>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, january 12, 2023. as you can see webex has thrown us a few curve balls. we are all getting used to the new format. to enable public participation, sfgovtv.org is live. we will take public comment from those here first and then on remote line. for those participating in webex, you will need to raise your hand for the item that you

are interested in speaking to and unmute yourself. the knuckleball was thrown to people calling in to submit their testimony. so you will need to follow these instructions careful leaf # -- carefully and they will be on the screen for those watching on the screen through tv and streaming. first you need to call the phone number. call-in +1-415-655-0001 access code 2495 911 0813 password 0112 then press pound. at this point you will be in the hearing and able to live to the

proceeding live. you need to wait until the item that you are speaking to is called for public comment for that matter. in order to enter the queue to comment, you need to press star 3 to raise your hand. once you raise your hand, you will hear a prompt that you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. you need to wait your turn and when you hear the prompt, you are being asked to unmute yourself. to unmute you need to press star 6. when you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. i will try to remind persons before each item. i know it's confusing but it's what we have to deal with. best practice is to call from a quiet

location and please mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attending in person, please lineup on the screen side of the room. finally, i will ask to silence any mobile devices during these proceedings. at this time, i would like to take roll. >> commissioner rachael tanner: here. >> vice-president kathrin moore: here. commissioner braun? here. >> commissioner sue diamond: here. >> commissioner joel koppel: here. >> commissioner gabriella ruiz: here. the next item is for request for items to be continued. we didn't have any items to be continued however item no. 8.

8. 2022-001764cua (c. feeney: (628) 652-7313) 434 cortland street - south side between andover and bennington they are requesting to be continued. i have no other requests for continuance. this is now an opportunity for public comment. if you are available, please raise your hand remotely. press star 6 to unmute yourself.

go ahead, caller. you are unmuted. i guess they changed their mind. unless i see any hands raised via webex otherwise, public comment is closed on the continuance calendar and is before you, commissioners. >> >> commissioner joel koppel: motion to continue item no. 8 to march 23rd. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue item 8 to march 23rrd. [roll call]

so moved., commissioners, that item passes unanimously 7-0. that will place us on the consent calendar. b. consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing 1. 2022-010719pca (a. starr: (628) 652-7533) soma nighttime entertainment uses; leather and lgbtq cultural district (board file 221104) - planning code amendment. you have heard this case. it's back on your consent calendar. members of the public, this matter is requested to be

removed on the calendar. if you are on webex, raise your hand. seeing no public comments, this public comment is now closed. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> [roll call] >> so moved.. that matter passes 7-0. that places us on item 2. c. commission matters 2. land acknowledgement ramaytush ohlone acknowledgement the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of

the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> okay, item 3. commission comments and questions? >> i don't see any commissioners lighting up to provide comments or questions. >> in deed. we can then move right along to department matters. item 4. >> directors announcements? >> no announcements today. okay, item 5. >> 5. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission

i do not have any reports. it's a one man show. >> good afternoon, manager of legislative affairs. the board met this week to swear in elected members and i'm sure you are aware that supervisor peskin won that. i think it went for 17 rounds. president peskin is in the process of making committee assignments. we should know that next week. there are no planning department hearings on it and the board is in recess next week in honor of martin luther king jr. day. >> okay, if there are no questions, we can move on to e. general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your

opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> public speaker: good afternoon happy new year. sf govtv happy new year to you too. i showed this previously which is a side by side, same building. here it is in 2014 and sold in 2016 for that amount there. and you can see it's two flats.

over here in 2019, there it is. they put the flat under the garage which you can do in 73b 7, if it's the place or codified, these two units could have been saved. and you can see the price. it sold during the pandemic for 3.7. i want to bring it up because i don't think it's important. when i look at the findings, the general plan recognize that the house is the greatest stock in financial and residential units as a need of protection. that's all. so thanks a lot. have a good day..

this is last call for public comment. press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no other requests, public comment is closed. >> item no. 6. 6. 2019-014146env (j. moore: (628) 652-7566) lake merced west project - this is the final impact report certification. >> >> good afternoon president and members of the commission. i'm julie moore from the planning department. the item before you today is the certification of the final environmental impact report or eir for the lake merced west project as adequate adequate and objective and having been prepared in accordance with the environmental quality act. i will now provide a brief

overview of the site, the proposed project for the conclusions in the eir and the environmental review process. the project site is located on approximately 11 acres at 520 john muir drive on the west side of lake merced. they operated ski and shooting facilities at the site to 2014. the site is a cultural landscape that is a historical resource found under ceqa. the building that contributes to the historical landscape are small, one story wood frame buildings. these photographs show the circular field, high and low houses which contribute to the cultural landscape. the san francisco recreation and parks department proposes a lake merced project which will create a recreational

facility at the site and concessionaire to construct and operate this facility. due to their condition, the existing building would be demolished. the recreational facility would offer a variety of active and passive outdoor activities in addition to a new community building, restaurant, and facility. this will be a historical site for historical resources and interpretive program. therefore the recreation and parks should need to create that for ceqa. the eir included that impacts to noise and biological resources would be significant to be reduced to

less than significant with measures identified in the eir. all other impacts were found to be less than significant or would result in no impact. the eir analyzed three project alternatives, a full preservation alternative, a partial preservation alternative and no project alternative which is required by ceqa. the no project alternative and full preservation alternative would reduce the significant non-avoidable impact to the historical resource and will keep the historical landscape in the project and would still result in the demolition of almost half of the contributing resources of the historical resource resulting in an impact that is non-avoidable to the mitigation and similar impacts on noise biological resources as a proposed project. which would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation

measures. the no project alternative would not result in these impacts. the department solicited incorporated several departments in animals # -- analysis in the department review process including a notice of preservation in the draft eir in 2019, publication of the draft eir in february 2022. the public hearing march 2022, and the public comment period on the draft which concluded april 11, 2022. the department received comments on the draft eir during the public comment period including the commission hearing including concerns about the size of the proposed boat house from the community. comments regarding environmental effects, biological resources, tribal

resources, aesthetics and transportation noise and air quality. in light of these comments, requested that the eir project analysis would include a larger boat house. accordingly, the response to comments in 2022, the project with a 15,000 square foot boat hose # -- house instead of the 3,000 square foot boat house. the result would not result in any new significant impacts beyond those identified for the proposed project in the draft eir or substantially increase the impact and no mitigation measures would be required. therefore the variance would not add new information or change the conclusions of the eir. for these reasons, recirculation is not necessary.

since the publication to the response, the department issued an arata to these types of analysis and typographical errors and do not affect the issues regarding the adequacy of the eir. lastly the planning department prepared a final eir in accordance with ceqa chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code and planning department policies. the final eir is adequate and provides decision makers from the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential environmental impacts of the project, alternative and mitigation measures. on this basis, the planning staff request the planning commission adopt the eir certification motion before you the motion does not approve the project but instead certificate fire extinguisher -- certifies

the eis complies with ceqa. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. we will now take public comment. this is for comments on the eir. the eir draft is closed on the 11th. but you are welcome to comment on this now. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and this eir is now before you. >> >> thank you to staff for bringing this back before us and for the corrections that we received. unless commissioners have any comments or questions on this project or a motion. >> commissioner moore? >> vice-president kathrin moore:

i'm pleased to see that all comments have been analyzed and make it easy to read and very sensitively adopted the document and will move forward the eir. >> second. >> commissioner braun. if there are no questions, [roll call] >> >> commissioner rachael tanner: i can't waiting to go to the park. [ laughter ] that is unanimous.

next item. >> 7. 2022-009297dnx (r. salgado: (628) 652-7332) 1010v mission street - north >> good afternoon. planning staff. before we go to the project and density state density program. the project seeks waivers from the eir and both requirements of the planning code. it's a through lot between 6 and 7th street within the zoning district. the site is currently used with a parking lot with 15 car parks stalled. this project includes demolition of the parking lot and construction of a nine story including an 85 foot tall residential building including single occupancy

dwelling units. the project proposes no off street vehicular parking and bicycle parking as required by code. the project would include total of approximately 2050 common space on the ground floor and the room. the department has received two letters on the opposition of the projects. at a planning commission hearing on december 15, 2022 for an earlier version of the project submitted in case, the commission heard testimony from 12 members of the public in opposition and one member of the public in support of that project. after the hearing, the department received one additional letter of support for the earlier version of the project. the department finds the project is consistent with objectives and policies of the city's general plan. the department also finds the

project necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project will provide 7 new dwelling units that serves as a parking lot and that will meet the affordable housing goals. the project site is located in the filipino cultural heritage district. this cultural housing and economic strategy report was adopted by the board of supervisors september 16, 2022. the adopted report did not include a land use component and did not modify the planning code. the planning staff reviewed the project against the report and found it does not counteract any reports in the prioritized strategies and recommendation. based on the finding of the report, the staff recommend approval of the project. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. and the project sponsor also has

a presentation. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you would construct a nine story building with 57 occupancy units 15 at affordable rates all units will have full kitchens and ovens. the property is a small through lot. an unattractive surface parking lot by chain link fence. the project is largely the same as the one heard by the

commission last september. as the commission didn't have the votes at that time to take action into the hearing and now taking into a density bonus project. the project will be more naturally affordable due to their small size. the units are provided more than twice as much open space as is required by the code via central courtyard and roof deck and space provided on the ground floor on mission street. no parking is proposed for this location and two curb cuts will be removed on both frontages. the project is seeking density program waivers. since it's 4400 square feet complying with code of rear yard will eliminate the housing units on the side. this waiver would need to seek a

greater height to achieve the allowable densities and this is on both frontages to complete the project. that space has been relocated to the center of the block with a 44 deep courtyard >> both are approaching the massing as well and provides twice the amount of open space required. now i'm reminding the commission about discretion in these cases, i think it's appropriate as a reminder, this project has now obtained exceptions from the state code and waiver from the state bonus density law and the project may not be reduced in size unless it has an impact on public health and safety. further specific adverse impact indicates significant unaffordable impact most importantly based on objective

and identified by written policies as they existed on the site when the application was complete and these are written very clear and not on the spot. the project ceqa review with its mitigation measures has no impact on the requirement. the filipino report has no standards that is applied for use today and the report places no standards on this project for an exception here. to be clear, the project sponsor has conducted outreach to the community prior to the first hearing. a community wide zoom call during the pandemic was held at the beginning of the project as required for all projects, citywide but specifically in the cultural and with the cultural district. further, a second meeting held with the center next door to the

site. in neither meeting neither expressed opposition to the project and was respectful and the most important thing that came up was respecting the 1010 mission address because it's a secondary address for the center which will obviously resolve. so the first we heard of major opposition was at the hearing in september. unfortunately it looks like there is no middle ground here. the groups have called for no sro's and no affordable housing on this site and direct from the project sponsors for the site. there has been at the last hearing a desire to purchase this project from the project sponsor which by the way, could fulfill many of the reports that are aligned and nothing that happened at this hearing impacts the project sponsors open and willing to have that conversation.

construction is challenging right now and more than willing to continue having that conversation should there be a desire from the community and that option on the table. so in closing, the project replaces a small parking lot in a prominent frontage on mission street with 57 units, 15 affordable and pedestrian safety improvement and we respectfully respect your approval of this project. thank you. >> with that, we should go to public comment. if you are in the chambers, please come forward and lineup. if you are calling, press star 3 and webex raise your hand. public speaker: hello, filipinos stand in opposition to the mission project which

proposes to build market rate sro units that will cost half a million dollars on a block that contains almost exclusively affordable housing and low-income housing and community based organizations that assist the filipino community. as stated in the hearing, 1010 mission does not support low-income and working class children, youth, families and children in the south of market. it is bad to building more luxury buildings in soma. it is very troubling that this project is receiving approval from this hearing and after three months the application was accepted and beginning waivers on standard procedures on the public application meeting and the planning staff and city attorney

can clarify the legal application process. the developers outreach to the community has been almost non-existent as outlined in the staff report with no project outreach for the project and the 2022 hearing, we asked for planning that did not have outreach for this project. why wasn't a cultural project done. there is a racial and social inequity initiative and the planning commission adopted its resolution on planning on social equity. at this point the department must be able to apply a racial and social equity lens tool for projects seeking approval. in a letter send to this commission for the project, we outlined planning department questions to be answered on the analysis such as what are the

demographics of those living in the community and how that lines up and stating false information that this does not go against the filipino strategies. this is in direct conflict with the three strategies updating the land sites for affordable housing and including the filipino community for the planning's social and equity plan and the ceqa analysis on stevenson looking at the displacement and gentrification impacts and what the board of supervisors needs to look at and be further analyzed. we ask that you work with residents and deny this project. thank you.

>> >> commissioners, a question. do i have to speak now or come back to speak. >> we can taking comments from those in the chambers right now. >> i need to wait now. i can't wait for a phone call? >> i suppose you can wait. >> i was just asking. >> now would be a good time. >> commissioners, ron, builders association. i would like to address the letter and the comments of the previous speaker. the project sponsor did hold a community meeting. and the community at large was aware of the project. has there been more outreach in the past, could the outreach have been better, perhaps. but there is enough blame here to go around. this group knew about the project. this group failed to pick up the phone and call or email or meet with the planning department staff. they failed to pick up the phone or email and reach out with

further concerns to the developer. there is enough blame to go around on everybody. the next day after that hearing, the project sponsor called me and he said it felt like i was ambushed. the reason i'm bringing that up is that we still have housing shortage. and if we conduct ourselves and if we set policies and if we allow this type of behavior to go on once, twice, and god knows how many times, how will we ever go to convince the development community that this is a fair and open and transparent process? how are we going to convince anybody that this preapplication means anything? how are we going to convince anybody that all that time you spent working with your planner means something? if a group is allowed to come out and

ambush at the last minute. that's not to say i'm not against it. i support activism and i support getting involved. but it's got to be done in a context, it's got to be done in balance and harmony with the process. the other component with the letters that bothers me is it fails to recognize the other goals and objectives of this city. yes, i'm for affordable housing, but let's be honest, this group may not have the money to build affordable housing, that neighborhood may not have the money, the mayor may not have the money and city and county of san francisco may not have the money and did not allocate for this. i have got news for this. the developer does have the money either. to recognize this, this does not

have the reality and we need to battles all the goals and objectives of this city. i wish this could be affordable and it's affordable by design and you have that right here. anyway, i sit on a lot of committees. i work to support affordable housing. sometimes i wish it's time for the other affordable housing group to stand up and work to support the other goals and objectives of our city as well or at least not fight it. thank you. >> okay, if there are no other members of the public in the chambers, we can we do to our remote callers. again, you will need to unmute yourself by pressing star 6. >> #

public speaker: my name is stephanie. i'm asking you to support this development. we have housing shortage and affordability crisis. while replacing the surface parking lot. this will bring affordable housing units in the market district. the proposed building also includes ground floor community in a neighborhood and the project would not result in significant impacts to the environment and for more market rate and affordable housing today. thank you.

>> public speaker: hello, my name is michael and also a resident in san francisco working on mission street. i'm calling today to ask for support for approving the project on 1010 mission street and this project is code compliant and will bring much needed housing in san francisco and during affordability crisis. this is a surface parking lot and affects no one. 1010 mission street will provide 13 bfr units which will help the unit with affordable housing goals. please approve this project.

>> hello, everyone. my name is amelia, i work on mission street. we are having a housing affordable crisis. why is this a problem. this is a huge problem in san francisco. we need more housing for the city and we talk about it but nothing came of it. here we have a proposal for building affordable units on vacant land. i will ask you to approve this. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is mike. i'm calling in to support this project. also, i

think everybody knows that we are in a housing crisis. i think building a 57 unit building will be an affordable design and great idea. please support the project. thanks for your time. >> you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. public speaker: hello, my name is ed. i am a san francisco read. i work on mission street, live close by. i drive by this site everyday. it's just a vacant site with 15 cars on it. it doesn't do me any good. i would love to see some housing there. 15 affordable units are better than no affordable units. the project looks great. by

nature, these smaller units will be easier to afford. the san francisco planning department please do your job and approve this project and let's move forward. thanks. >>clerk: you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> hi, this is ed again, did

anybody hear me? >> we did. sorry. public speaker: hello, i'm a san francisco resident and i work on mission street. i'm calling today to ask for your support in approving the project at 1010 mission street. this development is code compliant and will bring much needed housing to san francisco in the midst of housing shortage and affordability crisis. this project replaces a surface parking lot and displaces nobody. 1010 mission street will provide natural affordable housing units, 13 below market rate units which will help this city to meet the affordable housing goals. please approve this project. additionally, i would like to see the planning commission stop denying projects on empty parking lots in a housing crisis especially in areas around market street. thank you.

