housing that is available currently. we like to expand to local process to make sure it anchored at a local level. that is available currently and we do see in comment in the constraints analysis there are other challenges beyond that just because there is a lot of conversation in communities when affordable housing comes in particularly some parts of the city where it hasn't been as prevalent so we want to make that is effective and efficient as possible. the other thing to note, with the market rate projects we have inclusionary within that process as well. with opening up sites and opportunities for more housing that is funded by market rate process, of course inclusionary will be a critical component of

that. >> one public comment mentioned--one from the labor in terms of inventvising on site. we see there is a benefit incentivizeing on site housing development, especially when there inclusionary included in it. we also know that in terms of our own process like project sponsor can choose on site off site or land dedication. is that the analysis as well or i think in terms of (inaudible) cannot make someone build something but identifying in terms of leveraging inclusionary and leverage the on site building? >> many programs that exist now require on site development so

there are different ways in which that is shifting in the city. with the use of the state density bonus i think 60 percent of the projects use state density bonus on site is required. off site is very useful but one challenge and this is a action in the housing element is that you have to do within a particular distance. i think a mile of where the market rate project is. we are recommending to make that more flexibility because we know the needs where projects happen from a market rate process versus the needs for affordable housing may shift and more complicated and acquiring sites may continue to be more complicated so we want to give flexibility so maybe our community lead processes are looking seeking different support that might be able to be helped by another project far away. we want to keep the flexibility we are seeing some of the dynamics of that change. we are very aware of that and that is something within the rezoning we will keep an eye on. there

are efficiencies. a project happens they want to be a certain size that works well and know economics are very challenging but those are slightly mid-size project. we also look to see how to help support smaller size projects for hundred percent affordable housing too. >> that is dpood good to know in terms of mid-size. i think we all know that would in terms of affordable housing, inclusionary you have to be 10 units and get 1 inclusionary on site and especially in the conversation of the site acquisition, the cost is always a big problem in the preservation and acquisition, especially when there are extensive (inaudible) i think

commissioner diamond went deeper of the analysis of fees and (inaudible) also cumulative impact fees. affordable housing project also receives impact fees, are they part of the process as well? >> this is a good question and something i remember we were talking about. they are exempt from many fees. there are a couple still there. one one we discovered was still there was the art fee for example and there are non potable water requirements and things that have recently changed. for the most part afford able housing does not have as many impact fees but there are still some so that is in the conversations. >> i guess my request is we-i do support

what commissioner diamond mentioned in terms of having the plan commission (inaudible) should also include affordable housing projects. for the impact of impact fees versus the construction cost, that is what i like to see the difference between the impact fee verses the construction cost. because i do recognize that the impact fees do help in terms of like the services that the city would provide. the transit, child care and also affordable housing is part of the impact fees as well. the findings of the cost of impact versus construction cost. i'm curious how we really try to do a 10

percent reduction cost. i don't know if that could be part of the findings from tac, but-i'm hoping that the department give us also (inaudible) how to reduce the construction costs, because at the end of the day we are (inaudible) these cost are dictated by the market and how we control these costs and actually interested to find that out in what way. i know that you guys discussed something about expanding construction programs in order to reduce cost, but that is still an essential question to me is how to reduce cost when it is the market that

dictates this cost? i do also agree in what commissioner diamond mentioned in terms of as we look into the other neighborhoods like richmond, the inner richmond area is going to be expected to be rezoned. are there also efforts like the same as the sunset forward that in that area that the planning department is also creating community engagement and planning? >> hi, commissioner. joshua (inaudible) at present we will be focused on the immediate implementation of the broader housing element pressing needs in terms of rezoning. we would hope to and want to do neighborhood plans

like you are describing in most of all the areas and it will take time to roll it out, but largely be a resource question in terms of the available fund ing staff. offer all the benefits that all the commissioners discussed in terms of providing a broad vision and we have-we have done a lot of plans for half the city and most of the west side and north side don't have plans for them and at some point in the future we hope to get there. it is just a matter of rolling it out. >> thank you. i guess that is the question or comment to director hillis in terms of the (inaudible) budget for the next year and the kinds of community engagement planning that we will need to

allocate for this kind of effort. especially in the-air yeahs where there are--that the department that should be part of the rezoning. i would-i hope that here in the commission we can discuss deeper or have robust discussion of community engagement and where we prioritize this for the rezoning. i think those are my questions and thank you so much again for all the staff and this really incredible work and discussion are still thin works as i see and are this is going to be a really multi-prong approach for-mull-year at the same time too. thank you. >> commissioner- >> i was going to add,

we should have the conversation when we talk about budget because we are asked to do a lot in the next phase of implementation. developing a plan how to get at the affordable housing numbers, looking at community lead strategy and priority geography and rezoning and how intense that effort is in those neighborhoods and those planning efforts. it is a big ask for us and we got to figure how to allocate resources to those chasks as well. >> i'll pick up there with few last comments. i want to say commissioners mostly covered many topics so will try not to retread ground too much. we had a robust discussion. thank you for sharing discussion about city build. it is good to think the ways we are successful and how to build on that and how to build on the program they already have and help meet multiple goals.

i'll pick up on the community planning topic with a comment and then as you said trying to figure how we resource those plans. to me it is two fold. we have rezoning happening which it is a broad swath is from a form standpoint the buildings will be changing, more people there so how we use the opportunity to think about with communities like how to keep their neighborhood the charm and the character not so much how it looks but how it feels how it operates and is to live there and what that looks like so how to use the opportunity to layer that in because i think part of the challenge is we want to-i like to see us continue to prioritize the equity geography where folks had rezoning over the past decades so already had that happen and so now we come to say okay we did rezoning part, but need to do community planning part about

resources and community facilities and or check in how is that area plan gone? maybe it is 10 or 20 years since adopted where are we at and the implementation. it is resource question i think we have to figure how to do all these at the same time and make sure we are equitable and center racial equity and recognizing the rezoning is huge and take a lot of staff time and effort and get done within 3 years which some like it happen sooner but it is already a tight timeline so that is something to figure out. i don't know if you had comments around difference between community planning as we talk about and the equity geography planning you talk about in terms of community lead, is that different or the same or how do you distinguish that? >> president tanner, there is overlap between priority equity geography and cultural district and

communities focused on. we have the tenderloin effort that you heard about. we are more strategics and focus on bayview and mission as well and south of market cultural district, so for the most part the efforts we have are covering the priority equity. >> what we are talking here is in addition to that and or maybe aligned with rezoning efforts taking place. thank you very much. the other question i want to pick up on is the circuit breaker idea. wonder who is the lead on the idea, the way i understand it and love for you to illuminate it would be some legislation that pass-the housing element is general plan element. it does not create legislation that is triggered at a date if a target isn't met so the board would have to pass and adopt legislation that says if by x time period

within this thing then shall become the law of the lands. is that what it would be? >> correct. this is my understanding and maybe city attorney want to jump to clarify. we can put things within the general plan that have a lotf othings are very flexible and talk about studies and talk about investigate or see how something could form into a future piece of legislation and this case it is more in a mandatory framework. it would say something that says we need to do this legislation by a particular time and there are two things. one it is part of our local process and legislation. the other is we have to remember this is ongoing process maintaining certification so part is also a request hcd willlic what we have done and have we accomplished things that are fundamental that give the confident of complying with state law. that is a piece they would

be very attentive to and have expectation but think it has a deeper seat within the general plan as well as something that needs to be taken care of. >> i don't know if the city attorney wanted to add about the circuit breaker concept and how it would function. if we were to do that would it be a seat here thin housing element and later on something would have to occur? >> deputy city attorney. i don't have anything to add on the circuit breaker concept. my colleague austin yang was here has deeper knowledge of that but i can't add anything. >> we are not the authors of this. this is something suggested from the outside. >> absolutely. >> if i could add, there is a circuit breaker that has been proposed, but some of our stakeholders indicating that if we don't get to build a

certain number of units we should rezone-automatically rezone for more. what we are trying to figure out is, if we are not able to build what would be the incentive that support the construction of units if we already have the capacity but not being enacted. what we are trying to identify incentives in terms of regulations or economic incentive or fee but the point of expanding zoning might not address the need we have to actually deliver those units. it could be that we ask the state allocate a certain amount of resources if we don't get to certain level if we have fulfilled all our obligations, but that is something that we will discuss with hcd tomorrow. >> part of my understanding is hcd has been supportive of the concept and the

letter was long so (inaudible) did you is a sense of their very much like a need to have? we like you to do it or just a idea that they were proposing? get a sense how much they weight they put on the concept . >> they want to insure that cities don't end the job with submittal and approval of the housing element. they have really emphasized the certification if we fail to deliver on our end of implementing the actions that we are proposing. in terms of the actual construction of units, that is something that they have not necessarily emphasized. i think the state and cities are well affair that in order to deliver this level of affordability, we need

to do a lot of work. we need capacity building. simplify the process. community if engagement and funding. we need resources beyond what each individual city can do. that's the state and federal funding that needs to come. >> maybe while you are here, another topic i was curious about is how the conversation has been or what we observed in city council and other jurisdictions we talked to around the role financial feasibility does or does not play. not encouraging to read every prototype isn't feasible now. nothing makes sense to build at this current particular moment. we are in a very down sling of the economic cycle, hopefully in the 8 years of the element we will be on up swing so the numbers could change. it is hard to understand how does hcd take that point in time perspective and apply or not apply it to our ability to deliver the units? what risk is that for

the element being certified or more to the point of monitoring every year so maybe things get better, it is working and things are not better we need to do something more drastic. i don't know how the conversations have been. >> with other cities it is what you described. it is construction has become extremely expensive and difficult for any city to deliver, but we have to say for us it is a little more expensive and we-our ability to deliver a certain scale in relation to the goals is a roles is more difficult then other cities. in terms of monitoring, that's what you are saying, if checking with hcd there are regular check ins how we met our goals and that's why there is a lot of emphasis on the implementation program

to specify what short term, medium and long-term within the 8 year cycle. whether the specific numbers are going to be annually or every 2 years that's part of what hcd is still trying to set. >> okay. certainly a little uncertain time now and waiting to see what will happen. while the circuit breaker concept is intriguing the challenge is timing aligning so if we are certified by january 31 we'll do rezoning that is 3 years and half way through to then add more capacity before capacity is added had a chance to make itself known as useful or not. i think that is challenging. interesting concept but part to think how we have regular check ins so we are thinking about what dials we need to turn as we get through the cycle and through the housing element. maybe it is

tracking large projects, the 60 thousand units that are pipeline and existing. are there places that are not the west side that needs tweaking zoning or other level. the policy 25, 26, 27, 28 all those things about process improvements, getting barriers out of the way, things that are not just shoveling money out the door, we need to be do all those things to at least break down barriers and see how to decrease permitting timelines, all those thingerize great and happy to see they are specific and clear and agree with commissioner diamond looking at the letters we received and more specific very specific and very clear other things that could help development community be able to come to the table and get projects off the ground here. really would appreciate that. question-we had a lot of questions about glen park-has staff

looked into this? it seemed-see a lot of nodding. it seemed interesting dry cleaner causing increase and then not included as a neighborhood. is that true? can we address that? is it a error? what does staff think? >> the housing element has a very clear perspective on where we should concentrate growth and so it used the well resourced neighborhood boundaries at a moment in time 2020 those shift over time and we are well aware of that and the 2022 boundaries a little different on the edges and so part of what you see in those 3 different rezoning examples in the documents is a little more tweaking around the edges particularly and we will continue to refine those and as we go through the rezoning process in 2023 we'll revisit those boundaries and make sure they make sense. we also know census tract boundaries are large

don't necessarily totally reflect the conditions on the ground one block to the next. we know noe valley which was not high resource neighborhood in 2020 is well within it in 2022 and some of these things are a little arbitrary is wrong word but the data maybe doesn't have rely on the ground. >> thank you for that. glen park (inaudible) stay tuned and keep advocateing for inclusion of the neighborhood. i also thought there was interesting ideas in the housing element also in the letters around different ways of funding taxing connecting to social housing. in the time we have less money for all the things we want to do then before but thinking about creative ways we can jen rate more revenues as a city that can go into projects like social housing which continue to be worked on. there is a lot of

potential with social housing. i love to see that connection made more between social housing and not just affordable or inclusionary but as another opportunity to have more (inaudible) not in the market place and more controlled in terms of the price impacts for folks. i agree with commissioner diamond on the height. factor state density bonus but that is in the future work to be performed. i believe that is all the comments i have. i don't know if staff have final comments? >> just to make aware, before we hear this next on november 17 and we ask you to initiate and certify the board committee as a whole hearing on it so we'll get-because the board has a thumbs up or down vote. it comes back we think the hearing is critical to get the board feedback on the

specifics in the housing element. we may not be able to report in detail or with a memo before the 17 hearing but we will certainly give you a update on the 17 about what the board talks about on the 15. >> great. excellent. thank you staff and those no longer on this team, we are so grateful for your service to the department to the city and to the future of san francisco. >> shelly are you hear at the next hearing? >> we'll say see you later. i think we'll take a 5 minute break at this time. [recess]

>> okay. good afternoon again and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday november 3, 2022. we left off on item 9, 2021-006098 crrkts ucs a, 1358 south van ness. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization to allow the demolition of existing residential dwelling unit. the project includes demolition of the existing 4200 square foot 3 story 12 room single family residents and separate

garage structure and construction of new 8131 square foot 4 story 40 foot tall residential building with 7 dwelling units 1 studio, 1, 1 bedroom and 5, 2 bedroom. (inaudible) the sponsor also met with the latino cultural district in august 2021 and submitted a revised drawing subsequent to incorporate a number of design modifications. an agreement is signed with all tenants residing in the house and the sponsor is in the process of finalize the agreement with the rent board. so far the department has received 3 letters of support from all the tenants currently residing e in the building. the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the mission area plan and

objectives and policies of the general plan. the project replace 1 extremely large single family residential with 7 smaller units. 5 out of the 7 replacement units containing 2 bedrooms. the department also finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and not detrimental to the person or properties. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any question you may have. the sponsor team is here and prepared a presentation. >> project sponsor, you have 5 minutes.