>> >> okay, callers. when you receive a request to unmute yourself, you need to press star 6. public speaker: i'm in favor of this project. at the last hearing, i felt the developer was sand bagged by a bunch of people who have no idea what it takes to build housing in san francisco. it cost $800 a square foot to build anything. please

approve this project. we shouldn't have any form of delays. i don't understand why the planning commission is stopping projects on vacant parking lots. why the planning departments takes three years to approve anything at this time. this planning department needs to address this situation. they are delaying hundreds of thousands of dollars. go ahead and approve this project. thank you. >> >> okay, last call for public comment in you are in these chambers. please come forward if you are calling in remotely. press star 3. seeing no request, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> thank you for those that came

in to comment in person and online and thank you for helping with webex with more steps. hopefully folks will get used to that. i do have a few questions that i want to ask and try to get more understanding. i believe mr. rudy did ask real questions and this was something we reviewed before hand and if you can shine a light on it i would appreciate it. >> sure. many are still the same, the plan checks, code compliance, code review and environmental review was the same. there were a few environmental reviews to be made and from the current planning side, a lot say that with a few minor updates. a big part of our triage of how we work through priority work within housing is

level of effort. if there are projects that we can move through quickly and that are fresh of mind we can do that. >> great. thank you. >> there was a question raised which i think is good to hear where we are and i'm not sure if you are the right person, but as we continue to work with the race and social equity where we are with our current tools that planners can use and wonder where that is in development? >> sure, that is in line with our phase 2 efforts with the social equity plan that has not come before you yet for adoption. i believe we are looking at summer or some stage this year and the audit and the impact analysis and those are the grounding tools that we need to 1st adopt before we evaluate a project on a project basis. the same way we look at project code and we need a foundation

and tool that we develop every project against and we are not coming up with things that are spur of the moment for the different principles and we need to have that grounding. we anticipate that we are really moving in the stage of external phasing work that looks well at our department. that will come forward later in the year. >> great. maybe if you are sticking with the procedure a little bit. why was this not required for this project in the same that we have for the meetings in the first iteration of projects. it was very similar. was it a new project in terms of needed outreach. >> preapplications are not required in the c 3 district. the policy is really focused on a residential neighborhood commercial. there is one random per district that is triggered and some formula retail projects but it's very zoned down by the

district and doesn't trigger this. >> this is a voluntary practice. thank you very much. to the project sponsor, if you want to speak on behalf of the sponsor. i know you addressed in your comments that there was an impact. i don't know if you had further conversations with the members of the filipino community and in regards to other requests and i know there were previous requests. if you can shed a light on those things and a conversation on the more larger topics that were brought up. >> sure. the answer is yes, in response to your question. i think it's always challenging especially in a public hearing environment. it's not a great place to have this conversation. it's a bit clunky. i think both sides to a certain degree recognize that we have a little bit of a conflict in this case that their interest which are totally respectable,

totally get it are just in conflict with these project sponsors. the conversations we've had have been respectful, they have been polite, and frankly, i think there is an opportunity moving forward with the potential of the purchase of this site. the project sponsor is a builder for the project sponsor to build them and have the ability to break down for the typical developer. however, it's a challenging environment now as we all know and there is a lot of public funding right now. so i do see that these are not just words spoken at a hearing and this is providing a basis for a conversation for that potential. i don't want to speak for anyone. i just want to say that there is a real potential there. >> assuming that the project does go forward and gets built, can you talk a little bit about the sro build units if you are familiar with the sale of units

of this size particularly in the bmr program and how those fair in the lottery and the units. >> yes, bmr ownership units right now are challenging from a market perspective in terms of people wanting them and people losing equity over time in them and challenges getting mortgages for them right now and a lot that is going on outside of our control. i will mention that the most recent amendments to the affordable housing program that supervisor ronen sponsored have been having i think maybe some unintended consequences to the extent that ownership, the affordable housing choice now controls market rate. you used to pick ownership project and you can do what you want with the market rate. your bmr is a rental but you can do what you want with the market rate units.

the bmr has the ownership units and whether or not you rent or sell the units that are market rate moving forward. you can't rent up to 50% of an ownership project. i'm having this conversation with a lot of clients right now of choosing this option because at least right now you need every little thing to make a project work. having this flexibility starts making the difference in the decision on the bmr units. this project sponsor is a very experienced builder in san francisco and they have a lot of experience building projects and building them and selling them and they believe this is a viable approach going forward. this is a broader context of what we are dealing with in these residential projects right now. >> it sounds like most of the challenges are the most pragmatic side to build versus

the unit itself. is that what i'm hearing? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> do other commissioners have questions or comments? commissioner moore? >> if you would so kind explain the issue with the address. i didn't quite get it. [ laughter ] >> if you click on the next door by the neon center parcel it has an address on sixth street and also has 1010 mission as an address. if you click on this property map, it also says 1010 on it. that's obviously problematic. that has been brought up by the community that we would not like to use the 1010 mission because there is confusion with our building next door, now v, is a placeholder, ultimately when this project gets built. >> okay. >> that's all i need to know.

>> i did see commissioner imperial raise your hand. >> commissioner theresa imperial: thank you. thank you for the questions earlier about the process when it comes to preapplication. so now i understand the preapplication meeting is not required because of the zoning, but how does the department respond to that. is it still under the fact that it is under a cultural district. would that reach for comment regarding that because of the cultural district? >> commissioner, there is no requirement, but we certainly when we talk with project sponsors and get these projects in, it encourage the outreach to happen. i think this is a unique circumstance that it came back

as a similar project and we heard it here at commission. but we absolutely here especially in cultural district require that outreach. >> right before the holidays we published two community engagement public facing documents to really encourage and help both developers as well as community, both were community engagement projects and not being mandatory to the best practice document if you will and really highlight projects in cultural districts. we understand this project predates the release of that and this department, we are building the ship also here as we are flying it and continuing to make improvements and expectation moving forward around community engagement and outreach and want to do better. we don't have any mandated community engagement requirements within cultural districts. >> thank you for the responses.

that does give me ideas as well as trying to move forward with community engagement strategies and how to be very effective on it especially under cultural districts. on the other hand, i remember at the last hearing, we did encourage that the project sponsor do another outreach or reach out to the community members. it seems like there was no effort at all. even though if they are not required, i think at that point if there were a lot of community members going out, then there should be a due diligence of effort of outreach. that's something i wanted to point out to the sponsor because after that hearing, there is a due diligence of outreach. on another point, i also want to have a question regarding the -- planning department did find in

alignment with the district. i'm quite confused with that finding. why is that? >> i think commissioner, a couple things, one, we definitely part of that strategy is what they use in family controls in the code. we started the discussion with the filipinos and others about that and the implementation of that and also moving to staff up more as the housing element is done with staff who will help cultural districts or work with cultural districts in priority neighborhoods, developing and implementing community plans. i don't think we are there yet with an update for the zoning for the district. i don't think it's not going to say don't

build housing but more sizes than with sro's but we are still not there with code yet. >> i guess that's the reason. but the recent initial s family where there are objectives with families sed and definitely as it stands right now with this project with the current family sed, i will not go on as to what our objectives of the families are and the honors in this project right now. one point that i do want to bring out that the project sponsor mentioned on the bmr sro ownership and want to say to the commission and project sponsor that the home ownership, even

though they are bmr, and the hoa fees are still affordable and we are trying to have an analysis of racial and social equity or socioeconomic analysis. again i do find it quite, doesn't align with these cultural districts with our again intention of building more affordable housing because even in the bmr home ownership that still need a lot of amendments. so i still standby my decision from the last hearing and i will not support this project. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. commissioner diamond? >> i have a technical question for staff relating to section

6b, the floor area ratio which rises because this is now a state density bonus project. in this district, it's 6-1 and you can go to 9-1 with the far and purpose of tdr's. i would like to understand more and how this interact with the density bonus requirement. can you go above 9-1 and with the project, do you still purchase tdr's, do you automatically go up. can you provide some enlightenment around this state density bonus works in districts where the far grants this. >> sure. the requirement for tdr is not a discussionary requirement so state density bonus projects still are

required to buy the tdr for an amount of square footage that is based over the far. for this project, the base far is 6-1 with a maximum allowable of 9 to 1 and proposing 3.621 far. so they have to buy tdr for that amount over. for state density bonus projects, there is the option to buy tdr to increase the base project up to the maximum of the far with a project with a similar scenario to this would could purchase tdr and have the base project have an far of 9 to 1 and have the goal of that project be that much larger. >> so you are saying they would buy tdr, if it's a state density

bonus option to have the tdr go to 9-1 and that would become the base and they would purchase more tdr's to go 50% above to 13.5 far? >> correct. it's an option. a project doesn't have to go to a maximum far for their project but can get to that much if it's that much more. >> i know they are not doing it here but wants to know how it works in conjunction with tdr's in these kinds of districts. >> to point more to that which is a little bit confusing. the project sponsor has an option for this one for tdr to get different density bonus for different outcomes or could choose if it is an objective standard to waive it through the densities bonus. this is a weird one where both of those options

could be available. the purchase of tdr can be a code compliance project with compliance with exposure. you can comply with exposure or request not and waive it. this has come up relative as a state issue on density bonus. >> to understand, you are not saying they can wave their obligation to buy tdr's? >> that is our understanding. this project is not choosing to do that. this project is not before you. this project is choosing to buy tdr's and use waivers for other code compliance items. >> i don't know if it's for today, but if we had a number of developers doing that, it could change the market of the tdr

when put in place in very significant ways, does it not? >> yeah. >> okay, to put a footnote on that one going forward. >> commissioner braun? >> yeah, i do want to point out an agreement that it would have been beneficial and helpful if the project sponsor had done additional outreach before coming to the planning commission and prior iterations in december. and then as far as comments go for sort of an ambush at the planning commission hearing, it is more constructive and better if these conversation happened prior to the hearing but they have their rights to comment at

the hearing. with that being said this is a project that have accounted for the waivers that allowed it to come in this forum. and this replaces a parking lot. so i don't see any reason to oppose the project, and i think in some ways our hands are a little tied here in approving this project. >> i think it looks like we are heading towards a motion. to staff, i can see how having a report, identifying strategies can feel like pretty substantial progress and creating a lot of time with them and when it's not family housing and the goals. i know you are working on getting staff to help, but perhaps there is also communication with

cultural districts around what land use controls are. in some ways we had the opposite experience last week with the project and the mission comprised with the building standards and why it was so embraced and why it looks attractive and to understand the planning and controls and looking at our budget and allocating the staff time and the technical expertise to help them apply and to say here is the strategy we have in mind. can you say where we are where the folks feel we don't have those controls? >> we have had this discussion in the past. the code language doesn't quite fit with the intent of it was to

do. so it's always been on our list, the community's list to tackle. now that we are getting more involved in the report, i think there is more of a land use component to that and to be able to staff that work. primarily it was around and that's good but we want to be able to allow that work and we want to go back to the community to amend the report and come to you with updates to you with the family district so it does do more from what it was intended to do. >> that is where we would be understanding that from achieving this and the code and we need to do this sooner rather than later so we are not at another hearing where it's not

serving the purpose that it was intended to serve. >> we've already started those discussions and we are dedicating staff to work with the cultural district on those very issues from the gateway to the sed. >> great. >> i will add my comments. i think the building is very thought fully designed and the building is very well designed and having the building facing the block and the side is both great and the open space will suit the residents at the ground level and having the roof deck in addition and having the 13 affordable units and the units can be challenging but hopefully will build some wealth opportunities and with residents wanting more ownership in this

city. i think that will improve a little bit. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i would agree the design has improved. i have a question regarding the ground floor facing mission street and perhaps you can engage in the conversation. why do we have to deal with the gas meter literally sitting in the center outside of this unit. this is basically because of it's awkward situations and next to the bedroom. if the architect is here, perhaps you can speak. that would be helpful. is there any way to negotiate with

to underground the same. this would be helpful. >> good afternoon, the issue with pg & e is a constant challenge. last week one of our projects, we learned that pg & e is trying to fight even having the electric meters inside the building. it is just a constantly, they fight the location of the meters and when i sat at the meeting, they said developers make so much money, why don't you go back five feet. we have a lot of clients who have connections with pg & e and reach out to their supervisors, no one budges. so the gas meter at least at this time, they as

of couple years ago, they wanted it back to the sidewalk. so that's what we have unfortunately. >> can we not combine the window with the door so some light coming in would give more light instead of having a tiny window and gas meter and the door. is that possible shifting the gas meter more to the south and combining window and door which does provide psychologically make this area larger in the room. is that possible? >> yes, the reason this meter landed in the middle of the room, they want clearance from three feet to the sewer line and

the utility line and this is all we have left. maybe we can continue negotiation with them during the construction documents and maybe we can find another solution and maybe pg & e can be more lenient and we can do better than this. at this time this is all we can come up with unfortunately. >> we are in the midst of working with an mou with public works and hopefully in consultation with pg & e as well to get alignment to create some standards where we will support the city underground electrical rooms on projects that have really narrow frontages to be active places for people. this one meets the criteria that we are drafting right now. it would be helpful if we can on this project if we can start with the construction project phase if we are able to have the encouragement of the planning

commission to have this be undergrounded. i think that acknowledgment from you all will be helpful in us being able to advocate this for this underground. it will be one more tool to help leverage that outcome. >> there was one additional question on that. thank you for saying that. i do believe it's a very timely conversation and i think we would like to stay updated for what progress you are contemplating to give us. the other question i have is i hear you have increase in floor to ceiling height. >> yes. >> i'm wondering if we can get a step to be two up into unit one or one because i said that last time around given issues of privacy particular right now to issues of flooding, etc, we

would like it to be a little bit higher for privacy reasons as well as for rainfall, etc. >> thank you, commissioner moore. we looked at this yesterday. there is also the issue with the ada and we need to get ramping to all the units as well. we are able to fit a foot step above that grade into the elevation if that's of interest. we can't push the height higher because now we are pushing up against construction type, but if that is something the commission would prefer, that's doable. and the ramp would be in the front residential lobby, actually. >> i would strongly support that and the rest of the commission can sometimes talk about it independently, but that small gesture would help given that we are so crammed in with the gas meter, etc. those are more primary entrances to the unit. >> i would certainly support

having that step to create privacy for the unit on that street facing. that's doable. that sounds great. i think we had some discussions here broadly about this project and the project in the headlines before us and i think there are a lot of things that would have happened to continue especially with a fully seated commission. i understand the commission asked the project sponsor to do more outreach and for the project not to be able to to go forward at all. it's a little bit hard to ask for more outreach and to ask for more at the same time. i understand and recognizing there is different perspective on what should go here. it's bringing housing, ownership to units and small

scale format, more affordable units by design. if you are looking to the commission for discussion >> commissioner koppel. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a very late request. would you take public comment? >> i am not inclined to take public comment at this time. >> ms. ruiz is on the line as well. >> could you reiterate?

>> the 101 street facing unit and if possible to find a way to switch the window with the gas meter moving south. >> was that one step or one foot, i can't recall? >> one step. >> one foot and one step. >> great. thank you. >> very good. then commissioners there is a motion and second to approve this project with conditions as amended to include condition 2, move the jessie street unit up one foot and one step, and then look into switching the window with the pg & e gas meter. >> can i interrupt for a second? i thought you wanted us to encourage underground rather

than switch it. >> the general encouragement to pursue undergrounding with pg & e as a recommendation. >> it's not a condition of approval. >> just memorializing in the record that the commission is in support of this underground electrical room. >> is that a motion? >> we need to take it to incorporate in the motion to this finding to support undergrounding of the pg & e utilities. this has been a long standing battle between and preferred options. >> again with our preferred findings. we'll see what happens. >> is the maker of the motion amenable to the finding and addition to the seconder?