>> good afternoon. i'm here to walk through this presentation we have. we designed 4 story, 7 unit apartment building at 1358 south van ness. >> sf gov, can we go to the computer? >> this is table of content. will not bore you with that. the building is 4702 square foot built in 1907. the setbacks building is zero on the west, north and south and 10 feet from the south van ness. based on the conversation with planning department we took the average of two buildings adjacent

to the east side and the setback on the south van ness is 13 (inaudible) we have setback on the west side which is 25 feet 8 inches. this is a picture of the building within the community here. this building looking bird eye looking west, looking east and these are pictures of the building. had non descriptive facade. these are picture across along the same side of the project as well as the building off the alley on the west side of the property. what we are proposing to demolish the existing three story building and build a 4 story building 42 feet high with 1 studio, 1 bedroom and 5, 2 bedrooms. the 4th

floor has a setback 15 on the east side and 10 on the ws west side. these are examples of buildings throughout the city. i took a picture, they have (inaudible) more modern and different pictures of building built in the vicinity half a mile from the project. wanted to be consistent with the design. this is example of the building within the half mile from our building. this is another example of building, 4 floor 15 feet setback from the third floor. these options were preliminary design submitted to the plan department to have a

modern design for this project. after discussing with our planner a few times we decided to not go to modern, use features we have like a bay window but smaller fashion and implement our design. we met with the community leaders twice, one april of 2021 and the second time in august of 2021 because the project is located at (inaudible) design guidelines. we met with the president of the latino cultural district and met with community leaders there. we implement the comments. there were comments we implemented. one of them was they wanted to have the front door instead of glass (inaudible) consistent with the neighborhood.

on the back side facing cypress alley we have the glass wall between the alley and community area that we have. they ask us to remove the glass and put stucco wall for the local artist to use as a pallet for their graffito. this is a packet submitted. these are enlarged information regarding this package. we have city (inaudible) to larger 2 bedroom 1001 and smaller two bedroom apartments total 7. existing and proposed site plan. more pictures. converivation with the planners decided to use the color of the building, which adjacent to the building we have field color for the building. light gray blue and bay windows darker blue gray color

and we had a band of color at the (inaudible) recommendation of local leaders they ask us to do. these are elevations and this section of the building -- >> thank you. if that concludes project sponsor prez pan rentation we should open public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you are in the chamber come forward. remotely press star 3 or webex raise your hand. no members in the chambers we'll go to remote callers. when you hear the line is unmuted you can begin speaking. go ahead caller. hello?

>> hi, everyone. my name is (inaudible) i am a home owner. i live a few doors down from this property and i just wanted to express support for the proposed changes. i think that the maintaining that 3 story height level and setting back the 4th floor and generally bringing more units to the block is a great idea. it represents i think a diverse similarly diverse set of housing that exists on our block. i really think this is the kind of thing we should be doing not only on this block but other parts of the city as well. as a home owner a few doors down i think this is a thoughtful proposal that fits nicely into the fabric of our block. >> okay, thank you. last call for public

comment on this matter. again, come forward in the chamber, calling in press star 3. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and this item is before you. >> thank you. i'll start by saying thank you to the project sponsor and happy to see the letter of support from tenants and seemed thoughtfully designed and executed project from community outreach as well as architecture and creating more housing units 7 where there is now 1 is what we like to see so happy to be supportive of the project today. >> my sentiments. i couldn't add much more and make a motion to approve. >> second. >> on the motion to approve with conditions- [roll call] so moved

commissioners. motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 10 for case 2021-001639cua. 2270 mckinnon street conditional use authorization. >> commissioners i wanted to disclose to you that one of the consultants for the project john (inaudible) and i sit on a non profit committee relating to project finance for unrelated project and will have no impact on my ability to be neutral in thinking and deliberation on the project. >> thank you commissioner diamond. >> good afternoon again. planning department staff. the item is conditional use authorization for plan unit development pud on the site over half a acre and establish a mix use building in the pdr zoning district industrial

protection zone ipz special use district. (inaudible) african american arts and culture district. the project includes demolition of an existing private parking lot and construction of a 5 story mix use building with approximately 151 thousand square feet of self-storage use and 23.460 square feet of pdr use. 8 bike parking spaces, 6 accessory vehicle parking spaces and 4 loading spaces. for project in the ipz the zoning controls for the m2 zoning districts apply rather then underlying pdr zoning. in m2 zoning district it permits retail (inaudible) including self-storage use and variety of pdr uses. on october 18, 2022 the board of supervisors passed ordinance to eliminate

the ipzsud but with grandfathering provision to permit self-storage use application if submitted before 2022. provided that no less then 50 percent of the parcel area consist of ground floor pdr institutional community use or (inaudible) this development application was submitted in 2021. this ordinance won't be effective until november 27, 2022 the proposal would meet the conditions outlined above. as part of the pud the project requires modification for use size which limit a single retail use to 120 thousand gross square feet. the proposed site (inaudible) 5 story development, also self-storage and light retail will not generate a significant amount of daily trips

that impact the neighborhood. in terms of the outreach, the project sponsor conducted multiple outreach with neighbors and community stakeholders and presented before the bayview hunter point july 2022 and received endorsement letter. also, the project sponsor entered into mou with the (inaudible) community facility use. so far the department received 9 letters in support including the adjacent neighbors, san francisco brown bombers, san francisco building and construction trade council and iron workers local union 377. in summary, the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the bayview hunter point area plan and objectives and policies of the general plan. the redevelopment of the existing private parking lot will result in a net gain of pdr space and provide the neighborhood and city with vital and

under-supplied self-storage spaces that compatible with the neighborhood. the department also finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and not detrimental to persons of properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions you may have. the project sponsor team is also here and has prepared a presentation. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> we are pulling up the slides. sf gov, can we go to the computer, please? >> good afternoon president tanner, vice president moore,

commissioners. travis duncan, dpa development. decka is based in san francisco. project in san francisco, the east bay and southern california. i like to thank our planners (inaudible) hard work to get us here today. our proposed project will transform existing surface parking lot to mixed use project that support it function of the city business and residents while providing array of community benefits. ground floor pdr is active (inaudible) with self-storage on the upper level supporting people in transition and provides affordable flexible small for local businesses and residents. today the site is in disrepair and struggle with sidewalk and pedestrian access. our project will add (inaudible) our