>> on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved., commissioners, that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners ruiz and imperial voting against. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 9 since item 8 has been continued to march 23. >> 9. 2022-003329cua (j. horn: (628) 652-7366) 3790-3792 21st street - northeast corner of noe street; this is a conditional use permit authorization. >> good afternoon, department staff. the item before you is a

request for authorization for conditional use permit for demolition that occurred in a family dwelling in the r 2 district. this project site is locate in the noe valley district. the 1700 square foot lot has 33 frontage, and the building is non-compliant in regards to the rear yard at the site. the project proposes to legalize the demolition that occurred at the project site wall expanding and reconfiguring the original two story, two family dwelling into a 4831 gross square foot, three story over basement two family dwelling with a car garbage --

garage, and the second unit was relocated to a newly constructed basement level and studio to approximately 836 square foot one bedroom unit. the garage moved to the noe frontage of the unit. additional alterations submitted in april of 2015 and july a der was filed in july 2018. the item was continued and commission gave direction to the spore to change the project that included

enlarging the lowering of unit and providing windows on front street and new lighting at the rear yard and this window was part of the removal of the policy. the building permit was issued in july of 2017 . over ten complaints over the work approved and working scope and not being compliant with the proposed plans. the department of building expectation issued a certificate of final completion in march 2021. in december 2021, the client opened a complaint base for

merger of the units by not constructing a closet wall thereby including the direction of the unit. planning concluded that the removal of the building elements that occurred at the construction of the project include the threshold which is seeking legalization through this before you today. the current owner took possession of the property in march 2022 and submitted this correction a month later april 14, 2022. the request today is to legalize the project as completed with minor modifications to correct alterations that were made to the project that were not in conformance with the original approval. to highlight this, included to add a first window

for the first floor that was added during the der process. the other alteration would be to add side lights to the windows to ensure compliance to allow these bay windows to be compliant. the department received four letter in support of the project and two letters with concern. the letters in support generally support the project as constructed with requests to minimize any additional alterations needed. the opposition was concerned with the merger and what happened at the site. the additional letter has concerns with the construction at the site. overall the project find this project is on balance and in policy of the general plan. and proposes the demolition of the

two family dwelling and provides additional bedrooms. the department also finds the project necessary and desirable and compatible with the neighborhood and not to affect the persons and the properties within the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the project owners. they are requesting a fee waive for de facto demolition and to approve the work completed by the previous owners. they purchased the property in 2022 and since learning of the enforcement matter have worked diligently with planning staff to address these conforming issues. it's a four bedroom unit

in the upper floor and the one bedroom unit at the ground floor. this is a one car garage area. the project had three permits and received a certificate of compliance in march 2021. it is unclear from the record whether demolition calculations were submitted and incorrect or not submitted at all. we don't know what happened here. we searched the record and we can't figure it out. either way the scope of the project received this criteria resulting in the demolition. the majority of the project was approved with the plan, however the other than owner did change the window widths and eliminating the closet and those changes are in the list. as part of this

approval, they would like the correct the plans and adding a window on the street for the first floor ground unit. as mentioned they moved into the property in august 2022. since then, they have been active members of the community and they have been enjoying their house. the support of the neighbors with four of them submitting letters of support, and they have been in contact with the dolores heights neighborhood association which will be commenting during public comment in support of this project as well. it's uncontested that this has existed with the demolition and they were all done by the previous owners, developers. the current owners hands are clean.

they bought the house and the owner is here and he will be speaking in a moment. they want to remedy the situation and hope you will grant the approval today. i'm going to turn it over to answer questions and go through plans if you need me too. thank you. >> hi, good afternoon, everybody. thank you for meeting with us today. we are the owners of 3790 and 3792, the units in question today. i thought it would be helpful to give you a little perspective and history on our behalf as new owners. for background we recently moved to san francisco from new york. this was a great opportunity for me and in a time when a lot of people are leaving this great city, i always thought that san

francisco was a great opportunity. we moved here and thought it would be a nice adventure for our family, including our two kids. once we decided we are moving here, we immediately began looking into schools for our two kids. anyone that has kids knows that every child is different, every school is different and we had to find a school that was a good fit for our kids and in late 2021, we came here to look at schools and homes and we absolutely fell in love with this house. we thought it would be a great fit for us. and most important criteria which were close to my office, close to the kids school. shortly thereafter, we entered into a contract of the home and submitted the application for the school. at this time we weren't aware of any issues of the home because non-were disclosed to us. and then after

that, these issues came to light. i will highlight that we were just an is blind sided by this. as mentioned, we had nothing to do with this. but unfortunately for us, we had already entered into a contract and made the down payment and applied to our kids school at this point and school application deadlines had passed and the san francisco market was in a complete frenzy state. >> i'm sorry, that is your time. >> okay, can i wrap up? >> we'll have additional questions. thank you very much for your time. >> in that case, commissioners, we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you are remote, press star 3,

webex, raise your hand. public speaker: hi, georgia. this is a very unusual case. the commission has to approve the cia for an illegal structure that is already occupied and clear that relative affordability was not protected and also raises the question of economic diversity but focused on affordability. how did this illegal happen? that is not explained. here are other issues, general plan policy in the assignment is not met. this is not a remodel of existing housing for families with children. it's an original demolition. two, staff did request this in pdr's, this illegal demolition can not be delayed due to staff. who else

knows who. three, the smaller flat was relocated from the street to the basement becoming a unit that was connected to the larger three floor unit, the sliding door can be seen in the floor plan from the sales add which they were handing out to you. the residential flat policy needs to be codified and passed in october 2017. four, the relatively plan is not met because of the sale history. it was priced at 799,000, there was a probate of $998,000 and sold for $1.3 million. the project went on the market for $1.9 million, it sold for $6.5 million even at this fire sale price, there is no relative

affordability protected compared to the two original flats both which were livable and to be occupied separately. the lower was not occupied. it had three rooms at least. the original flats were positive contributions to the city's housing stock. since 2012, two loopholes aided and an a betted the development culture and helping to fuel this as in the past decade. before approving the cua for this illegal demolition please amend the finding to reflect the reality that relative affordability was not protected. thank you very

much. >> next speaker. >> the history of this project falls within the two time periods and prior 2022 through today. the second who owns the property responsible for the project, the project was affected by a policy and administrative short accommodation -- shortcoming and yes multiple permits were approved by city departments. as a result the property was able to be marketed at the end of 2021. a new chapter began in 2022. the planning issued a new

base and the new owner took possession and they have been trying to make things right and worked extensively and cooperatively with planning in order to affect the violations and feedback has been positive from neighbors. what is now to be done? staff recommended the windows on the side are important ones and the windows are needed for reasonable light. the second unit must be truly separate. other changes to the second unit are impacted at this point and configuration to the second unit with the 2016 approved plans. the original buildings. second, the request from neighbors who are weary of construction should be respected

so any additional construction should be at cause for no reason and keep your prevention of this kind of construction and strong oversight and continuing and enforce the stronger side of continuing enforcement. also, i would like to endorse and support the recommendations for changing the conditions. thank you very much. >> >> last call for public comment on this item? >> seeing no additional request to speak, this public comment is

closed and this matter is before you. >> if you want to come back, i know you had some comments to make still. great. >> i think you were explaining a little bit about getting closing on the home and moving in. it sounds like that occurred early last year that you closed and were made aware of the challenges. can you describe that a little bit? >> sure, as i was saying we were blind sided by this. since becoming aware of these issues, we have been working collaboratively with the planning department to address these. again there are issues that we stepped into and had nothing to do with. i want to thank the planning department in the manner they conducted themselves. we got information from the planning department and what they were looking for and we accepted the recommendations of the planning department as well. in our minds, we are

making amends for the mistakes of others hopefully by accepting what the department is recommending, represents a workable path for everyone. in our goal it's just to move on and legalize the property for something that we just inherited. the last comment i will make is we really enjoy our time in the home and we have become friends with the neighbors and consulted the neighbors with the project. >> sorry this is your welcome to this city and hopefully more of san francisco is more enjoyable than dealing with this project. was it marketed to you as a single family home or was it one residential unit?

>> yes, it was marketed as a single family home. it was presented to us with the downstairs unit merged in the main unit all as one and the deviation versus the construction and the permits. it was on that basis that we entered into a contract. we didn't know there were two units. we closed off the two units that changes the composition of the home materially. we were fine accepting that, with we were fine accepting the proposed modification as part of the plan recommendations and we are doing everything we can and doing everything that has been asked of us. >> thank you. i don't know if any of the commissioners have any questions. okay. thank you so much for your time. i really appreciate that. >> to staff, about the complaints that you have. obviously it was a thought process of residents that

weren't happy with the project going forward. do you have the nature of complaints and whether they were investigated and have merit to those complaints? >> planning staff. these were dbi building complaints. the nature of that language is always hard because it's written by the complainant and not the staff. the written language was a lot of scope of work. actually some references to that window not being constructed. people were aware of it. this property if you look at the history of some of the online sites, map sites, you can see the construction, protection during the whole process which didn't seem to be a very long construction process.

>> even though they were made to dbi, were they closed? >> yes, they were closed by dbi staff. >> they were corrected. >> yes, the one remains. >> which is the 2022 complaint. >> the december timeframe we received our complaint for the unit merger. >> great. thank you. >> commissioners, do you have any questions? >> no, i would like to engage mr. horn who took over this project from nancy tran. i'm the only commissioner in this room here who participated in the earlier version of this project and this is one of the saddest days for me to see as much fraud having been committed by the previous applicant, the previous owner and the previous company. this is not having to do with

the parallel and if you look at the zone, this is built as a completely different building from what the commission in 2015 and 2016 carefully in a number of different meetings crafted this building to be. this building as a corner building required a lot of exterior attention as well as aside from the unit equity which always has been most and first and foremost important to the commission. but the treatment of windows and the introduction of windows which is in a completely different plane than they were asked to be built, the fenestration, the mulling and the different setbacks from the street side. i have hardly any words to describe my frustration.

absolute disrespect for this commission that spends a lot of time that is our volunteer time. this is an insult and fraud on every level. this doesn't have anything to do with the current owners which i believe are seriously victimized by that amount of fraud to be able to to happen. we do need to understand and perhaps there is an ability to changing a little bit. when inspectors come to a site at the various stage of inspection, they do not unroll the drawings to see whether the windows sit in the right place whether they are in the right location and the right type of window has been chosen. we were very specific about what type of

recessed windows we wanted in order to give this massive building a modulation and more accept ability on the street side. all of that is out the window. a gracious door entry was tossed away for a minimal single door on the street side, north side as well. and as i read and i will be happy to share with my fellow commissioners on the instruction that the department based on commissioner decisions gave to the applicant at three different occasions and all of it was basically thrown to the wind. this does have some weight. under any other circumstance, this project would not be approved today.

we have this commission in other ways we would state this this building we back to its original but we are not able to do that because we would victimize the people. and for any developer to sell this under any pretense is liable. i'm not going to ask whether there was any action considered. there is a fraud here. whos paying for that. is this the people today asking for a modified project or who is paying for that? i don't want to get myself into some kind of an emotional loop here as a commissioner. i have served as

commissioner for quite a few years. i am more than appalled, i'm extremely angry and frustrated and empathize for the people who were frauded by these actions. >> i could not agree with you more. >> who makes to point to forward the previous findings to be able to retrace the steps. >> thank you for that. >> to that point, i recall in my memory with the challenges we had with some legislation to try to find builders or other actors who committed fraud in a do not use list. is that still active. i don't know the folks responsible to this could do that but i would not want them working in the city again and continue to provide this low quality of work. >> sure. happy to. there is

legislation that is in effect at the building inspection. i believe there is only one person on it. unfortunately but understandably the way that was written was moving forward. people who violated, obviously a lot of work were related to projects by staff in 2015 and 2016 because of the amount of time it takes. it's a moving forward list so it's not capturing a lot of projects where the action took place prior to the adoption of that ordinance. however, which i think is relevant and we absolutely second your thoughts and we were having a very similar conversation similar around the very same frustration and we expect the final design on plan is designed to get built

and we rely on other agencies to see that it happens. but what i will say as a bit of a teaser for next week and in your packet next week is that there is a piece of legislation that we have been working with supervisor ronen on fees and penalties. there will be much more of a robust conversation relevant to this project that does two things that will be great. hopefully there are no other future projects like this comes forward but expands responsible parties and right now it's a different property and not the right person to penalize. it changes the definition to penalize contractors and we are trying to gain compliance. we never really had a penalty that could be

assessed on someone if it was identified that they did something wrong. this legislation changes that and will give the zoning administrator the ability for things if projects lead to demolition. there are projects coming forward that hopefully will have teeth which we didn't have at the time of this action that will hopefully continue to deter people going forward. it's the only good news that we have for these projects is we have not been hearing about these coming in and the trend is going down. from 2018, we really started adding additional protocols in place around tantamount demolition around creating preinspection on the site that involves any vertical

addition and have been making phone calls to contractors to be sure they understand the rules. we really haven't seen this trend going up or stabilizing. it's going down. just want you to know there is something in the works and we very much share your frustration as to what gets built and approved. >> thank you for adding that. i think what's further frustrating is not even the right word. it's wrong and disappointed in the city staff. there were complaints made and maybe inspectors going to the site and not unrolling the plans. they can take a deeper look to verify that it's correct overall. so the complaint base system and when the complaints don't work, we are stuck here and then this new san franciscan is stuck with

this house that they have to modify. that is absurd. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i want to add, where are we right now instead of having a studio that we have a one bedroom, is that at all possible? >> thank you, jeff horn, planning staff. this discussion did occur during the der hearing process back in 2016. at that time, the relocated unit to the ground floor was going to be a studio, this kind of open floor plan studio around 820 square feet. what led to the commission's final hearing and

der and led to the requester was the additional plan that provided a natural wall to create a living and kitchen area and a bedroom that had the new light well at the rear yard to make it a dbi definable bedroom. additionally the wall was pushed out recapturing some of the garage space providing additional square feet to the unit. that was the effort to at least enlarge that unit because the units were broken up by floor. so, absence of actually taking square footage from the other floor and providing it to the lower unit expanding it into the garage space was the only conversation that occurred. >> how many square feet do we have now? >> i think 832.