architect will expand on the design momentarily. summarizing the benefit of the project, first the vast majority of the ground floor is dedicated to brand new pdr space. in total just over 23 thousand square feet. as a result the project create a total of 47 permanent jobs. 39 of which are high paying skill building jobs that tend to be filled by local residents. i won't read all the benefits but like to highlight our project labor agreements with the san francisco building and construction trades council. as such the project exclusively utilize union trades people creating 135 union construction jobs. the project signed a mou to provide 1800 square feet of rent free space to the san francisco brown bombers a local youth football and cheer non profit that served san francisco kids over 20 years. will be the

new headquarters with gym dance studio (inaudible) thrilled to support the work and provide a new home to help them expand their mission. with that, i will turn it over to brian our architect to discuss the project design;gic >> thank you. i like to start by just saying i'm a principle at (inaudible) we do a lot of work in the pdr sphere and have a number projects in the immediate vicinity. highlighting a couple benefits of the project you see a green roof which we think is a innovative way meeting the storm water goals as well as providing relief to aerial born wildlife as they move around the barren area of pdr buildings. as travis noted the production distribution repair space takes over the predominance of the ground floor. the storage entry is located at the corner. the entry are on both

mckinnon and upton. he noted and provide new sidewalk curb gutter street trees bike amenities that reinforcement the building public presence. the building from expression perspective is chrisp quite contemporary and hope a suitable building for this function. it is poured in place concrete bottom. metdal and glazing on the upper level (inaudible) architectural feature. bit more detail about what we are planning. deeply ribboned metal panel facade at the upper areas of the building, virtically oriented cast in place concrete lower side, individual metal canopy and signage for the individual business entries

providing orientation. here is a view of the project from upton looking at it corner of mckinnon highlighting the ground floor pdr space. i think in summary the project unique mixture of uses all of which are in service to building residents small businesses and community stakeholders. travis. >> just couple final notes focus on the outreach. the project received 10 letters, (inaudible) the letters included both next door neighbors and other key stakeholders and as mentioned unanimous recommendation from the bayview cac. as you know likely those are appointed by the board, the mayor city administrator. that's really all we have today. thank you so much for the time. our whole team is here to answer questions you might have. we hope you approve it and thanks again for your consideration. >> thank you. that concludes project

sponsor presentation and should open public comment. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by coming forward if in the chambers or calling remotely press star 3. >> before the next commenter goes, commissioner diamond wanted to share something. >> i didn't see where the space was for the brown bombers on the first floor plan. could you pull that up and show where it is? >> i can go to the slide that doesn't show it. when we submitted our plans in june we had not formalized the agreement. in the forthcoming it will show. it will front upton most likely on the south corner closest to the blue box which is hard to see but that is a core of that rear space. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioners. my name is (inaudible) president of local 261. here in support of this project and on behalf of over 5500 members i urge you to approve this project. this project provides union jobs living wages with pension, true careers. we work very close with city build as do all the building trades and it helps a lot local community. thank you so much. >> hi. good afternoon president tanner and commissionersism (inaudible) president of san francisco brown bombers a youth development organization started over 23 years ago

based in it bayview hunter point development and provide opportunities for children all over san francisco and every cornerism . we are here to really emphasize that we have come upon a rare opportunity for our organization to find a community developer private developer willing to come into the community and take the work we do with a all volunteer staff of more then 45 staff members to work with us help us rationalize and reimagine our vision and the work we do. the project at 27 mckinnon provides great union jobs but more so importantly they have embraced the mission of our organization and have committed themselves to helping us transform the work we have done for 23 years so we can keep up with

the 22 century coming upon us and the service we can provide to our community. they are giving us the opportunity to occupy the ground floor space that gives a opportunity to have a home and actual headquarters for our community based organization which provide us shared meeting space for community, dedicated office, a gym, and dance studio. this may not be major to many people but this is major to the folks we serve within san francisco. to give this type of opportunity to a community that not only helps build one child at a time, but a community that is focused on the most vulnerable in the community which is our youth and we dont have a lot of that here in san francisco with corporate partners or big developers. i am here today again as the president of this organization since

insepshz more then 23 years ago i would like for you to strongly strongly consider-i like to urge and implore you provide your support because this is a opportunity for a community to win on multiple levels because the youth i serve their parents will be able to get union jobs in the city working on this project. thank you. >> if no other members in the chambers go to remote callers. with you hear your line is unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hello commissioners. my name is aj thomas and i am a delegate to the san francisco labor council on the san francisco building construction trades. i'm calling in support of this project 2270 mckinnon. i implore you to support it as

well. really been impressed with the outreach to the community and engagement with the brown bombers and the providing space to benefit the community in a way that hadn't been done yet. additionally will resultane large number of high quality union jobs. the local residents bolstering the neighborhood economy and bolstering the local work force as well. i call in strong support of that. appreciate it. thank you. >> i'm a journeyman (inaudible) calling to urge the board for 2270 mckinnon project. the site is a parking lot. the proposed development and mixed use building is appropriate and benefit to the city and local work force. as a construction worker i know the impact that good union jobs bring to local aprintss and families. i know how we spend

our good wages in the neighborhood and that helps our overall recovery. the sponsor committed to labor and community benefit and putting (inaudible) urge support for the conditional use authorization and overall project. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. (inaudible) calling in support of this project. i think you heard from a number trades people and union representatives speaking to the value of both this project and community benefit package it is bringing. looking forward to see this approved and really glad to see the turn out. thank you. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. sabrina hernandez a business representative and (inaudible) also a

state certified electrician. city resident born and raised here and a individual that who's life changed as a result as coming up through the organized trades and trades career. i also lived in the (inaudible) zip codes. at the time within walking distance of the project we are talking about today. i know the streets on mckinnon street are (inaudible) i know the sidewalks are unfinished. when i look at the pictures attached to the proposal document today i was excited at what that could be versus what it is now. really excited about this project and think that as a commission you probably are well very excited as well. how many times do you get to make a decision about a project that fits within the use of the community but serves public and also has the (inaudible) good city healthy city

and healthy neighborhoods depend on people coming into provide diversity and make use of the spaces and this will bring the public in to store and retrieve treasures. it will bring youth in for needed community services the brown bombers and their important group and as you have seen the key stakeholders in bayview hunter point support the project so i certainly do as well and hope that you will. thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is josh (inaudible) sheet metal working nearly 10 years now and proud member of sheet metal workers local 104 in san francisco. i call to respectfully urge you to support the conditional use authorization for the

projethat 2270 mckinnon. the project will bring economic activity to a parking lot under utilized while promoting good union jobs and construction. the project sponsors have made decisions on the proposal that directly benefit community and organized labor. doing so will allow our out of work construction workers to get back to work therefore help job seekers and their aprintsship pipeline which is very important right now. please support good and smart thoughtful development with this proposal. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. dan suarez, a trustee on the san francisco building construction trades council and also a business agent for sprinkler fitters ua local 43. i represent over 1200

members (inaudible) maintain life safety fire sprinkler systems. i strongly encourage you to support the project at 2270 mckinnon. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon. my name is joe sanders a business representative for local 913 painters and dry wall finishers in san francisco and we stand with the building trades in support of this project and urge you to do the same. thank you. >> hello? mr. (inaudible) >> yes. my name is mark (inaudible) a member of local union 718 and resident of the 94124. i stand