>> in addition to that question, what harm is to the family who bought a single family home and now let go of a unit to this home. has this family expressed any? >> the current family, i would not state they expressed any harm from the changes that need to be made. >> they have not tried to object that this has to happen? >> no. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. >> >> thank you. >> commissioner braun? >> commissioner braun: yes, i have a question and i'm going out a little bit on the limb here because the modifications are going to be made. but the challenges with this project, but when it was built, one of the issues with the builder or

contractor or developer, there is a curb on the noe street of the project. i live three blocks away from this for a very long time. there is a curb at the sidewalk because there is cones on it. from what i can tell it was built as part of this project being built and i don't know if there are any plans to do anything about that curve. maybe there is a comment on this. >> this is a property with a curb for the sidewalk? >> when this project was built at the end of the handicap ramp, it was built at the edge of the

landscapes area and i don't know maybe two feet, a foot or two past it. it's been a long time tripping issue in this area. it's not going to affect this vote on this issue. i'm just wondering if this area has been addressed. >> mr. horn, did you want to try to address it? i don't know if you are aware of the condition that's being described. we are looking in our plans here. >> yeah. jeff horn, planning

staff. i'm not too sure, i can't confirm the condition of that construction. the curves or the sidewalk layout and the ada accessibility requirements are not in the purview of the planning department in that review of those plans. i would suspect the permits likely did go to dpw and reviewed by public works prior to issuance and constructed according to the plan that has issues. >> a big presumption as we are finding out right now. >> maybe as the department, i can see it on google maps now and even see the cones described that are there and looks like the planter boundary may extend beyond that. there may be a reason why that is the case, but maybe planning can look into it

why it's that way and maybe you have some rational. is that right? >> yes, we can absolutely reach out to public works. >> thank you. >> mr. diamond? >> thank you. question. when this project was originally approved nothing was according to the project with conditions of approval, is that correct? >> correct because the der was ultimately withdrawn. this wasn't a project, der's don't normally get recorded for restrictions either and no approvals for the building permit that doesn't come with any title conditions or restrictions. >> correct. i guess that reinforces the plan that there is nothing the current owner could have done aside from come down to the planning department, ask to see the entire file on

the project, go through the plans and decide whether or not the plans reflect what was built. >> right. i presume they will see what is associated with the project and no active violations and usually those are two things that someone would jump out due diligence and because there was a crc that would limit the investigation and nothing further. >> we can expect purchasers to review the title reports, but aside from that, it's expecting too much of a purchaser to go further than that. it may be a question for us as to how much detail we want to record when we

do nsr's. when we record an nsr, do we record the conditions and the drawings? >> it depends on what it is associated with. for example the low-income market and how it's recorded and for example, for this demolition and standards of approval, it would be in the conditions of approval to notice with no plans. >> the condition has been this will be recorded as an nsr and i have been looking at this briefly and there are no conditions of approval to the fact of the dwelling unit of the house. it's a standard condition. >> usually in the first condition in the preamble before

it was enumerated like the lot number. >> jeff, planning staff. this is in the condition of approval and whether you want to ensure a certain density. >> going forward, we are learning a lot from this horrendous process. >> page 15 exhibit a is the beginning of the conditions of approval. the first paragraph under the header authorization it does say 4800 square foot, two family dwelling. that's very standard type of dwelling. >> that addresses my concern. in this particular case, there was no nsr and no way for the owner to have any knowledge. i will make a motion to approve

given the state we are in. >> second. >> that is a motion with conditions. >> yes. >> if there is no further deliberations, commissioners, there is a motion and second to accept this matter with conditions. [roll call] so moved. that matter is approved 7-0. that puts us at item 10. >> 10. 2020-007168cua (m. giacomucci: (628) 652-7414) >> we are going to

>>clerk: good afternoon, welcome back to the planning commission meeting of january 12, 2023. >> commissioners, we left off on item 10 10. 2020-007168cua (m. giacomucci: (628) 652-7414) 2 lake street - north side of a conditional use permit authorization. >> i have various ties for this project and my involvement would be impractical and later i joined the commission. i have recused myself from this deliberating but i'm also a done

or to the project and after consideration with the city attorney's office, they have asked that i recuse myself. >> vice-president kathrin moore: motion to recuse commissioner diamond. >> second. >> on the motion. >> [roll call] >> so moved., >> commissioner diamond, you are recused. >> i have visited the project.

>> so did i. >> good afternoon, the item before you is a request for a conditional use permit authorization for planning to allow a floor area ratio far of 3.1 a method of height measurement of 88098 square foot building on 1/2 acre. the project site is congregation emmanuel and dates to 1925 and has a courtyard wing on lake

street. the proposal would add 17130 square feet of religious institutional and child care uses and 5900 square feet of open space. this project would allow far to exceed controls which permit a building of 102,000 square feet on the lot. the modification would allow the building of modification of 5,000 square feet and far 2.3 to one for the allowable 252 one. no increase or school enrollment is proposed for the project. the height measurement proposed in the pud would not exceed the net in the overall height of the complex but would allow to measure height between second avenues given the large size of

the parcel. the mid-point of the project side and from the mid-point on second avenue rather than one single point of measurement for the entire property. in addition to the building expansion, the project would allow for safety and security upgrades and considerable upgrade of the elements of the subject property and would restate the main entrance to the monumental arch at lake street. the property had none been surveys for the application before you today and found to be eligible for listing under the historical resources under the historical evaluation process. since 2019, the project sponsor has conducted surrounding efforts with the community including small

meetings and effort groups and eight local community organizations. the project team also maintain a public website and mnd public period has been taken into consideration the. the department has received 77 letters in support of the project in san francisco and the planning association in richmond and this will allow emmanuel to

continue, two letters of complaint due to noise. two more letters of opposition were sent via email concerning the historic preservation in terms of the aspects of the project and the interior analysis. the department also received one final letter this morning about the impacts to the street in the vicinity. the staff find this project is consistent with the general plan. the purpose of the project is to protect and upgrade the nearly 100 year old emmanuel building by improving seismic strengthing and historic measures and the overall increase to the building envelope is minor and will be visible from the right-of-way and not increase enrollment nor the congregation size.

this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. and we have my colleague who was the environmental planner on this project, jennifer mckeller on webex. the project sponsor team will follow with any information if you have questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor, you have a five minute presentation. >> >> could we respectfully ask for 10 minutes? >> if we have additional questions, we will give you more time. >> thank you.

>> emmanuel has been an integral fabric of san francisco for nearly 100 years at lake street. we represent a congregation from every zip code in san francisco as far away as santa rosa to gather, to worship, to celebrate life and to mourn its loss but we are more than just a traditional synagogue, we are open to judaism and you are welcome to our church. you are all invited. we have regarded nationwide to a progression of judaism and our home no longer supports this mission. it's about safety and security. manuel will build security in the area and providing a seismic resiliency

that building lacks and the bulk out proposed will make it safer to cross for everybody. beyond these basic needs we are asking new classrooms and worship areas and restoring our historic entrance that will dramatically increase the appearance from our front center and we'll continue to worship in this open way and to make our mark on the neighborhood, our community in san francisco. thank you very much for your time. this afternoon. i would like to introduce mr. duffy and -- >> i will be brief but wanted to raise two legal points. there were two recently received letters that support the quasi

of the ceqa document. that period closed an a while ago and that's not before you an wanted to be clear those comments should not be considered unless it pertained to the cup. this commission has always been respect of the clear definitions and that's especially important here where it's a religious institution protected under federal law and important to stay clear of conditions that might impose any burdens on worship. we encourage you to stick with the recommendations of the staff which are included in district 7 that we'll work with the remaining details and that is also to include the courtyard. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, monica and david. the goals of the project are as david described to increase safety and security of the

building while adding much needed space for gathering and educational needs. the building was modeled on jerusalem with an added procession. over time that procession was eroded for the need of visibility. this is shown here. the sanctuary occupies this area. most of the work proposed is in the courtyard. the demolition affects 12% of the total area leaving nearly 90 percent of the building intact and the demolition addresses the need to enhance safety and you can see the temporary braces which were added when the courtyard arcade was a seismic

risk and collapse hazard. due to the design, we coordinated the project that combines with repairs and salvage of items. here are some examples of the items to be salvaged. this is an image of their as well as the facade in the way it is today, and the way it is envisioned of the project with the glass to the project and how it is originally designed. this is the view from the corner of lake. and this is a view of the completed project. you can see the changes are minimally visible from the public realm. you can see a glass at the tail of the roof and the new space for the children. >> i am sorry. >> that is your time. including participation, you should take comments by the public. if you are in chambers, please

come forward and lineup on the side of the room. if you are calling in, press star 3, if you are on webex, raise your hand to get into the queue. >> public speaker: good afternoon, my name is is steve cohen. i'm a neighbor. i live directly across the street from the synagogue and i have been living there for 34 years. the purpose of my being here is to testify that temple emmanuel has been a very good neighbor, and they have committed themselves to making sure if there are any issues with neighbors that they are dealt with. perhaps the thing that i have noticed over the years the most is the commitment to keeping the building and the grounds around it clean and usable along with the fact of

significant expense that they have gone through to make sure it's safe. there is a lot of security that's there. that would be .1. the really my only other point is that the sensitivity of the synagogue to traffic has been excellent because they provide if there is a major event or a major holiday where there is expected to be a lot of people and that may occur whether it's lake street or arguello. sometimes they block my driveway and i would ask them

to be more sensitive to it. and they have smaller issues that this synagogue would do the same thing in a neighborly way to be sure things are appropriate. thank you. i appreciate it. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is andrew rosental and a parent of two children. this is a critical part of our experience in san francisco. as parents of young children, safety is our number one priority. this project is ab important way of addressing that concern and increasing the safety of our children and future children at the preschool. the preschool and the administration have been entrusted partners for us around

these concerns and as parents. as you heard there are questions around seismic, retrofit, access to children from the public, and emmanuel project is there to improve and support these concerns. the courtyard you heard a little bit about today is central to parents and the preschool. it where we drop our kids off. it's where we meet other parents. it's where we meet with the staff and the teachers. the courtyard is where our children's grandparents and great grandparents and some relatives who are elderly are able to visit and learn about the school and interact with the students and the staff. the courtyard is critical and the project provides a brand new face and appropriate place for that kind of activity as well as additional space for the children educationally.

as an immediate resident of the neighborhood and parent, we have seen this process as transparent, we have been able to be involved throughout the entire time throughout the course of the years and in this process provided as a benefit to us today as parents and where the project is done and a place where we can come back to meet with the parents we met, the staff and administrators and seeing it provided to us as benefits to neighbors. thank you very much for the information. i stand strong in support of the emmanuel's next project. >> good afternoon and thank you commissioners. my name is laurie coleman, a resident of san francisco. i have been going to emmanuel for 20 years. i plan to go for the next 40 hopefully and until i die. i'm a member, and i also have two children. my

children have grown up at emmanuel and i reiterate my concerns for safety, but i will go one step further. focusing on the need for additional classroom space and just program space specifically during the pandemic my daughter who is a six grader, she was in that one range of grades where they ran out of classrooms and space for them. so i really would appreciate an absolutely understand that right now we have out grown our current space. so, allowing this project to develop will address a lot of the programming concerns that are real for parents. i also have concerns about security with the children at the grade level, and elevating the playground, and i just appreciate your support for the

project, and hope you both are in favor. thank you. >> hello, my name is christian. a 27 year resident of san francisco, and a member of congregation emmanuel. i am here today to ask for your support for the emmanuel next project. and for me it really comes down to three things. you have heard so far one is safety. when you look at the rise in antisemitism and what we are seeing across the country and even within our own city is absolutely imperative not just to protect the safety of the children, but all the residents in the area, all the congregants of emmanuel and the safety and the seismic safety that are going to be part of this program. earthquake in san francisco is inevitable. we need to be sure that we are

prepared and that we have taken all of the necessary precautions to take care of anyone who is in and around the building in the event of an earthquake. the second is community health. we look at the impact that covid-19 had on the mental health and physical health of all of the residents, not only of san francisco, but of the entire nation. and this is a project that's going to provide more community space to allow people to come together and connect. we see how important that is to the health of the community and being able to be a leader in the area of bringing folks together and helping to ensure the longevity and health of the residents of san francisco. and finally it's personal for me. i am a mother of two children who are now adults. i don't get to say i have children anymore. i get to

say i have adults, and the adults that i have would not be the adults that they are had they not had an opportunity to have the education that they had at emmanuel. my daughter is currently a student studying in jerusalem and inspiration and actually being able to see her there with her role models to connect with a future that so deeply spoke to her, i want that opportunity. i want every mother to say their daughter is going to be a rabbi because that is amazing. i really do believe this project is really essential to continue to have a thriving jewish community within san francisco. it is so very important. as jews, we talk about the fact that it's not the temple. we practice our faith and it's in

our homes, and i deeply believe that. if it were not for the physical space of this temple, i know fundamentally my children wouldn't have the jewish faith they have today. that is really important. >> thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> thank you. >> would any other members of the public wish to speak? okay, we are going to our remote callers. you will need to press star 6. >> >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. my name is jonathan pearlman. i want to start by saying that i have been following this project for many reasons as an architectural hitorian and personal involvement in this

project. san francisco is not in the landmark of the planning code but it is within the landmark for the city at large and very significant historical resource. under ceqa and san francisco's preservation criteria, the building is significant in three categories associated with events, lives of important people and em bodies the same characteristics of the types and represents the work of two masters. i believe this project is very well designed and hopefully will be executed to serve many for many generations to come. the courtyard area violates some very basic tenets of the association. it's comprised of

three areas and the space is all in the complex by it's -- byzantine category. the project violates the secretary of interior standards. the project is intended to demolish the courtyard of the building and replacing it with a fleet modern curtain wall structure. actually, if you can put up a second page of that letter, i would appreciate it. it violates three of the standards. that this project remain and preserve and this project destroys the character of the building by destroying the courtyard and materials and finishes and construction techniques. and the structure of the property will be preserved and the features are being destroyed. you can see in this before and after photo the arch

is the column, capital and the center are all being destroyed. in a standard nine talks about new additions and exterior alteration and the new work will be differentiated from the old and be compatible with historic materials. the design of the courtyard destroys the historical features and the new work in no way is compatible. this is in fact the stark contrast as a modern insertion in this byzantine and roman space. so, i wanted to ask you all commissioners to imagine walking into this hall on the way to this meeting and coming in from the east side -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. that is your time. >> thank you. i urge you to add conditions of approval to redesign the courtyard.

>> public speaker: hello, my name is christine, i'm the director of advocacy and program of san francisco heritage and speaking on behalf of this organization and thank you for this opportunity. we are are speaking on this project which is challenging an we reviewed the proposal of the project development team on several occasions in 2020. while we support the overall goals of the project, we continue to stand concerned about the features of the courtyard including the brick and colonnade will be demolished and the character feeling and patina will be in favor of the glass minimum treatment not keeping with the original building. this will

result in the permanente -- eraser. we feel it would be preferable if the courtyard would be related to the history of the building rather than the curtain wall system. as agreed by the city planners, the proposed plan does not meet the secretary interior standards for rehabilitation. we urge the commission to add a condition of approval regarding the redesign of the courtyard which will be more compatible with the existing architecture. thank you. >>

public speaker: i live directly across the street on arguello blvd. i do agree with the design of the project but ask for safety improvements for traffic as well as usage requirements for this new courtyard. right now we currently hear kids playing in the yard. it's great. it will be elevated to the upstairs level and the dome area of the courtyard already acts like a large echo chamber. if it vents out to the school yard, it makes a significant amount of noise and the temple does not follow noise ordinances after 10:00. it is used for outdoor activities with large amplified sound which in the past has been told not to use within the

courtyard. as far as traffic and safety for the congregation, i'm totally in agreement that more work needs to be done. but as my neighbors said people back into the driveways. they drive on everybody's driveway on the street. it is very dangerous. there has been many instances of double parking and i have towed many cars over the years. right now a slow street on second avenue, that would be a dead-end when they are dropping people off on lake street side and there is traffic coming from san francisco and california. there are bikes on presidio that will not be able to make that turn. there needs to be some

coordination done there. in 1969, we had a robbery across the street of a lady at 5:00 in the morning. i know that the line for the congregation, a couple incidents where kids were in serious danger during the pick up time from outsiders. so i ask that there be some coordination of security. i think the bulb out is not going to work. it's going to make it much worse. there used to be a sign for the streets for pedestrian. when it was raining hard, there was a couple coming from st. john or the temple, i almost ran them over because they were crossing the street and i could not tell that they were crossing there because a truck was coming from around the corner. and they were not movable. it's really dangerous that they fix the traffic there

and maybe put some speed humps. >> thank you. that is your time.

>> public speaker: thank you so much. it's a pleasure to be here speaking on behalf of this project on temple emmanuel. i live on second avenue and work closely with over 50 families of this neighborhood on all sorts of issues related to safety, helping each other, street safety, the neighborhood, health services for people and so on. my comment is not related at all to the policy and the architecture and so on. i'm sure that will be worked out in a

reasonable way. i do want to express the support of myself and all the neighbors who i have been in contact with with temple emmanuel as a neighbor, as a wonderful neighbor, a good part of our community. a beautiful place for i am children to go to school. what i want to say, in other words to upgrade this wonderful institution and make it a better place for the community we have no reason at all based on all of our experience with the congregation

and the management and leadership to have any question at all that things will proceed in a wonderful manner for everybody. i will keep that short and simple and just express support of our community and our thanks to the synagogue for continuing to improve itself. thank you so much. public speaker: i have been a member of emmanuel for ten years. i have relocated from the east coast and joined when we moved here. the congregation has

been a big part of our life and community. my children attended the preschool for nine years. we all live on third avenue between lake and california. so we are also neighbors. i echo a lot of the comments about the security and also the space limits especially during covid it was really challenging. i urge you to approve emmanuel because the building and congregation is such of a major part of our families life. we had our daughter meeting in the courtyard along with her traditional birthday and a lot of events there. i just wanted to seek in support of the temple, and i also wanted to tell the neighbors who said something about clarify --

claire lilienfeld. thank you very much and i urge you to approve this project.