with the building trades and construction trades council for the 2270 mckinnon project. my brothers and sisters will have a opportunity to earn good wages with health care and pension because this is built union. this means there will be aprintsship pathways to contrarys and constructions offering the same opportunities. thank you for considering us in voting in favor of 2270 mckinnon. thank you. >> good afternoon. teddy reyes president of iron workers local 377 in bayview. i have been a life long resident of 94134 and our office is on barn belt about 3 blocks away from 2270 mckinnon street. i urge the commissioners to approve this project conditional use of this project. it is a good union

project and provide many community benefits and pathways to local residents and good union earning and pension building jobs. i urge you to approve it. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is greg (inaudible) i represent the elevator constructors local 8 and san francisco native resident. now we see unemployment numbers we haven't seen in nearly 10 years. the project will be built under a (inaudible) which will provide living wages and benefits for the workers and state register (inaudible) community benefits will be much needed so urge everyone to support this project. thank you. >> hello. good

afternoon commissioners. my name is anthony (inaudible) a business representative for district council 16. i represent over 11 thousand finishing craft workers, many who live in san francisco and work in san francisco. i stand in support of this project at 2270 mckinnon along with the building trades. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> my name is (inaudible) 2270 mckinnon is not just a parking lot, it is the last cab company left in san francisco, so when the bulldozers come in they will tear down what is a legacy business. i have been a cab driver medallion

holder since 2002. back then it was a thriving cab company. now not so much. for me this is a sad sad day because it is emblematic of the disconstruction of the cab company in san francisco. when you call national cab you call a real cab company and speak to a real person, not a robot or somebody in the philippines or las vegas a live person on 2270 mckinnon. i wonder where will the real live people be when 2270 mckinnon is gone? the cab drivers dispatchers and mechanics. the project sponsor talks about job creation but it isn't clear what will hap toon all the jobs at national cab. we wonder what does the future hold for us. will the property just be locked up one day soon without advance notice? the project sponsor

according to (inaudible) has offered help in finding us a new location and indicated a possibility to extend the lease if needed so i ask you today your approval be conditional upon that offered help. also we need transparency. some works as national cab are fearful they will be out of jobs soon with no advance warning. please don't let that happen. they need to plan for their future. thank you. >> thank you. my name is john courseo representative of local 38 plumbers and steam fitters in san francisco. we are in favor of this project and we ask you to approve it as is, move forward today. the developer made a commitment to the community and made a commitment to skills and trades workforce, so we ask you to prove

this today. thank you. >> go ahead caller. >> good afternoon. rj (inaudible) local 38 business reps. thank you to the developer for getting the project right checking all the boxes. local 38 stands in support with 2270 mckinnon and urge the board to move this forward. also, thank you to the people that got it right and reached out to the community, hitting the brown bombers and getting it right with there building trades. thank you. job well done. >> hello. my name is chris (inaudible) can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. i'm a

journeyman with local 300. i am calling to express support for the proposed project at 2270 mckinnon. as a construction worker i know the impact the project will have on good jobs families and local businesses who count on us spending money in san francisco. all too often unscrupulous contractors take the low road and dont care of the workers. i ask you to please support the project to help san francisco get back to work. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment. in the chambers come forward. remotely or webex star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is before you.

>> thank you to all those who called in and thank you staff for the report. if this is question for you about the national cab company. there was discussion about the space and offers of help. maybe you can illuminate. >> thank you for asking president tanner. we have been in close communication with the owner of the cab company. we had a option to purchase it for 18, 24 months, 6 or 9 months to go. we have offered as you heard in dan himes the owner of the cab company to help relocate and he is looking for a place less expensive to operate the business which is challenging (inaudible) we will continue to work with them to see if we can find them a space that makes sense for him. i don't know where the cab drivers live and work, but we are hopeful their relocation is in a place that is convenient for them. >> thank you. any

other comments or questions from commissioners? commissioner diamond. >> we heard a lot about the union support for the project and the wonderful space for the brown bombers but i have a question about there actual space. the primary purpose of the project. wonder if you could tell us two things--the split between residential and small business use of the storage space, i understand residents in transition wanting to use the space and small space might be useful but i love to hear how small business use the space and the percentage of the units you think will be used by small businesses? >> thank you

commissioner diamond. our internal research shows about 30 percent, 25 to 30 percent of the space-you said residential but think you probably meant self-storage is used by commercial. >> and residential use of the space. >> i understand. 30 percent of self-storage space and in around urban areas is used by smaller businesses that don't have extensive warehouses or storage to store materials. an example of which talking to earl shaddock from economic development ungrafted (inaudible) each year they have to buy glass in bulk to be able to bottle their wine come harvest time which is now but don't have a place to store it because it is retail (inaudible) she buys big cases of wine and has to store it. this is a perfect of local small business using that space and the

answer to the second question about 50 percent of the space is used for residential people in transition often during moves. we spent a lot of time thinking and looking at the housing element and creation of more apartments and unit sizes to trend slightly smaller over a long period of time that increase the need for self-storage space. i'll say generally showing how san francisco demand for self-storage is about the same as everywhere else, but supply of self-stornl storage san francisco is half the bay area average and quarter of the national average. it is hard to build here. not allowable in a lot of places and very well needed to support the people in transition and local businesses as they look to grow and optimize their space. >> thank you. i have a follow-up question then on parking. you are providing very

very little parking for self-storage and yet our code unbelievably has a 1 per 3 unit parking maximum. i'm trying to reconcile why we had such a unbelievably high liberal parking requirement versus what you see as minimal need for parking spaces? >> happy to turn it over to the planner why it is 1 per 3 for the code. >> in the code back in the 90's-my assumpson is the code was written in the 90 when there was like the older-smaller self-storage units like the one the project sponsor proposed. probably in

a larger self-storage units and why the code pretty generous in terms of the parking ratio, however this is maximum allowed and when the city (inaudible) minimum parking requirement we probably have not update the code requirement to reflect the current need and reduce the maximum permitted. >> okay. maybe you could talk project sponsor about how you see users time of day, cars, vans, why you pick the number of spaces you did so we can understand the traffic around the space. >> two things, we did a survey to get a sense what the market is. we meet the middle of the market there. second of all, we are aligned in wanting potential clients to have a place to park and not sl to queue or walk with a big heavy box

to their unit. the survey relevant comps in the area as well as discussion with operators. there are very large firms been talking with 3 of them to understand how operation show this place is most effectively managed, what is the right amount of parking and all agreed the 6 (inaudible) right mix as well as the appropriate number for the number of units we are talking about here. that answer your question? >> thank you very much. one last question for staff. the motion we are being asked to consider, does it include the brown bombers finding circulated earlier this week? >> so, we have included findings as part of the body of the motion in the outreach portion of the staff-of the motion. it is not included as part of the conditions of