>> public speaker: sorry for that. my name is jeremy, and i'm calling as a member of the con gregation. i'm calling for the approval for two reasons, the seismic upgrade is needed and for events. secondly is security improvements that will be well needed for the preschool students and anybody seeking to worship with peace of mind that they will be able to do it in this manner. thank you and suggest strong support for this

project. thank you so much. >> >> thank you. last call for public comment. >> press star 6 to unmute yourself on webex. >> public speaker: hello. my name is terry, thank you very much for your time. i'm calling on the retired membership and at emmanuel and support the work. my office was deemed to be in part of the area that would be at risk due to this project. so certainly fixing and security are very

much on my mind. but i also want to think about what change means and i think that's hearing from some of the folks who are concerned about the changes to the courtyard. i agree, we are changing the courtyard because we are choosing people over bricks and changing the courtyard for small group meetings and we have completely lacked space for people to interact and we understand after covid what a connection is and by forming a relationship and relationships are created when you are with people that you love in this community and that's what this congregation is about. we are there to celebrate, to mourn, to attend this synagogue and how important it is for people to have that

community around them. we need the changes to continue to provide that kind of support for our congregants and our larger communities. we are a disaster relief center for saint anne and we want to be as safe as we can during an earthquake so people can come to us for shelter. we urge your strong support. thank you very much. >> final call for public comment. >> seeing there is none, commissioners, it is back to you. >> i would like to talk about the courtyard changes and the preschool that is going to be created with this proposed redesign. >> thank you. i'm happy to

answer any questions. >> go ahead. >> there's a microphone there as well. >> this is the existing entry to the building. in the courtyard, we are creating a new lobby off of lake street. we are creating that lobby at grade so it is accessible. and then to maintain that historic possession, we are taking this interior further into the site and enclosing that

entry and you still get the full detail. the glass is used to see through. right now it's open air. it let's light, sound, vision everything to permeate and possibly leading to concerns about noise. by placing glass there, that should help with keeping sound inside. as we go inside the courtyard, this is what it looks like today. the glass is for several reasons, one is to maintain that view and transparency. we selected a bronze color to match the interior of the building. we have this away from the full

facade to get the full repeating of the composition. in doing that, we feel it's being differential to building and sanctuary, but there is no denying, we are demolishing the courtyard which is necessary to add the additional space to the excavation underground that we need and the project is adding approximately 19% to the existing area of the building. >> can you comment on the surfacing of the new courtyard. we heard now it's brick and how you settled on the material used for the courtyard. >> these materials are not settled and we are happy to work with the planning department on the finalization of those materials. this area here is showing a travertine which is in the brick, but we are open to exploring other materials. >> can you talk about the

relocation of the preschool and the play area for the preschool as well? >> yes, the preschool is currently, the classrooms are on the basement and first floor of inside the temple house. there is a grouping of classrooms on the fourth floor. the congregation placed some screening material behind the gates to mitigate views into the courtyard because that is where the children play. part of the project was to bring the children up to the roof terrace so they are more out of sight and there are areas of the congregation to the level to the area of the preschool at the level. >> is there additional classrooms for the entire use as well that will be newly constructed? >> yes, you can see around the courtyard, those are all classrooms. those are not for the preschool but for the adult

and acute programs. yes, the classrooms surrounding the courtyard and the transparency helps with that sense of connection and building community that is so important to this project. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> while you are there, would you mind explaining the thought behind the skylight? >> yes, first now the fountain is a talk of much debate, not just here but among the congregation itself. in this rendering here, that skylight is where the fountain is located now.

the fountain is large, 12 feet by 12 feet high. there is an investigation going on to see how it is constructed because the intent is to salvage it and then the question is where does it go. we have embarked on studies that relocate the fountain as part of the project. we don't even know if that is actually possible, but we are exploring it. >> is it because of its weight or size? >> we don't have a drawing to show how it's constructed, how it's put together and attached to the existing structure. that's not brick on structure, on grade. it's on an elevated slab. we don't know if it on the slab, how it's placed on the slab. an investigation is going on to figure it out. one is can we salvage it, if best way to

salvage it, can we reconstruct parts of it and relocate it to the courtyard. we are looking at all of those things. it is not off the table. >> the building is full of memoriable pieces that are everywhere. i'm in full support of the project and significantly impressed by what i saw, including the care of the community together with the architecture going over the changes that are inevitable. that are the gathering spaces for the top etc for the seismic security and expanded space.

>> while i have the full support i would very much look at the suggestion made by the attorney to encourage you to continue the dialogue. because there is a lot to be gained and a lot to be lost and once it's gone, it's lost. to take that call and get the approval and continue the dialogue and continue the work to put down where the pencil needs to be to soften decisions and to perhaps gain something which at this moment is not clear to everybody. i'm in full support of the project and prepared to make a motion. i would like to see what my fellow commissioners think. if not, i would like to move to approve with the request to continue working with staff and addressing the issues. >> second. >> i will add you said this very

well that some things are lost and definitely for the city is the future that exist at the congregation in the next hundred years, who knows how long. i totally respect those who would like to make the changes and also this is a living building and it has a life and purpose and to be allowed to fulfill that purpose and is more of a building and added function and especially the preschool, and for any preschool to keep it viable in the community, we need to keep that going. >> i don't know if there are any other hands to speak. did you have a question, ma'am? >> thank you, i appreciate you letting me ask the question. to clarify the condition that is

already reflected in condition seven that we continue to work with staff and understood completely. i understood that. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> there is a motion and second to approve this matter with conditions recognizing the project sponsor will continue working with staff. >> on that motion. >> [roll call] >> so moved. commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> commissioners, that will place us on item under your discretionary review calendar for item 11. 11. 2021-008669drp (d. winslow: (628) 652-7335) 627 16th avenue - west side

between balboa and cabrillo this is a discretionary review. for those exiting, please do so quietly. we appreciate it. >> good afternoon commissioners,

david winslow. to construct the rear horizontal three story one family dwelling and is eligible historic resource building built in 1918. the count of 1626 west avenue and the property of the west is concerned that it does not comply with the general plan and policy and housing to maintain a balance of affordability and does not adhere to the residential guidelines related to privacy or proposed alternatives to provide a storm prevention plan and constructing a single family home above the family home and screen into their proposal. to date the department has received no letters of support nor any letters supporting the project. staff comprise this includes the

guidelines and matches the modern building and depth and height and ensuring the access to the building and with light. the rear is 80 feet from the rear wall and third floor from this project and distance that it exceeds the width of the typical san francisco streets to adequate privacy is maintained. therefore staff does not see any undue burden to privacy. the department encourages additional units and projects compelling additional units and stormwater is beyond the planning department's ability to regulate and review. therefore staff deems since there are no exceptional extraordinary circumstances does not recommend taking discretional review.

thank you. >> you have a five minute presentation. is >> the der requester is not present. the project sponsor. you need to unplug. >> hi, my name is anita, the project sponsor. i'm going to

start with the existing neighboring properties. with the proposed addition is two feet shorter than the neighbor. so from the proposed addition to the rear direct, we are a neighbor. in relation to their property, it will be 129 1/2 feet. the neighbors concern is

privacy and this rear yard is hopeful so we do rick -- and the neighboring regarding this issue. in addition to that, we are proposing landscaping along the perimeters of the fence at the rear yard. there is still quite a few abnormal factors that we can't address yet like for example the layout of the overall landscape plans. this is a slope of the yard. we don't know if drains will work. we

need to consult with a plumber and he needs to come with his wife, three children and in laws. and most importantly, we need to know if there will be additional comments from the building department before we can finalize on the landscape plans. i will leave the floor plan for the owner to address, but i do have a few words for the owner and neighbor. we did have issues connecting with the neighbor. i believe honesty is very important. we are in the early stages of the project, and i

believe, as neighbors i hope that this can be resolved, possible issues that can be reasonably resolved among ourselves. thank you. >> >> that was the project sponsor presentation. >> did you want to speak sir as part of the project sponsor? >> you have time. >> i'm the owner. i wish the owner, i spoke to the concerns of the neighbor. so whatever they request, privacy, we'll reduce the size. unfortunately, it's already reduced a lot. i have a family of nine actually. my parents, my wife parents with three kids for

a family of nine. originally we proposed three stories for almost 4,000, but now reducing to 3,000 feet. right now when we purchased the house two 1/2 years ago, we tried to plan it ahead so we talked to the neighbors and planned to follow every planning city requirement. so right now to allow three months to do the yard. i'm with her personally on the phone email and she did not reply. i proposed my concern and i can do this to address your concern but no response and for now i don't

know what to do. we close the windows for more light and more privacy. we've been here more than two 1/2 years. >> you will have a two minute rebuttal. we'll go to comments. seeing no request to speak, commissioners. public comment is closed and project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal if you wish to use it. >> i really want to work with the neighbor because it will help on the two sides. and even the concerns. i talked to her

personally three times on the yard in person. i addressed the concerns she had. i'm going to give you a plan because right now in planning. i'm not a construction engineer and talked to the engineer to address the concern but we have no response. we did everything we can from our side. i talked to the structural engineer design for what we can. we purchased this house three years and i have three children. which are 4, 6, 8. we are waiting for the approvals. i have been paying the mortgage for this house for more than two 1/2 years just waiting for this and i have nine people to feed. so, imagine how much stress i

can be into three kids, four parents and a mortgage for this house for two 1/2 years just waiting for this approval and doing whatever we need to fix this house. like the previous owner of the house, we have come to san francisco i didn't think that was so bad but when we had kids, i thought we needed more space and we have expanded as a family with nine and we would like this approval to continue our journey. we have been living here for so long. i immigrated here so long and the parents and family here. >> very good, commissioners. that concludes this project

sponsor's presentation. >> i'm sorry. i'm disappointed your neighbor didn't show up and took the time to pause your project but not to make the case for why they needed to pause it. the storm water will be managed and part of the process and on going and not in our purview. i don't see any unusual circumstances, commissioners. >> move to approve. >> second. >> [roll call] >> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0.

>> i'm sorry for your trouble sir, thank you for coming here and wish your family good luck and when your renovation is finally complete. >> thank you. >> >> thank you, sir. . >> commissioners, that will put us on the final item 12. >> 12. 2020-001606drp (d. winslow: (628) 652-7335) 316-318 chestnut street - north also a discretionary review. >> commissioner is going to make a disclosure. >> on the property, john, i saw his name. he and i serve on a non-profit committee together. that will not affect my ability to be partial on this structure. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. before you is a

discretionary review of building application no. 202000160 for a family dwelling. built in 1907. the der requester, of 300 chestnut street property to the east of the project makes a non-compliant suggestion and more than likely impact the privacy. these alternatives are to make the railing more transparent, reduce the stair size and limit clutter. we have not received any letters in opposition and violates our longstanding roof decks. and

this forms a tight anytime partner in a key lot situation is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. if a roof deck the appropriate, it requires a soft touch to preserve the property of neighboring buildings. this is minimal and locating well back front view from the street. however, it appears that an existing stair may be able to to provide access for the roof. if staff deems necessary for discretionary review with modifications, one, setting the deck back for all building edges to ensure adequate privacy and second, the removal of the proposed solid roof par pit on the surrounding building edges which would not actually be allowed in this circumstance by code anyway given the

non-compliant location of the deck and the allowance of non-compliant deck to be on a roof as long as the railing is transparent and not solid. thank you. >> >> that concludes staff's presentation. >> you have a five minute presentation. >> dear president tanner, vice-president moore and planning commissioners, my name is peter y'alles. a homeowner on the two unit building locate at 300 chestnut that request your review of the project. i'm going to read a letter of my brother who is traveling today. i have a copy for each of the commissioners and staff.

thank you so much. >> so good evening commissioners, staff and director hillis. we are before you reluctantly as we know this item is not a significant one for you, but it is for us and our family. especially our 83 year old mother, the majority owner who previously occupied this building and her largest asset for her retirement. we are only here because we failed to reach a compromise and we were at a reconcealation meeting. the original notice dated october 2nd did have a non-compliant structure here but not listed in the information

printed today. the reason the subject property is not compliant is that it's in an r h 3 district requires 45% rear yard and it has zero rear yard. please take this into account. our request tonight is that commission deny the project based on the following. one, the project is on a non-compliant structure as mentioned earlier, and its approval would add to the degree of non-conformity in the non-conforming portion of the building and would act to privacy of the our residents. the elevation of a proposed deck even though located on a roof structure built down slope from ours would be approximately five feet higher than our top floor. so when people stand on the proposed deck, they would be

approximately 10-11 feet higher. if i was standing on that new deck, my eyes would be five feet higher than that deck that would be approximately, my eyes would be up there looking right down looking at my adjacent property. so, the notion of a down slope project being an even taller structure than an uphill structure fundamentally violates planning principles and the intent to protect light, air and privacy and yes views and so doing will impair our home. the proposed will effectively read like a wall on the sky. the proposed will have a material adverse impact on the property's value. like all property owners we paid top dollar having due diligence on our rights and

limitations as well as on chestnut and this will adversely impact the value of the property. if commission does not deb -- deny the project, we ask for the following conditions that are the compromises we offered to reach with the applicant. move the deck location. the deck, we proposed the deck be moved towards the front of the property setback from chestnut street where we would have fewer privacy and property value impacts and non-compliant rear yard. we asked there be transparent railing mentioned earlier which we appreciate. if the railings were setback from the property line consistent with staff

subject to modifications, the condition would enable more transparent railings instead of solid wood. transparent railings would be made of wire cable or secondly of glass. this would be greatly appreciated. the setback would also be consistent with page 38 of the residential design guidelines. the attached of the reducing of the size of the deck. since it's only one unit. the third request is that there be a bathtub stair. the stair penthouse be converted into an internal access point just as the sunken or back stair. >> that is your time. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, you have

five minutes. >> >> okay. members of the commission, thank you very much for your time. . i'm going to talk about relevant code section of the planning code. i'm going to briefly orient us to the property, the plan and adjacent to the properties. i'm going to speak a little bit of the review of the applicant for the roof deck and summarize. >> so, i'm not going to read the entirety of this, but in essence, section 188, non-compliant structures, there

are restrictions on what could be allowed on non-compliant structures, but with those restrictions, there are some allowances for alterations and uses. really key interpretation of section 188 and this has been in the planning code since 1986 that allows decking for a non-compliant structure with code minimum railings and a penthouse placed in the buildable area of the lots. this directly correlates with the project at hand. we have decking on a flat roof with railings and penthouse with a buildable area. no other improvements. this is sort of a brief orientation on the existing plot plan on the plan and the proposed is the penthouse is behind the rear yard setback and there are no other improvements on the deck

aside from the deck itself and the railing. no barbecue, no trellises, no wind screen, no other buildable structures. here is an overlay showing things about neighborhood character and pattern which i know you are familiar with this. there is a partner and character of a property built into this yard in the neighborhood. every property that touches the project's property is built into the rear yard. the second thing i think is relevant is that there are two adjacent rear yard decks at 300 chestnut which is the applicant property which they both have roof decks to the yard similar to the one we are proposing from this project. here is the view to the applicant towards the roof. i'm

going to make a couple points here first regarding privacy, light, air. air is not relevant when it comes to an open roof deck. this roof deck would be to the north of the applicant's property. so light is not really relevant either. when you speak to privacy, the concern raised was that things requested the railings, etc, those deal more with a concern for a view. we think the underlying concern for the applicant is a loss of view, and any assumed correlation to property values which really isn't appropriate in this case. this is a property without any outdoor space in a dense area of the city. we are asking for a modest deck without any amenities and we are in compliance with section 1850. in summary, it's compliant with

section 180 and we are concerned about privacy. we had offered to put up a privacy screen that was not accepted and we offered to drop the penthouse which is code minimum, and if we move the deck as the applicant suggested in this presentation, it would be right on top of them and runs counter to this privacy. every property is in the rear yard and the applicant's property to the rear yard. in summary, we are troubled by the fact that the applicant is asking this commission to deny the same right for the project as they have on their own property. >> good afternoon. i'm the

consultant of this project. >> 30 seconds. >> apparently one of the commissioners is asking for wanted to address the tenant downstairs to use the open space at the top of the building and we came up with this design and everybody can use that because this land and there is no property and leaving space for the other tenant who came up with the design that they can see on the screen. >> that is your time, but you do have a two minute rebuttal. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. you need to come forward or press star 3 or raise your hand in webex. >> thank you very much. i feel we are very close to an agreement here. if we take the recommendation to have a setback

of five feet one inch, and we have a transparent fence which would be the wires that would provide that light and what we are looking for. and we can do the in set bathtub stairwell instead of 8 or 9 penthouse for the stairwell then we'll have an agreement as proposed and they would have access to the deck and there would be no structure and no solid fencing or penthouse there. so that's the recommendation and proposal for agreement that we proposed but hasn't been accepted yet. that's my request. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. >> this is ammad again. they are

asking for the new use for the roof decking and since we came here and the commissioners were supporting it to use the deck and we are complying with your requirement that the other tenant have the right to use the roof. we came up with this design. >> >> this is a roof deck. you can see we are at the main entrance to the top of the building and to the passageway so the people on the roof can enjoy this space and there is no way that anybody can use the outside. this is the only way to use a roof deck. if you look at the design on the

front elevation. this is a front elevation. you see the penthouse, this one. if you look at this penthouse, i talked to preservation planner today, moses, if you can, bring the front of the penthouse down, and to have a minimum covering the front of the building. anyhow, that's our recommendation and i hope you can understand the other tenant has the right to use the roof deck too. and they keep the roof wiring, this is so dangerous to have the wiring to look down or something, they can go down three stories down. the basic is you are asking for --