approval in appendix. >> that makes sense. question for the city attorney which is, when there is a community benefit that is described in a private agreement between the project sponsor and the non profit or whatever it is i think we have traditionally included if we wanted to reference to that in the findings and have you reviewed that language and satisfied with the way it is written that it is preoperative? >> thank you for that question. yes, the answer is we traditionally include references to this kind of private agreement as a finding. i reviewed the laj wjs and satisfied with it. >> are great. i move to approve. >> second. >> we have a second. you want to add anything? >> just going to say that we don't see very many storage facilities very often. this is i think the place for them and i can't really imagine a

developer getting more of a supportive crew in all shapes and forms from the neighborhood and city. thanks. >> second that. >> if no further deliberation there is a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved, motion passes 6-0. place on item 11 case 2021-011751cua, 1650 broadway. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. michel taylor, planning department staff. the

proposal before you today is request for conditional use authorization to allow the enlargement of one residential unit and substantially reducing the size of another residential unit by more then 25 percent of the original floor area. the project site concerns penthouse unit 1 and 2p at 1650 broadway within rm3 zoning and ada height and bulk district. 1650 broadway is 7 story two story basement building built 2016 with 34 residential condo minimums. the project include interior alterations that enlarge penthouse 1 from 3 bedroom unit of approximately 2108 square feet to 5 bedroom unit of approximately 3315 square feet. reduce the size of penthouse

2 from 3 bedroom of 2144 square feet to 1 bedroom of approximately 937 square feet. the project would not result in a change in the number of dwelling units or alter the envelop of the building. we received no letters of support or opposition for the project. currently penthouse 1 is owner occupied and penthose 2 is vacant. staff recommends approval of the project. the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project does not reduce the total number of residential units, does not result in the displacement of tenants and does not remove rent stabilized units. provide multigenerational housing and housing for live and care for the property owners

aging parents. please note the motion before you today has been amendsed to include conditions of approval related to enforcement monitoring and community liaison. this concludes my presentation and available to answer questions and the project sponsor representative is here. thank you. >> hello commissioners. jeff gibson, going to keep the presentation brief. we are available for questions. enjoyed working closely with staff on the project to get to a place. they had very good suggestions iterations on what we submitted to get to a place where they recommended approval with conditions. i'll give back story, greg and

senthia thomas owned one of the penthouse units since 2019. there are only two units on the floor. if you want to pull up the screen we can see that here. in the current iteration there is basically two equal size units which is the right hand plan you see here. cynthia's mom is aging and needing care. she is living in her own space now but they want her to come live with them. in 2021 the second unit was vacant and came on the market and they decided to buy it. they started to interview home health care and get things set up to move cynthia's mom in there and realized it was not going to work. everyone they interview for home health care didn't feel comfortable living in the same unit as the aging mom. the mom didn't feel comfortable and worried getting locked

out between the two units. a family melt-down. they engaged us to try to look for creative ways to reconfigure the space so keeping two legal units allowing the live in help to live in the smaller unit and easy access to the other unit but full kitchen and legal proper 1 bedroom. the units are lovely. big outdoor terrace, very nice housing so we seek to do the reconfiguration and look out to the future and think interesting housing model because after their specific use passes on you imagine the working for other similar families or families with children who returned home after a period of time or different diverse households. as planning staff explained there is no exterior changes. we talked with the hoa and members of the building, no one in

the building has a problem with it. we still maintain two real legal units. there is no disappearing unit and maintain the full 6 bedroom count that there, now it is 5 and 1. land use attorney who helped with findings is here so if you have questions for him we are both available to answer questions but we hope you can support this project today and help this family make sense of the next step in their lives. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes sponsor presentation we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. come forward in the chambers or press star 3 if you are calling in remotely. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. >> thank the project sponsor for the nice summary of what is going on at the property. do commissioners have questions or comments

or motions? commissioner koppel. >> this isn't what we like to see up here but don't think of a reason to go against it. motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended by staff- [roll call] motion passes unanimously 6-0. place on item 12 for case 2021-011356cua. 4849 mission street. a conditional use authorization. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. ryan (inaudible) department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant upon code section 102, 303 and 720 to

establish religious institution use within the vacant ground floor space of existing 3 story mixed use building within the excelier mission street. (inaudible) the outer mission street requires conditional use authorization for the establishment of a religious institution use. the project is also proposing miner tenant improvements. the department received no letters of support or opposition for the new religious institution use. since received 32 letter of support. supporters noted the use will serve a major ethnic group in the community and the church is making a positive impact in the neighborhood for over 9 years. in response to the project original continuance

and outer mission the applicant reached out to the concerned group to come up with solution of the concern of the space inactive during the week. the current programming plan to activate the space during week days and contribute to the neighborhood vibrancy include providing english classes for chinese immigrants in the community and children after school activities which include providing free classes for skills such as graphic design and photography. the project complies with the planning code and on balance consistent with objective and policies of the general plan. it provide desirable service to the neighborhood bring additional pedestrian traffic into the area and occupy a space that has been vacant over a decade. the department recommends approval. this conclude the presentation and available for any questions. the applicant has a brief presentation and i'll hand it over to them. thank you.

>> project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is samuel chu the lead pastor of san francisco (inaudible) a chinese speaking church. (inaudible) and many are new immigrants who couldn't speak english. that is why we served the population about 9 years ago. even though we are a church our work expand just being a church. we help the children of the chinese immigrants and enroll in the public school and (inaudible) during the parent teacher conference, brought them to different government agencies like (inaudible) sf unified school district hospital et cetera. (inaudible) came to our church (inaudible) gave tremendous emotional support to fight cancer. also cook for

her (inaudible) pregnant lady just called me at midnight because she is about to give birth and couldn't speak english and didn't have a car so i go and are help her, brought her to the hospital and throughout the process our church member s (inaudible) take care of everything for them and sitting behind me are church membership to support this project. one of the lady is a diabetes patient. we cook for her and do dialysis time to time. these all many works we do for the chinese community in this area and when this new immigrant came to san francisco they had no friends, couldn't speak the language so there are many uncertainty but when they come to our church they find community. we provide a sense of community and sense of security for them. they know there are people there to help when they need it. we are not just a

religious organization for sunday service. we plan to use the place and expand work to help the community. provide 3 english classes, after school activities for children and the middle school and balboa high school is close by and plan to provide free computer graphic design and photography classes so the kids have a safe place to go to learn new skills at the same time. there are many vacant storefront thin area since covid and this storefront we plan to use had been vacant so many years before covid. i believe having sunday service and other activities during week days benefit the local businesses especially the restaurant and cafe businesses. along mission street in the area there is african american and spanish speaking church and muslim community center. we have been serving the chinese population 9

years but couldn't secure a place for the church. we need a ground floor so people know our existence and they could walk and get help. without it it limit our effectiveness to serve the community so asking the commission to grant approval so we can continue to be more effective serving the chinese community. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes the presentation we should open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the matter by pressing star 3 if calling in remotely. in the chambers come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon. my name is (inaudible) my wife and i have been attending the (inaudible) past 6 years. we both help at the children program. the community that we serve are mostly poor children from single family with little income or newly

immigrant with little or limit english skill. help with homework, listen to struggle, organize outdoor activity provide a safe place to hang out and saturday good role model and guide them. i was once a child like them. my mother is widow of 6 children coming to america. my mother brought us to church similar to this church here that gave us hope. they lead us, they support us, and guide us so we don't go off track. i'm proud for mom there with me now that she brought us to church because of the church community she raised 4 register nurse and 2 accountant therefore i urge you commissioners to give approval for this project. thank you.