>> thank you. that is your time. okay, commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion. now this matter is before you. >> thank you. mr. winslow the proposal with the path way and intrigued by providing access but i don't see it in my packet. >> it's not in your packet. it was an idea initially thought of and disposed of based on clients preference. >> can i just understand more about this. i'm intrigued about providing access being that there is no other outdoor space. can you explain what's going on? >> yes, this was something that was brought up recently and we thought we would at least bring it to the commission's attention. we did explore it very early in the project. it was not part of this submitted project. there are as you know

complexities on the planning code and building code side with the roof access to the fourth floor and did determine there is a second egress that would require a section of the stair in the building of the penthouse and our initial analysis determined that there were kind of road blocks in terms of preservation and planning and it would be a resource to having been determined for review. we did discourage that process and was relevant to put forward today because we know it's relevant to consideration of the space in the area. >> right. thank you for that. i'm intrigued by it. overall coming into this hearing without having seen that, i was prepared to support the fast recommendation with the der that was there. i would suppose if you wanted to continue to pursue

this option. >> i had a meeting on this proposal yesterday on the potential smaller penthouse as suggested too with the map. it would be minimally visible and supportable from this standpoint and encourage this analysis. it could be amended. >> to include that. >> to avoid notice for that. it would require notice at this point if the commission decided to put this altogether. or the commission could say this is an acceptable alternative.

>> i would be supportive of that. thank you for that legwork of this commission hearing. i'm in support of that and also in support of staffs recommendation. for the roof deck we talked about outdoor space being prioritized including retrofitting that access to this building which has no outdoor space at all. that would be great. interested to hear what other commissioners have to say. commissioner moore? >> vice-president kathrin moore: i was supposed to ask the question to the unit building condominium or rental to build deck for one unit. particularly as proposed this is only accessible from one unit. however, this is not refundable. the der is filed and the entire

community is exposed to commenting on what's in front of us and that is a single unit asks for a single roof deck. so if this project all of a sudden wants to change to a different venue, i think it would need to be continued and to questions asked from the community. what's in front of us is the roof deck that is shown is too close to the edges and i think we are relying on standard conditions that we typically use the roof decks back from the property line, aside from that from the roof deck from what is needed from the units. the other units in the future that are part of the roof deck and decide to make the second stair on the property line anyway then the roof deck would be an aggregate of three times 133 square feet. that is the open space required for a

single unit in that particular residential density district. that said, i think we would be well advised to consider reducing one roof deck back from the corners, two sizing it to its appropriate one unit it serves and also putting it in a manner that could be aggregated perhaps in the future with two additional pieces and the stair in the future to have everybody use the roof. that's the only kind of simple logic i would use if i would be asked. the sunken stair or backstairs, we have done that, but i am not sure if that is exactly what that would do it.

deck location, smaller deck, setback, take der and perhaps mr. winslow has sketched out while i'm talking. i haven't pencilled it out yet. i have tried. is there any kind of position that you would recommend where that would take? >> yes, i have been noodling while you were talking. the building edges, 25 foot wide lot the building yields about 9-10 feet width of a deck. so, and then pulling it back, so aligning it with the stair penthouse as proposed and say going out somewhere on the order of 18-20 feet, would probably be a 200 square foot roof deck.

a little bit in excess of what the required unit open space is, but in consideration of potentially going forward and adding a deck -- or decks area to serve the tenants, you probably want to maximize this deck to within those parameters that if and when you do add to it the 100 feet. >> i was going to suggest that and you don't need to further reduce the space beyond that. >> and what are your recommendations regarding the railings? i would be curious about that. >> project sponsor brings up a good point. five feet is my understanding of where you can

provide non-solid or transparent railing. i think it's an interesting point. if you had glass versus cable rail, kids aren't going to get themselves through it and fling themselves inadvertently. so i would recommend going with solid glass than malleable wire railing. other than that, i don't have an opinion. >> that recommendation makes sense. does that jive with your thinking? >> the glass is not the issue. however as discussed the penthouse at the minimum of the building. if everybody can come up and from the side to do that and everybody will enjoy it. let

the other people go through the roof and you have your relative and the kids enjoy their open space. >> thank you. >> i see commissioner braun. i don't know if there are other comments from other commissioners. >> commissioner braun: i think a lot has been raised now and i like the idea of providing access from the units to this deck long-term, but i don't feel i have enough information to really weigh in on that or what we are talking about today. to me, one way or another, to have access to it and drawings, it looks like it was pulled back five feet and to me that's the key question right now and i'm inclined to take staff's recommendation to move the deck

from five feet as well as the new proposed new solid roof and i don't know if other commissioners want to suggest alternatives as to what is included here. >> to allow an alternative that could include the penthouse and the second access that they discussed, but i think that's where i'm still with commissioner ronnen and commissioner moore, the procedure. it wasn't before us and nobody else was able to see it or comment on it. is there a way for the applicant to come back to amend the application and ask for that? what's the pathway for that? >> i think that it would be a significant enough change from what is before us and what people might have been following whether it's you individually or other neighbors and then to have

to not watching at 445 on this thursday afternoon and calling in franticly to say no, no, that's not what i want or that's a great idea. i think the proper thing to do is to run its course and to the understanding that it's a replaceable alternative to staff but going probably too far. but designing what we are proposing to now to allow for that to happen. with the understanding that may come forward, this is what we are looking at. >> a two step process and a way that the neighbors and public can track with happening. that's good investment for the other units and at this time considering the deck as proposed

without the additional access. we have a continuation and we can come up with a new design for the next hearing. continue or -- we still need to have the modification and noticing for that. >> yes. it's already done. >> there is the concern that the neighbors aren't aware. >> we sent in a notification and they come in front of you guys again. >> i'm not sure that we -- i appreciate the creativity, i'm just not sure this is going to meet the standard of consistency how we provide this notice and a chance to review it. that said, if you are requesting for a continuance. >> yes. >> sir, i haven't asked you a question, please refrain from doing that. >> for commissioners, if you would like to allow for amendments, if not, we take what's before us and they can take submit the proposal that's

needed. >> commissioner? >> i'm a little bit confused and want to be sure i understand what's being asked here. if we ignore for the moment, i support the idea of making the roof deck accessible for all of us. that isn't what is in front of us currently. what's in front of us currently is for the deck top unit. staff's recommendation is pulling it at five feet on both sides. is it reducing the deck size further? i think it was just going by five feet. i'm supportive of that. if they want to change the design, it's a little confusing to me. the der requester isn't requesting the continuance, but the project sponsor that wants the redesign.

does that need to be renoticed? do we need the requester of the continuance to do that? >> isen -- entirely up to the commission to do that. >> the new proposal would be updated and noticed. we are looking at six weeks? how long would that take to get all that happening? >> my understanding is at this point if the project sponsor were willing to pursue this alternative, it would basically entail a revision to this existing permanent, to be a significant enough change to require 311, 30 day notification which could draw up more der's and we can resume whatever this

hearing is in addition to other der's that might be pulled out of the woodwork and from a different point of view. just so you know what it in tails to the 311 notification and resumption of this hearing. >> are there any further questions? >> that means from the der requester of this, if it doesn't get resolved it gets held over too unless you are incorporating your new design, the recommendation from mr. winslow that it seems that most of us are supportive of and make it smaller because by unit assignment, this unit has a wide 450 square feet, leaving the rest of the roof open for future expansion for other owners or

habitants to participate. >> i think what they are saying is they are going to continue it to put in a staircase to serve all of the tenants. >> at the moment speculative in the future that could be. >> that's what she is asking about a scenario which the project is continued in order to have that expansion. >> i think mr. winslow explained that procedurally that is not possible. >> he is saying it is. he changed his mind. the procedure is to resubmit the process and renoticed and come back to us. they are discussing it still.

>> >> i think we are all getting lost. can we look into that process if it would be allowed to be continued and staffs origination and this additional idea of this additional access. is that allowable? procedurally? >> if i can chime in here. the project is before you and noticed. this body in its previous composition has adjusted mapping reducing in one section and increasing in other sections that were not noticed. so this body could simply say, okay, go ahead and do it. i understand the concern that it wasn't noticed that way and it's probably best if neighbors were aware of it, but there is nothing preventing you right now from allowing that change to

happen. in other words, you can condition that the staircase be moved to this particular location and that access for all the other units be provided now without continuing it. now, it would certainly be i guess procedurally better for the neighbors to allow for the continuance and renotification. correct me if i am wrong, but i don't think there is anything preventing that from happening legally speaking. >> the commission's discretionary review power is quite broad and matter of public notice and what the public would have expected. but when a request for discretionary review comes to the commission, you do have as mentioned a significant discretion to make changes to the project. if there are

substantial modifications itted -- it could be renoticed so those that have questions about the modification they can review it and they can at least public comment on the proposal. >> also to chime in on the pragmatic side why renoticing than exercising your broad powers to enable that is that it could also be appealed to the board of appeals and have its own other life. >> yes, indeed. >> i will just make one last comment. i think we have a lot of folks in the queue. i would support to everyone having access to it and whether using our powers now. i think due to the conversation and instruction we can see it go. i see commissioner braun and commissioner koppel and moore.

>> >> vice-president kathrin moore: whether this is a building and condominium. i'm speaking to my fellow members. the rule is if it's a condominium for example, all the parties would have to weigh in because adding two stairs of this magnitude is really a different project and requires a different buy in than the people currently here. the people who own the building and the one roof deck which is very different unless it's an owner occupied building. in reality, i would agree with city attorney as well as mr. winslow that it's a different project and that requires for me the responsibility to let the rest of the neighborhood weigh in. i would be happy to look at anything but we are here to

represent the public interest. it's a great idea to have a building that allows access to everybody but it's a different project. >> thank you. commissioner braun. >> commissioner braun: i have two questions because of commissioner moore's statements now related to this deck. i am curious to the project sponsor if you don't mind answer what led to this pursuing roof deck and what kind of ownership to the building? >> apparently one of the commissioners questioned the rest of the tenants in the building. that's what they came up since yesterday with the new design. they spent a lot of time to create that roof and the penthouse and the deck, all kinds of things and they came up

with that design. >> are these rental units? >> yes. >> he's the owner. >> hi. i'm the building owner along with my wife and mother in law. we have three kids. we will continue to live in the building. that is what we are doing with this project. currently the building needs renovation, so the units are not rented out right now. but would obviously be an option and who knows what happens in the future, but that's kind of their intended to stay in the building. >> so in essence you have the owner occupied unit. >> yes.

>> that makes sense. >> then just for our conversation, commissioners, i am curious procedurally maybe mr. winslow, i do know. what would happen if we approved the deck to go back five feet in today's hearing and then the sponsor wanted to still pursue a deck that is accessible to all the units in the building? does our approval of this one project make it more difficult for them to then pursue the second project. they are going to have to renotice anyway? >> i'm going to share a diagram. >> thank you.

>> this is a scenario from the deck pulled back from the rear. not including that bay window at the rear kind of yield something akin to a 10 x 20 deck. that could be approved today for the direction we were heading. the project sponsor could then through that process we just described apply for a revision to this permit to add this rectangle here that would be the roof penthouse that serves another deck similarly sized and located setback five feet from the property line and have a walkway between those 200 foot deck that would be 400 square feet and served by two stairs,

one here in the penthouse and here that already reaches the roof. i think this doesn't preclude that. >> great. just to clarify, that would be a revision of the permit after the commission approves this permit. >> do you have any additional comment? >> no, that clarified it for me. >> okay, we have commissioner imperial next and maybe we'll have a motion. >> thank you. yeah, because of this now, i will caution for future in terms in how we are moving forward although we have as a commission can introduce one motion and then introduce another subsequent motion as well. but i think the issue here at the end of the day that the project sponsor doesn't want to reduce the size of the deck, and that's i think the need for the

proposal as well to have the other options of the deck. for this case, i will recommend what the staff's recommendation is today, and i will move forward with the motion we take the der modification. >> is there a second for that motion? >> i second the motion. i second the motion with the motion including what's spelled out with the >> the staff's modification do not include the five foot setbacks from the edge of the building. i just want to clarify that. >> right. that's my understanding. >> it's pretty significant reduction in size. i think it's

through this setback. >> do you wish to consider that motion? >> i would like mr. winslow to weigh in. i would like to see this deck to what it is ultimately affording. the roof deck is just over sized. >> i don't think 200 feet is a particularly large roof deck. >> that's what he is in on. i didn't specify the size yet. is there a specific size? >> you mentioned 150 square feet. >> yeah, i think if i were to for see the project sponsor

wanting to come back which sounds like they have every indication to, for the total area, i would say this deck be no smaller than 200 square feet to be able to provide the compliment in the future. >> no smaller than said 250 square feet. >> if that is your motion, i can support that. >> is that your motion? >> yes. >> can we restate the motion, please. i'm not sure what that is. commissioner, can you restate your motion. >> approve modification with the fact that it not expand 200

square feet. >> and the setback five feet and the glass railing. >> >> i think that has the setback already. >> i think the staff's recommendation is that it be the staff's recommendation per the packet. is that the roof deck would be, i'm just going to read it so we are all on the same page. setback a minimum of five feet from all edges and ensure adequate privacy. i think that's part of where the confusion is to the size and to me the five foot is reducing in size to me. the report back from staff's recommendation to solve the para pit and to be a glass para pit. and you are adding or amending it to say a setback minimum of

five feet from all building edges and no less than 200 square feet and continue removal of the glass para pit. is that what you are recommending, commissioner? >> i have a question from the size of the deck is not more than the 200 square feet, then the setback would be from all buildings, would that still work? >> yes. >> yes. in that case i will add it. >> we are getting the deck at 200 square feet at least 200 square feet. >> now i'm really confused. what's the purpose of the 200 feet. >> i'm just going to set it back. i don't care how big it is. i just want it to setback. i

want to be clear on what the heck we are doing so we can approve it. >> i will say it will be five feet on all sides. >> commissioner imperial, sorry to impede on your motion making. >> this is okay. i will retract that on my original motion to approve this staff's recommendation. >> okay. >> >> is there a second for that motion? >> commissioner diamond seconded that motion. >> okay. >> could we clarify the use of the word para pit versus a railing? a para pit is not a railing. >> through para pit i was recommending removal of the staff report was simply that at the property line by setting

back first of all is not allowed by code and second of all, it's more than you need and certainly not what you need when you setback five feet from the building. i want to clarify it. >> there is a motion and second and i would like to reread the motion to be sure i captured correctly. to set as proposed and reducing the roof deck from all edges by five feet and to have glass railings. is that correct, commissioner? >> >> commissioner theresa imperial: correct. >> thank you. >> [roll call] >> that was unanimous 7-0.

>> today we will be adjourning in honor of martin luther king jr. and i hope you enjoy his legacy here in the u.s. we are adjourned. >> >> >> >>

there's so much involved with becoming a firefighter. and as a component of being a woman in the field, it takes a lot of perception. it takes belief in yourself. it takes asking the right questions of people who already have the job so that you have the confidence to build it and it takes someone telling you that this job is a possibility for you. my job has given me 25 years of satisfaction. the primary thing is that i grew up here in san francisco and i'm serving in the city where i grew up. i transitioned to community training and i was able to build disaster resilient padre of volunteers and bringing us all the latest information so that we can be ready for a disaster. pride and loyalty are the heart of a firefighter. it's in the way we do our job from the very smallest thing from our everyday checks we do of our equipment. from the way that we treat each other and the community we come in contact with every day. and loyalty is to our own

families is to the pride we have in this department. it's to the other members when we're out in a dangerous situation keeping each other safe. it goes throughout every aspect of being a firefighter. i'm really proud of the way our department approaches diversity, equity, and inclusion. i was hired in a class that had 45 people and 17 women. it was an accomplishment at the time, but there were many women that came before me that laid the ground work and i had to see it to be it. someone had to recruit me into this job. i didn't know it was a possibility for myself. and so the importance of young women seeing what it takes to be a firefighter, seeing themselves when they look at me. it really brings myself a lot of pride and joy in this work.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the esteemed guests, welcome. to introduce our program today, i'm honored to introduce greg of the saloni people who worked to preserve his heritage for over three decades and he's the culture director, the people indigenous to the san francisco peninsula, mr. castro, welcome. [applause] >> [foreign language] greetings to everyone. welcome to the ramaytush homeland. this area we call for thousands of years, yalama, it's different now,

especially where we're sitting. but it's still our homeland, we're still here, we are still dedicated to taking care of the land and the people on it in partnership with the representatives of the people that live here now. so, welcome to nancy pelosi, mayor london breed and it's intimidating to follow the singers who took us to church, hallelujah. but it is traditional for us to do a prayer and for us prayer is often a song. and so i'm going to sing, i think something that's appropriate for the beginning of the subway system here. a good luck song. so, this song is from our rumson cousins in monterey bay. the sad history of the ramaytush people is their culture was taken away from them. even though they managed to survive, we're reviving our culture, in the meantime we

borrow from our cousins and relatives from other peoples of in-- in indigenous california so this is a song that my cousin taught me that's used for good luck. [singing]

thank you! [applause] >> thank you, gregg for honoring this occasion with song. it's now my honor to introduce mayor london breed under whose leadership that the site has been able to deliver, places one or two of the rabbit projects and the (indiscernible) way and finally, the full t-third line into the central subway, mayor london breed. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, jeff and thank you everyone joining us here today. i just want to thank gregg for

blessing this space and my hope is that this is a transformative space for so many people who will be using it for generations to come. i want to thank the c-notes for their amazing gift of song, to all of us to celebrate an incredible milestone here in san francisco. one that has a long extensive history and i know we have a number of speakers today, but i do want to touch upon a little bit of that history to provide some level of perspective. back in 1989, we know that the famous lomar earthquake created real challenges for san francisco. but it also created some extraordinary opportunities. we saw our city go from devastation to transformation. when we talk about the resilience of san francisco, we only point to so

many of those examples where we experience challenges and out of those challenges, some extraordinary opportunities. october 5th y'all boulevard, the freeway -- octavia boulevard, the freeway came down and it became a community. we saw the freeway come down at embarcadero, but as a result of the decisions that were made, the folks in china town were not very happy with the impacts on the community. people like rose pack who led the charge to confront the city and expect the city to do better to ensure that visitors, that people who came to china town especially the increasing chinese population in the southeast sector of san francisco, that they had a vehicle by which they could travel to this particular destination was very important to this community. and so, even though it created an extraordinary opportunity, it challenged our city like never before, in terms of equity and

access, to public transit systems to ensure that neighborhoods like visitation valley and sunny dale and bay view hunters point and other communities had a system that worked more efficiently for people to travel throughout san francisco. and former mayors like willy brown, and ed lee, they led the charge, they were instrumental in the t-3 lines and the central subway and in the bay area rapid transit and providing these opportunities for not just these new systems of transportation in our city, but the job opportunities. in fact, this project alone developed almost 40,000 new jobs that were created over the creation of this project. [applause] so, today we're here to celebrate an exfreud troid natury -- we're here to

celebrate an extraordinary milestone and so many folks that was instrumental in providing this opportunity for the subway but let me tell you, it takes community, it takes vision, it takes hands and work and so many layers to get here, all the workers, all the construction workers, the project managers, the operators, the people is sf mta, the present and previous leaders, the county transportation authority, the board of supervisors, so many layers to make this happen on a state, federal and local level. but i must say there's absolutely, absolutely no way that we would be here today, that a project of this magnitude would have been able to happen, where it not for the extraordinary, extraordinary leadership of our speaker nancy pelosi.

[cheers and applause] i don't -- i don't know if there is a bigger champion for san francisco than speaker pelosi, because of her leadership, this project received a billion dollars, more than half of what it took to get it completed. this was a very expensive project. $1.9 billion and she single handed was instrumental in ensuring that we got a billion dollars from the federal government to see it to this point. so, madam speaker, i know you have a new title but you're always going to be madam speaker to us. [cheers and applause] we love you. we appreciate you because it's not just a big project like central subway. it's the community centers. it's the roads. it's all of the things that make such an extraordinary difference. she

constantly fights for us and constantly delivers for us. and this is such a tremendous testament to your work, your deeds over the years and your legacy, so thank you so much, madam speaker, nancy pelosi. [cheers and applause] and i can't be more proud. i spoke to mayor art agnus and spoke to willy brown and talk to them about the work and they wanted to make sure i didn't take all the credit for delivering this project but usually mayors won't acknowledge previous mayors. but i will say that it does take really strong leadership. it does take persistence. and it takes people with vision. and so i do want to thank those mayors and thank the board of supervisors and others who have been instrumental in helping to focus on transit and i want to really callout senators scott wiener as a

tremendous transit advocate. [applause] for not only delivering on the dollars here at the local level but at the state level as well. when i think about what this project is going to do, can you imagine four new stations, taking someone as far as china town all the way to sunnydale, not the city sunny dale, to advise -- visitation and taking people to work and people taking muni from different parts of the city to enjoy a game at chase center, at oracle park, people who are going to have an opportunity to use transit in a more efficient way like never before. this is really what happens when you -- you only see something like this once in a lifetime. something this transformative. yes it cost lots of money and takes meets of

community input and it takes a lot of dollars to be raised on so many levels and yes, a few hiccups along the way. but you know what, the delays don't mean denials and we're here after a challenging couple of years delivering for the people of san francisco. when i think about my good, good friend, my -- i call her my grandmother because she treats me like her granddaughter, my wong and she lives in selma. she spends time on the 30 stockton going from her area of the selma to china town and she covers a lot of ground in san francisco because she's very active. and now the fact that she'll have one line where she can go at any given time to any part of the neighborhood that she frequents, it feels my heart with so much joy, what this project is going to do for so many people who rely on our public

transportation system and so many people who want to be a part of our public transportation system as we see new neighborhoods created, mission bay, coming alive with thousands of new people, as we see the dog patch, which has been highlighted as the most hip neighborhoods in the world. as we see all these neighborhoods in san francisco transform like never before, we have a state of the art transportation system that is going to take us into the future and i can't be more excited and proud to be here to celebrate with you here today and i know that we should be focused on the central subway and the four new stations at moss connie, fourth and brandon and china town and rose pack station and right here at market and union square, but i'm, i'm holding out hope, madam speaker, for one more station and taking us to fisherman's wharf. i'm

holding out hope. [cheers and applause] because if anybody can do it, san francisco can do it. we are proof positive with this project of what we can do when we put ourselves together. we could be proud, we could take this moment to enjoy ourselves. thank you everyone for the roles that you played. it took a village to get it done, the village is here today and others who can't be here, thank you for delivering this incredible project for the city and county of san francisco. [cheers and applause] >> next up, we like to introduce state senator scott wiener. [cheers and applause] >> wow, it's always fun to follow the mayor. [laughter] so, i'm so excited today. i'm excited as a state senator. i'm excited as a former chair of our

county transportation authority and former mtc commissioner, but i'm most excited as a 25-year rider of muni. and for many, like -- yes, let's hear it for riding muni. [cheers and applause] and like many muni riders, i sometimes describe muni as my friend-enemy. it's my friend who gets me to where i'm going and we have the moments where we're ripping our hair out because it's not working as well and i am so optimistic about what's happening with muni. when we look at van ness, vrt and getting on the 49 and quickly and immediately get all the way up van ness or being able to hop on the 14 mission and because of those red lanes, quickly get down mission street. and now this morning, i hopped on a castro street, my muni station, and took it down to pal and had a really short walk to the central subway to this station

and that just warmed my heart and it makes me so optimistic for the future of san francisco and for the future of public transportation in san francisco. because we know that we need our transit systems to work for our city and for our region. this region is only going to succeed if people are able to get around easily. if people are able to get within san francisco, back and forth to the east bay, down to the south bay, we don't have a choice. we have to make it work and this is going to help make it work. the central subway is going to be a new spine right in the middle of our public transportation system and that is why i'm so, so excited about today. i will say that this is great. this is such a fantastic day, but this can't be the end. and we have to recommit at the federal level, the state level,

locally to supporting our transit systems, not just the capital but the operations too in making sure we always, always have robust systems. [applause] we're about that a little hiccup at the federal level and it's fantastic we have all this money coming from the federal infrastructure. thank you, madam speaker for making sure that happened. [cheers and applause] the next couple of years might be a little rough but i know it's going to be positive after that. so, here's to a great future for transit, congratulations, everyone. [applause] >> and next up we have state assembly member and budget chair, phil ting. >> thanks, jeff. it's exciting to be here. we heard from our mayor, our state senator, we're

going to have our speaker talk, but this is just an amazing moment. just demonstrates that if the city can put its mind to something, we can achieve anything that we absolutely want. but again, i think the mayor put it well. this was 30 years in the making. this was all about, all the past leaders who have the foresight to know that we absolutely had to invest in our transportation infrastructure, we had to invest in our city, that the only way for our city to grow is through transit. we're a city that is amazing. we'll welcoming people into downtown, we're welcoming people into our neighborhoods and we continue to grow but the only way we're going to have and guarantee the economics vitality for our city is if we can expand our public transportation. this investment, i think back about the state investment that started in 2000, 2002, $600 million in state money started but that was for many elected officials many years

ago. for us this last year in our budget, we made sure we did a future investment, $12 billion for public transportation for projects not just in san francisco. [applause] not just in san francisco, but all over, all over the state because we know that this is the key for our state to keep growing, for our state to keep thriving, for our state to make sure -- make sure our economy can grow. we're the fourth largest economy in the entire world. there's three countries larger than our economy and yet at some times, we still have such major issues that we face. and today is a day of celebration. but we cannot forget the future. the future is about investing. and this is critical investment in transportation. it's a critical investment for our future and critical investment for our economy. thank you for getting this done. >> we have former district three

supervisor and current city attorney, david chiu. >> good morning, san francisco. who is excited about the central subway. [cheers and applause] i'm going to ask jeff to come back for a second to showcase what he's wearing. if anyone can take a look at this and i want everyone to know that i told jeff that on monday, i'm going to ask my deputies to craft a charter amendment to require any department head who has a multi-year project to wear a schematic of the project on their body until the project is done. thank you, jeff. [laughter] so, each of us were asked to speak for two minutes about a theme. the theme i have been asked to talk about is the theme of endurance. the endurance of thousands of san franciscans who have waited for the density neighborhoods in the west coast to finally be connected by the central subway. the endurance of small business owners and

merchants here in union square, in china town and north beach who endured this project. the endurance of the sf mta, city staff, architects, engineers, builders, laborers, and of course, policy makers, our mayors, mayor breed, thank you. i want to relay a message from governor newsom and a number of us was with him yesterday and he wanted me to say how disappointed he was that he couldn't be here today and of course the endurance of someone who i believe is truly a bionic woman, the speak of the house, nancy pelosi, thank you very much. [applause] as a chinese elected official, i want to also thank the endurance of china town. the endurance of thousands of residents, of tenants and of families who came to hearing after hearing for 30 years. i've been involved in the project for 20 years. when i served on the central subway citizen advisory committee and carried the approvals at the

board of supervisors for this great project to move forward. it took the village of everyone in this room and thousands of folks beyond, including many lawyers in my office and thousands of hours of legal work. so, with that, one final thought which is, i'm a resident of the bay view. i come off often to china town and i'll bring my six-year-old son from the bay view to china town. i look forward to seeing all of you on this as we share the story about how generations before made it possible for generations after. happy central subway. thank you very much. [applause] >> next up, district 8 supervisor and chair of the san francisco county transportation authority, raphael mandelman. [applause] >> um, hello, everybody. you

know who didn't take 15 ballots to get elected speaker, who didn't have to degrade the office and how owe hue mail ate her several. i'll the chair county of the transportation authority. i'm going to talk about our sales tax and the art. so, and we -- you like sales taxes? you like art? [cheers and applause] so, i want to acknowledge our phenomenal executive director telly chang who is here. director chang, our vice-chair aaron peskin and district supervisor and district 7 supervisor, milgar is here. this was the most transformative project in our half cents sales tax program. creating a direct

ride from china town to the light rail. the ta was a key partner from the beginning. identifying this line in our 1994 four corridors plan and providing more than $500 million in sales tax and other ta funds or about 20% of the full investment and that in turn leverages the money that speaker pelosi was able to get us from the federal level and that senator wiener was able to get us at the state level and thanks to everyone and here we are and i want to thank the voters and i want to thank speaker pelosi again for the role she played in helping us get that transportation half cents sales tax passed back in november. people said it couldn't be done and we got it done. we got it over the finish line. thanks to everyone who helped us that's generating $100 million a year in funding for transportation investments like this. [applause] thank you madam mayor for your help as well and everyone who

worked on it. on behalf of the transportation authority, i want to extend our tremendous congratulations to the entire sf mta organization and the china town community, malcolm young, i want to acknowledge reverend norman fung and my constituent and the former head of cdc and mayor breed and past members of the mta board. they deserve applause too. thank you for your work. [applause] and now that is the sales tax piece and acknowledging piece and i'm going to talk about the public art. made possible through san francisco's $0.02 for the arts program that places public art in publicly funded capital projects. and through this program the city's commission, ten works of art by 12 artists at four stations, crews installed eight of them with the final two to be installed later this year. and i want to thank some incredible talented artists, tomy and yumu

and claire and stark walker, jim campbell and warren, you are win, and roxi pain, and kathy. let's give it up to the artist. of course, i want to thank the work of our san francisco arts commission and their staff and now i am introducing to sing, right. okay. i'm doing it. so, these stations are indeed beautiful but the t-cert isn't about the new rail stations but connecting communities throughout san francisco from china town and bay view and beyond and that's why i'm excited to introduce to sing, parker, the senior executive director at the bay view hunters point ymca to sing to dedicated work and seniors in the hunters point neighborhood and i'm going to get off the stage and introduce tacing.