>> good afternoon commissioner. my name is deborah and i go to this church. i teach sunday school and deal with a lot of young kids now that they don't have a safe place to go. they always play games. kind of (inaudible) the parents always come and talk to me that how i can really talk to them, and i think like, what this church that is here especially next to balboa high school and i think that this is a place that where the kids can really come and have a safe place. they don't have to play games and go out and hang out in the wrong crowd. we have a kids that like a foster kids who went wrong direction, had a

baby and because of us she keep coming back and we-it is a safe place for her and you know, she really appreciate. every time she text me thank you for being there for me and the time that like-this woman who are single mom, have no help, have no relative, and i was like, i went to general hospital and be there with them for the two days while they were trying to-during labor and they were so lonely and we are the church who are able to help them. i am also coming from an under-serve home and church give me the hope. the church is

the one who gave me new direction. if it is not church i would not be able to become a nurse, and not only that, because of that i was so intimidated and shy and because of church it give me the bonus to speak out and right now right now that i am-icu nurse 20 years and during covid time i love icu and went back to our icu and train the nurses how to (inaudible) how to really like work as a teamwork. even though i left icu2 or 3 years but because of what i was called-what i learned from church i went back there and help them doing the covid during patient were so sick on the bed dying like just crash like crazy and because of the church

that's why right now i want to give back to the community. i felt like with the church that we are going to really impact a young of people. - >> thank you ma'am. that is your time. >> we are able to get hope. i'm the living testimony that church can make a big impact- >> thank you. >> to the community. thank you. >> okay. there are no other members of the public who wish to submit their comments in the chambers. we'll go to remote callers. again, when you hear your line is unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is (inaudible) flor esand work (inaudible) economic development focus non profit agency. we work to encourage and support small business

attraction development and retention in the neighborhood. we work very hard to activate and create a healthy commercial corridor. we feel the proposed use for the ground floor of 4849 mission street is not an appropriate and positive use of the space. in our experience religious institutions on the ground floor level do not help activate the commercial corridor and as a result do not add to a vibrant commercial corridor. because we feel the proposed use is not appropriate use of the space, last month we submitted a letter to the planning commission to express our opposition to this conditional use request. we directed our letter to president tanner specifically because she lead the outer mission neighborhood strategy and hope she might understand our concern. during the last month i had reached out to the reverend chu from the religious institution to explain our

opposition and concerns over the negative impact it will have on the commercial corridor. i explained we welcome them to the community, but we would like to see them rent a space that isn't on the ground floor. i provided information about another more appropriate space available for lease and there are plenty-there is plenty space available. i connected him with a real estate broker that is working with the office of economic and workforce development to focus on fielding commercial spaces in the excelsior and followed up yesterday to see if i could provide additional support but i did not receive a call back. we are still in opposition to this use and request the planning commission not approve the conditional use authorization for 4849 mission street. i want to mention i also represent the excelsior district (inaudible) additionally, joining us in opposition is david hooper the

president of mission terrace improvement association another local neighborhood organization. he was not able to join public comment but approved of my objection as well. we urge the planning commission to please not approve the conditional use authorization for 4849 mission street. thank you very much. >> hi, commissioners. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you just fine. >> thank you. my name is tiffany and i'm the (inaudible) i am the one that you know, have (inaudible) my cancer has spread to my lungs and my cancer in my bones and brain. i'm very upset i

cannot make it in person but i hope i will make a difference in my call in. i'm very you know, very happy that i have found a church, because without this church i might not make it this far. my doctor already told me i have to be in hospice now, but i would not give up because my church people my church community people they help me so much. they do cooking for me and helping me with my chemo (inaudible) with my two young kids and i'm only 39 years old. my son is 7 and my daughter is only 5. without this church my (inaudible) i understand what (inaudible) i can't even walk. i can't go up to the second floor to go to the church. we have a lot of elderly people in our

church. how can you guys tell us to wuke walk up the stairs to a different story and different level to go to a church? we need a (inaudible) easy access and this location is so perfect for our community and we all chinese community around the neighborhood and if i'm not living in the neighborhood obviously but i brought all my family to church sunday and we are hoping to secure this location for years. (inaudible) i need to see our location of the church-this church have helped me tremendously. i'm urge the commissioners to (inaudible) not just for our church, for people like me. stage 4 breast cancer is going to die and my

doctor already told me i have to go to hospice. i cannot do that. i cannot without our church help people in our community i will make it this far. please pass this case. we need this location. we need a store front. we need easy access. we need to walk in a church. we need to secure this spot. thank you commissioners for listening. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is dennis kwon. i lived in excelsior over 20 years and recommend approving this establishment. in the past decade this space has not served the community and vacant (inaudible) this church will increase the traffic and livelihood in

excelsior, (inaudible) it is great time to have a establishment such as this with nearby high density residential buildings near completion. i think this will help families to remain or move to excelsior. thank you for your time. >> last call for public comment? in the chambers come forward, calling remotely or webex press 3 or raise your hand. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is before you. >> thank the members who called in project sponsor and staff for the report. i'll perhaps kick us off. i think somewhat similar to the last project a little different. we typically are not excited about merging units and the church

sounds fantastic. compelling testimony from the members. i thij it is challenging to think about the role churches place on commercial corridors when they take up retail space and at the same time in a moment where we have a lot of retail available and vacant so i appreciate mr. flores your call and time i spent working thin community wanting to see the corridor activated with things happening during business hours and evening to make sure it is activated and find it hard not to approve the conditional use given the circumstances we are in. with that, perhaps the pastor if you can come and talk more about the programs you will be doing at the church. it seemed you had discussions with not sure what group it was you mentioned that they spoke with and (inaudible) if you can come forward and share about the discussions who did you speak with about these programs and tell us more about

the programs. >> this program-we have been-since we dont have a location it is put on hold all the time, but the program like i mentioned the english classes are very important for the new immigrants because the english language skill they could not assimulate to society. on weekdays there are a lot of chinese new immigrants, the kids have no place to go because the parents focus on making living and work low minimum wage so don't have time to take care of the kids so we open monday-friday and let them come to do homework and other activities that we continue to roll out. since i was a graphic design background and photographer background so we are trying to offer these professional skill class for these students and balboa

high school and (inaudible) so these kids may not be good academically but might be good (inaudible) to make a living. this is what we are planning to do. if we granted the approval to use this space we will continue to roll out more and more. right now we are planning to do. >> can you share about how you found this particular place? there have been discussion that perhaps there are other places that might be suitable and available. how did you find this particular spot? >> we have been trying so many places and talking to real estate agents, but the problem either is too small or the price is too high. a lot of problem we try so many years and couldn't secure a place. finally last year we

came across recommendation from friends. we come across this place and the owners-this place was vacant so many years and before covid, so we talk to the owner and come to agreement and the price is good for us as a church and also the space is good for us. that is why we applied for this space. >> mr. flores mentioned trying to look at other places. i don't know if you had discussions with him or other opportunities he was trying to make available for you. can you speak to that? >> i speak mr. flores the other day and mentioned there are places in second story like not ground floor that might be available but he didn't send any information until yesterday and also, mentioned before second floor is hard for a lot of elderly to go upstairs.