>> good afternoon, everyone. oh, you can do better than that. good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. [audience] >> my name is tacing parker and i'm the executive director of the bay view hunters point ymca and i'm excited about this station and the opportunitys that the t-train, connecting our communities will provide to youth and families and the central subway station is a launching pad for us to connect our communities and for families to be able to find and actually see each other with their own eyes. being at the bay view ymca and like other community based organizations here in san francisco, our work is all about strengthening community. we want to ensure our family, that our youth and adults have access to the resources and the services they need to thrive in this city. and we also want to ensure that they have opportunities to

experience the enrichment that happens in these communities. and the central subway station is going to make way for us to do that. literately, it is a pathway to connect our families. and this means that in district ten, our children will be able to hop on the t-train without taking two or three hours to get to china town and be able to see the richness of that community. it means that families from china town will be able to come to district ten and explore some of the outdoor and nature engagement opportunities that we currently have and that are on the horizon. i, as a san franciscan and someone who has worked in this city for many, many years am excited about what is to come from the central station and i'm looking forward to getting on the train myself and getting to and from this city. thank you very much and at this time, okay. thank you, thank you.

>> this project wouldn't have been possible without our partnership with the federal government, i'm honored to introduce deputy administrator, veronica. >> good afternoon, transit openings are a deal deal. what an honor to be here with our speaker, madam speaker pelosi with our mayor, london breed with jeff tumlin and his team and senator wiener. we're delighted to be a federal partner this this transit. you and your team at sf mta did work to complete this work during a pandemic and with supply chain issues, not an easy task. certainly, i would like to recognize our ta staff. this project, these sorts of openings takes years and years ever

dedicated energy. our staff at region nine based in san francisco, amy and -- they are deputy admin industry tors supported with technical assistance, guidance and energy, effort and encouragement, so i want to shout them out. for some, these events are about cutting a ribbon. for many more, these events equate to lives that are transformed. with the completion of the second phase of the t-3 light rail line, we're connecting people to jobs and housing and each other and opportunities like the -- you'll get a pin if you haven't gotten one, connecting communities. that's what we're here to celebrate. the extension measuring not just quite some miles maybe a small part of this system but through the connection to allow a big impact. this one seat ride will take people downtown without bus transfers or having to rely on a car. and with the connections to

caltrain and bart, it will mean seamless travel around the bay area. i'm extremely proud of the federal administrative -- $1 billion worth of federal funds from our capital investment grants program and another 23 millions to the american rescue plan. again, thank you, madam speaker for your support. you should be proud of your commitment to transit by supporting a better life locally and raising $500 million in infrastructure bonds. under the biden/harris administrative, equitable access is a priority and for the department of u.s. department of transportation and federal transportation. 79% of households in china town lack access to a car. think about the impact of this subway on those lives and on community living and society that's inclusive, equitable and affordable. i would like to congratulate

everyone who got this project over the finish line. this is a city where 80% of residents use public transportation, we're listening and responding to the needs of the local community. in this year of the rabbit and someone born in the year of the rabbit, we're reminded that the sign of the rabbit is a symbol of longevity and peace and prosperity. 2023 is predicted to be a year of hope. today's celebration is a strong 1i78 bowl of our hope for the future -- here in san francisco and through out the nation, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, veronica. next up, we have president of the china town community corporation, mr. malcolm young. [applause] >> all right. first of all, let

me just start off by saying that and i think supervisor mandelman mentioned it earlier, the reverend norman fong who you know and is the spirit of china town and ways the city, he couldn't be here because he's under the weather. but i did want to kick this off, reverend norman style. i'm going to ask everyone to look to their left and look to their right and tell their neighbor, you're beautiful. [laughter] i know. you're beautiful. i know. the mayor just told me, come on. you got to amp it up a little bit. yeah, i know. i get it, i get it. let me just say for china town, the central subway means many things and the only way irk sum it up, for china -- the only way to sum it up, for china town, this is our important gateway. the first gate is the physical gate on grant and bush just a churchle of blocks from here and the second gate is ports of the

square with garage underneath but now finally, we have our gateway at china town rose channel. that's a big deal. [cheers and applause] as many folks have mentioned this newest gateway is a connector between san francisco communities from the sunny dale and valley bay view to the pings in china town and i really, really appreciate the stories from te sing and the mayor highlighting the impact the subway will have because it's connecting communities but connecting families and people most of all and we have to remember that. thank you so much. it's a connector for visitors and tourists and i just want to put a gra tude plug in there because we have -- i'm hoping this can be a connector for folks hungry and thirsty before games, grab them some, maybe a drink or two in china town and hop the train down to oracle and chase and feeling

happy from that point on and enjoying the game from that perspective. we love to work with you guys on that stuff too. just fyi. but also to senator wiener's point, the subway is a connector to a greener and more sustainable future. we all need to be getting out of cars and taking the train to china town and now we finally can, actually. that's amazing. it took more than a village to get here. seven mayors including champions like mayor willy brown, mayor ed lee and now the mayor who has brought it home, london breed. [cheers and applause] three district supervisors, aaron twice and city attorney david chiu who brought this project through so many different approvals. frankly, sorry jeff, too many mta directors to count, but jeff, we are here and you led the mta team to the finish line, so

that's amazing. and i'm glad you're wearing that suit. [applause] numerous fta directors including secretary pee who kicked this off in november, but i would be remised if i didn't mention secretary norman who was the person who brought the ffta to the finish line. that was a big deal. [applause] but through it out, there was only one congressional representative throughout this entire period leading that village and i have in my notes, representative nancy pelosi but if the mayor wants to call her speaker, we're calling her speaker, speaker nancy pelosi. [cheers and applause] i'm grateful to our neighborhood allies and union square, marissa, we're bringing it home finally and i love your station and i love ours more. sorry saying that. our neighbors in north beach and south of market, the struggle for the subway

brought us closer together and i know we're going to work on those bonds in the future. i'm especially grateful to the generations of china town leaders who fought for this. it was a true multigenerational effort. so i really need to acknowledge gordon chin and norman fong from my china town community center and acknowledge -- phil, landy, will, harvey louie and the leaders from the chinese leaders of chamber and the president is here today, i don't know where you're at donald but he looks good in the back and the benevolent association. if i have one regret, one community leader who inspired and unified china town to fight for this project isn't around today to enjoy this moment. and i'm of course talking about rose pack. [applause] rose, it's finally here. and i swear when i woke up this

morning, i could hear your infectious laughter from heaven, so rose thank you on behalf of china town and san francisco. we love you and miss you and this one is for you. [applause] thank you. >> i was supposed to introduce to sing, and i had words talking about how our communities have been connected in the central -- and the central subway will connect them more but i guess i'm not doing that and i'm introducing brandon snyder from the warriors and again, we love to work with you on bringing folks to china town and the stadium. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> thank you. so thank you so much. this is such a great day for the golden state warriors, for chase center, for san francisco and for the entire bay area. thank you to mayor breed and speaker pelosi and everyone who had a hand in getting us here. from the time we started

designing chase center years ago, we knew it was important for it to be a transit first building. and in the central subway is a critical part of that. we're obsessed with creating the best possible experience for all of our fans. and obviously getting to and from the building is a part of that. it's going to cut 20 minutes in travel time for those going to events and games at chase center. awesome. you think about people coming from all parts of the city and coming from the east bay, they will be able to take bart, to the pal street station without going above grade, they will get on the central subway and it will drop them off at their front door. from day one, we have paid the fare for all attendees to be able to ride muni so your game ticket, yeah, clap for that. thank you. [cheers and applause] so your event ticket or game ticket doubles as your muni ticket so take the train. so we view as with our privately financed arena, we view our

investment in the city's transportation ecosystem as being foundational to our commitment to san francisco. and i can't wait to see tonight, thousands of fans getting off the central subway to watch us beat the orlando magic. [cheers and applause] thanks again and now i get to introduce my friends and ceo of the san francisco giants, larry baer. >> in baseball par learns, madam speaker is on circle. i believe she's next. we'll be brief. just want to say, thank you to everyone involved, mayor breed, speaker pelosi. senator wiener. it has been an incredible journey. the last 23 years, muni has been a vital link to oracle

park. it started as pacific bell park as you know and then for 65 years, muni has been serving giants fans. we had, i remember as a child taking the old ball park express, anybody remember the ball park expresses? yeah. there you go, yeah. the mayor was on the ball park express. i took, which line did you take? i took the 19th avenue line with my dad. yeah. and it was, muni has been so vital to giant fans creating a link that on any given night, we have 40 to 50% of our fans, somehow accessing the ball park by, through muni. going forward, i want to do a quick shout-out, mayor breed mentioned, the mission bay area. and later this year, we have a project called mission rock which is opening. and it will be five hundred housing units of which 40%, 40% are affordable below market

rate housing. [cheers and applause] for the mission bay area. as well as a 7-acre park, as well as visa's headquarters up to one thousand employees and it will be a new neighborhood in san francisco and we will have, thanks to everybody at mta and we have been designing it with them, a mission rock stop right at the mission rock neighborhood and we're very proud of that. [applause] today is a great day for san francisco. congratulations for the village that we are, coming together to make today happen. thank you very much. see you at the ball park. [cheers and applause] >> finally, with no further or do, it's my deep honor to introduce somebody whom i consider one of the greatest american heroes of my generation

and the savior of the republic. speaker nancy pelosi. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, jeff. i accept every compliment on behalf of my colleagues in the congress who had the courage to fight for all those things. it took no courage for me because san francisco is san francisco and on the forefront of everything, save our planet, have fairness in our economy, advocate our children and respect our seniors. you name the subject, san francisco is in the lead. jeff for being in the lead in all of this. i was so looking forward to coming here. we're in session until very late last night, late our time and the time in the east. get on the plane, come here and i said,

this is a family affair for us. official family affair. madam mayor, thank you for your great leadership bringing this to fruition, senator wiener, our assemblyman, i know we heard from phil ting and someone from haynie is here as well and to our -- where is he? where did he go? david chiu. and so many of you. and then our sports friends in our community. let me put this into perspective because the mayor started us with the earthquake. we had an earthquake in 1989 during a world series game between the san francisco giants and oakland a's. and a decision had to be made. we would get the federal funding. we went to the floor

within 24 hours of the earthquake to understand we would have what we needed but what did san francisco want to do with it? mayor agnos was mayor and the question is, is the money that the federal government would put it into repair the embarcadero or the freeway or would it be used to be transformative, to let there be light just to open up that whole area of our city. and that really began that transformation as the mayor used that world rightly. we have been together on issues related to transit and i would thank larry and brandon, we were talking sports and the day after martin luther king day, the mayor, well, i'm not going to announce anybody's plans, the warriors will be in washington, d.c. at the white

house to be honored as basketball champions and we're excited about that. [applause] anyway. so, mayor -- he orchestrated where we went from there and actually, willy brown and gavin as mayor, so not just as governor but mayor, mayor lee, we love him. we miss him. and now our mayor here. i thought willy was going to be here, but i don't want to hesitate to not acknowledge -- willy brown was mayor when -- we're trying to switch our sports leaders there. we're at the groundbreaking. i think it was raining that day too. and somebody is speaking and i started cheering and he said i'm not finished and i said i'm not cheering you. i'm cheering that the giants just won the ability

to go to the, wow, the world series, so that was, as you could tell the time of the year in the fall when that happened but again, unity, connection, community, all of this connected and now actually, physically connected with all of this. yeah, billion dollar federally, but it's a model to the country, understand this, i left the congress last night just as we got a new speaker. so my first public appearance here as the speaker of america is for this project, which has probably occupied -- [cheers and applause] has occupied so much of the time of so many of us here. you've heard from some. every piece of it was necessary. because to get a billion dollars or more, and we want more, we have to show

that there's community coming together in support of how we go forward. and in other words, when we fight for the money, we have to make sure that dirt will fly. that it will happen and as i talk about dirt flying, i want to acknowledge our friends in labor. i don't know if any of them are here now but they had been at our different events, gonzalez, and the rest, because they had been strong advocates for us to get these projects funded and funded, prevailing wage, all those things but as mentioned and scott emphasizes this in his work but in his comments, with our president, with president biden, veronica, thank you for representing -- veronica from the federal transportation administration, we've got to be thinking of

where we go next. this is wonderful. we celebrate. aren't we all great. this is fabulous. with this president, there's more to come road -- regardless what happened in the house. there's more to come because it's in the pool already. secretary butaja was here and we celebrated the carved art and bringing all the elements we're talking about here, but we have more that we want to see happen here and mentioning norma, he taught us and he was the chairman of the transportation commission when he was there and he taught us when we were making our pitches for things to think regionally and we have -- we talk about what this means here, but what it means beyond -- into

the san francisco bay area, to have people come to town and be able to move around in a really important way. but okay. we have an earthquake and are we going to put that back up and take it down, the decision was made not to put it up and cause ease in china town and so, here it is, all these years later, finally going in. now, i have to say because we're talking about all these stations, i have to say some people really weren't as enthusiastic about having a station until they saw what was going to be happening in china town. and it was, why can't this just go on and on and on. and that's what we want, what we want to happen. but it's about what the president -- what the president is about and president biden, when you talk to him about this, he says why are you telling this. i know this. this is who i am. i took the train to work everyday.

[laughter] i understand about mass transit. its role in protecting the environment. its role in having clean air for our children to breathe. its role in having good paying jobs, 40,000, you say, so many jobs to create this, but also the commerce creating the jobs that it will in gender and the president is concerned about unifying community. this money didn't have from the infrastructure bill, other money we're getting, we're getting $400 million for the golden gate bridge and we were supposed to announce that but between rain and inclement weather in the congress, we didn't -- [laughter] we didn't do it yesterday. but there's a big, shall we say, incentive for us to keep applying for resources that are

there and now. and it's about bringing people together and in the infrastructure bill, veronica knows this all so well, there's $60 billion for the purpose of unifying community, the projects that bring community together, not divide them, that there will be justice in how the community and the mayor emphasizes over and over again, how the community helps to decide what projects and how and when they will develop. it's about inclusion, it's about diversity. it's about justice and environmental justice, transportation justice in a whole different way and that was in the infrastructure bill, so also in the rescue package and all passages so we're perfect for this, right. we think

community and we think in a way that's of national significance, as an example of how to get something done that meets the president's standards and not only his, ours, but also for our children and their future. and the other part of it is that so important is that it is -- it has to address past concerns that people have. i have been to many communities around the country where something went through a neighborhood, divided it horribly, people are suspicious of new infrastructure. we have to make sure they know how different it will be. so, again, san francisco, we talk about the t-3 line, we were able to get into the law that the money that the city put up for that would count against a match for this.

[laughter] it's a matter of interpretation. [laughter] because it is a local commitment to mass transit and we wanted that, so it's all connected, whether it's financially, it's almost the least of it although we need the money, but also the value that it brings to community and the rest. i always say to our folks who are engaged in all of this, our hopes are riding on you because it is about unifying community, it's about creating jobs, it's about cleaner air, healthier communities for our children, more environmental justice, social justice, economic justice. and nobody does it better than san francisco to be a model to the country about how to get it done. aren't you excited to be here.

[cheers and applause] isn't it a great thing? [cheers and applause] at last, we're finished but i want to acknowledge the local community people who is involved and i want to add one more in china town and that's florence chang on my case for a long time on this, but i want to acknowledge the patience of the people of union square. karen sled is on the unofficial leader of keeping peace in all of that and i wanted to acknowledge her as well. so everybody works hard to make this happen. we elected officials glory in it but it would not happen without the people who built it, people who conceived it. the communities who agreed to it and it would not have happened without all of you. so thank you and it's cause for celebration. thank you so much. [cheers and applause]

>> five, four, three, two, one. [cheers and applause] >> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division

for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up.

takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up here. with the invention of the cable car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still

going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late 1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists.

we are coming up to street to chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car.

>> people know in san francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go the sheriff's department ownersight board meeting is now in session. on behalf of the board we'll like to thank the staff at sfgovtv for providing assistance to broadcast and moderate the meeting. you may view on cable channel 26, stand it recite the pledge. [pledge of allegiance]