(inaudible) in the past we try to talk to real estate agents and go to so many places. it doesn't work out. finally we found this place that work out. the owner of this place they really like give us a good condition like good price and everything, so this is a place that if we couldn't find this place and get this place, i don't know where we can find, because- >> been searching for a while? >> 9 years. ever since we came here we couldn't find a location. now we are renting storefront for a few hours sunday. nobody knows (inaudible) we try to pass flier for our service about the feedback we get is people tell us, we try to look for you but couldn't see you because it isn't our place. we try so much effort, but the result is so minimum because

we don't have a place. >> thank you very much. commissioner koppel. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> no further deliberation, there is a motion seconded to approve the matter- >> commissioner imperial did you want to add something? sorry. >> i think-no. we made a motion and also supportive. >> okay. sorry, i didn't see you. >> i didn't see that either sorry about that commissioner imperial. in that case there is a motion seconded to approve the matter with conditions. [roll call] motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, that will place under discretionary review calendar for the final item on the agenda today. 13. case

2022-001240drp 272 naples street. discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2022-00128.6871 to construct 2 story horizontal rear addition to existing 3 story single family home. the existing building is category b age eligible resource. built in 1913. the dr requester (inaudible) of 270 naples street the adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project is concerned the project

will obstruct the view and cause water and intrusion and damage to the foundationf the house. the department received no letters supporting the dr and 10 letters in support of the project. planning department review of this proposal confirms support as it conforms to planning code and residential design guidelines. incorporate a 3 foot side setback at the second floor starting at the rear wall of the neighboring dr requester. as a means of preserving access to light and air access to mid-block open space. the rear second floor deck is setback 5 feet from the side lot lines and these are typical responses to the residential design guidelines articulate the building to minimize impact to light and privacy to adjacent properties and design the height and depth of building compatible with building scale at the

mid-block open space. therefore, staff deems no extraordinary circumstances and recommend not taking discretionary review. >> very good that concludes staff presentation. dr requester. you have 5 minutes. >> (inaudible) >> that's fine. yes. >> i just met the lady and she is a interpreter. >> we appreciate that. >> [waiting for translation] >> i'm against the project. >> can you speak into the microphone? he is translating but that would be great. thank you. >> [waiting for translation]

>> they have extend nice building before like extend this building before and then the first time i did not go against it, but after that the project brought us a lot of trouble. this time they again want to extend the house to make it even bigger, so i'm worried about it will effect my own house which is next door. if something happen to my house who is going to be responsible for that?

[waiting for translation] >> i believe everybody when they first brought the house-that is the dream home. i'm going to retire in 5 years and this house is my dream home. it is going to be less then 25 feet close to my house and going to deep into the foundation and afraid it will effect my house. and the place

at the backyard where they are going to extend is 3 and a half story high. and also the extension block my view too. [waiting for translation] the first time they want to extend the house and the problem they brought to our family we couldn't be worth it anymore.

they didn't really follow the code of the san francisco building code when they do the extension so especially for the gutter for their water, i-think they did not follow exactly what they should do. [waiting for translation] when i mention the problem they say our wall the wall between the two houses and they say we don't need to--they mention that the wall between their house and our house they say their wall is water proof so don't have to do anything.

mention that the wall in between should be something you block the water from getting between the house and they did not follow that. [waiting for translation] finally, the next door neighbor agreed to fix the wall, but after their fixed the wall i don't know what material their use because the problem was worse then before.

after they fix the problem it create more problem and more noise during night time and it really effect our sleeping. we couldn't sleep most of the time because somehow the project create like the building they built somehow create a lot of noises at night. i don't know where the noises come from , but that is a problem. finally, they try to repair the house again. and now

the problem is the bathroom is really close to our wall and for some reason we can hear a lot of noise when they use the bathroom and all kinds of noises and we cannot like fix this problem. [waiting for translation] because of the previous bad experience we had with them and this time they want to extend the house again and i am really concerned about because of past experience and also really concerned about if they continue to

dig the foundation if it effect my house and what happen who will be responsible? so, 4 years ago when they put some cement in front of their house and those cement now is cracked and also effected my house and stairways going up to my house was cracked because of what they did previously on their area. [waiting for translation] that is why i'm really against this project.

i'm going to retire in 5 years. i will be 62. i really wish i have a safe and calm place for myself. if anything happen by then as a retired old person it is really a problem for myself. thank you. >> great. thank you. project sponsor you have 5 minute presentation. >> hi. thank you for dwrour time and considering our project. i wanted it introduce myself. my name is adam (inaudible) and wife are the home owners

and live with our two daughters and son. the goal of the project is to expand our home so we can stay and live in our neighborhood and our home and i wanted to introduce (inaudible) who is the architect who will describe some of the specifics about the project. thank you. if you have any questions for me, happy to answer them. >> good afternoon. i'm (inaudible) architect for the project. i did bring a set of plans so i can show a few locations on the two story addition we are proposing but if you have the plans in front of you i won't bother. should i- >> we have-i have the plans. we receive them in the packet. >> i wanted to point out on the site plan the extension of the two story addition that goes into the

rear setback. we are complying with the planning code requirements. we think we are keeping with the setback in that block and generally speaking we addressed the-pulled back the corner of the building from the side property line by 3 feet and the deck by 5 feet so the hope is given the slope of the natural grade as it falls down the hill the neighbor with the request for discretionary review, her home is higher so hope both the roof line, the height of the two story addition with the setting back from the property line we are actually preserving her view. curptly it is a small home. the previous piece addressed by the neighbor is actually a replacement of an

existing bump-out that was constructed to essentially sure up the foundation and rebuild the structure because it was more or less falling down. i probably don't have a picture of the original building, but that was the first bathroom reconstruction we did and we could address further if you have questions about that. the addition however we think that by responding to pulling the building back from the side property lines, not heightening the building too much we hope we preserve the neighbor's views and hope actually it will be a much more usable home. they are family 5 in a 2 bedroom 1 bath home. this provides additional bedroom and bathroom for the parents and something they can age in place as they go forward. they would like to stay in san francisco and are considering down the line they may be hosting parents in