established a goal that 33% of all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday march 30, 2023. to enable public participation

sfgovtv is streaming live. each will be allowed 3 million when is you have 30 seconds you will hear a chime. when your time is reached your time is up and take the next person. we will take public comment from persons in city hull first and then remote access. for those participating via web ex raise your hand had public comment is called for the item. for those calling in to submit testimony listen to the instructions. you need to call 415-655-0001 access code: 2591 215 1221 ##

the password is 003 pound. you need to wait for public comment to be announced then press star 3. once you raised your hand you will hear your front. best practices to call from i quiet location and mute the volume on your television or computer. for those in person lineup on the screen side or to your right and speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. joy will ask we silence mobile devices that may sounds off. . commissioner president tanner. >> here >> vice president moore >> here >> commissioner braun. >> here >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> first is consideration of

items for conditionance item 1, 4001, 18th street a cu for continuance to april 20th. item 2, 1801 mgz a c u authorization has been with drawn. further under the regular calendar item 120 al meny it is proposed for continuance to mifourth of 23. i have nothing else to be continued we should open up public comment. only on the matter of continuance. come forward. >> thank you. and greetings commissioners.

and all in attendance. many neighbors joined me today and opposition to element 7 in the cast refor the following 2 reasons. there are more reasons with no time to go into. point one, when considering cu. >> now we are taking comment on the matter of continuance. >> for or against. >> april 27th. >> right >> okay. not on the project itself. >> when should i return with my concerns. >> on april 27th. >> okay. thank you very much >> you can e mail them and ahead of time >> thank you, commissioners. why thank you. why thank you y. okay. left call for public comment on the matter of continuance. am seeing none, public comment on continuance is closed and it is before you. >> is there a motion to continue. >> commissioner braun >> move to continue 1, 2 and 12.

>> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue items, commissioner braun. aye yoochl commissioner diamond >> aye >> come imperial >> aye >> xhr koppel yoochl aye yoochl commissioner moore >> aye >> commissioner tanner. >> aye >> now consent calendar all matters institute a consent considered to be routine by planning commission approximate may be acted upon by a vote of the commission. no sprays discussion unless the commission, public or staff requests. then the matter will be remove friday consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 3, 921 foalson a cu. item 41160 mission a c u authorization and item 5, 1510

market i c u authorization. um members of public this is your upon opportunity to request that any of these consentical dar items pulled and heard today or a later date >> i think commissioner diamond would like to make a disclosure. >> yes, with respect to item 5 it a pierce mr. gladstone is the attorney for this project. i have previously told the commission on other items where he has been the attorney i had retained service of another lawyer in that firm. for a personal matter. close to 2 years ago. and that it has nothing to do with this matter and i feel like i can be impartial with respect to this matter. i wanted to disclose.

i understands that mr. gladstone is the attorney on one of the lio items i'm making that as well. too >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. seeing no one in the chamber coming forward to request any of the matters removed from consent go to remote caller. again at this time requesting the matter be remove friday consent. i'm calling on behalf of teamster 70 you sever item 4 concerning 1160 mission from consent to articulate our concerns. thank you y. very good. item 4 be taken off of consent. >> end of the regular calendar before dr. jot end of the regular calendar before the dr. >> last call for public comment.

seeing none, public comment is closed and consent items 3 and 5 are now before you commissioners. >> is there a motion? >> commissioner imperial >> move to approve 3 and 5. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on the megz to approve 3 and 5 on consent commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner tanner >> aye that passes and place us under commission matters item 6 the land acknowledgment. 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 >> thank you. item upon 7, consideration of adoption draft minutes march 16 of 23. numbers this is your time to address the minutes. if you are in chambers come forward. call nothing press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no one, public comment on minute system closed. and they are before you. >> is >> a motion to adopt the minutes commissioner imperial >> move to adopt the minutes >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on this motion to adopt commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye

>> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> moore. >> aye >> tanner >> aye >> this passes 6-zero. item 8 commission comments and questions. >> any comments or questions, commissioner. >> quiet day today. >> very good. department matters. >> item 9 director's announcements. >> good afternoon quickly you might have seen the mayor and supervisor peskin introducing legislation that will downtown in union square to ease the ability to convert building from office it residential and impact older will buildings and getting rid of process and hearing anies easing requirements for upper floor in union square giving fleck at for their use. you will hear those. those are changes to the commission they will come to you for comment approximate recommendation and talk about them until april when we are

here talk going housing element. >> thank you. >> grit on hear. >> if there are no questions we can move on to item 10 review of past events at the board of supervisors and tales and historic preservation. >> i don't have a report if board of appeal and historic preservation did not meet yesterday am i'm not seeing mr. star here there is no report from the board of supervisors. >> all right. why we can move to general public comment. members miaddress the commission on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission exempt agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission afforded when the item is reaches. each member may address the commissionum to 3 minutes when 15 minute system exceed comment men moved to the education of the agenda. why good afternoon. the comments are follow up to the e mail sent to person braun

about 1647 sanchez street and forwarded to the commission comper se with another project at 403-28th. hopefully you have read the e mayor come looked at links comparing the 2 structures on the inside and outside. each original 2 unit structure at the opposite end of stick rum of live at and can be stated. one was a wreck and should have been demo exclude one was liveable and should have been kept. both projects had questionable demolition and the staff should not accepted during review. sanchez project has never been occupied since completion had it sold for 9. 1 million the 28th did in the receive a cfc. if, justed as the commission is empowered to per section 317 the out come for each project could

have been bfrment staff stated rational project sponsor or developers and speculators would go up to the edge of any new threshold of avoiding the cua i say that is wrong with this is that the point? if the calculations were adjusted with thresholds more strict would all the housing like 28th street that should have been preserved sxafd housing like sanchez would not be sick years oun occupied in the midst of a housing crisis. an anal joe is not perfect but interesting. the fitsue building on union square was replaced by saks fifth avenue to louer people become to the square from stones town and [inaudible] would it be better now currently to have the building saved as the mayor come

president peskin tried to reboot downtown. section 317 demo calculations should have been adjustd and should stillingly in order to objectively save sound and liveable housing. one other timely thoughted. dumpster contents. finally as the housing element is implemented i hope upon that we use a butter knife and in the a meat cleaver on our existing housing stock. thank you very much will have a happy break. happy pass over, take care this is when i sent with attachments and here is the 150 words for the minutes, thank you, take care. >> i'm here weapon 2040 franklin have you 906 was that. >> >> that is up in a bit. >> we will get to this shortly

>> has not been called yet >> thank you y. last call for general public comment for items not on the agenda. seeing none. general public comment is closed and move on to the regular calendar item 11. the area plan implementation update and interdepartment plan implementation committee report this it is informational presentation. >> good afternoon president tan exert commissioners i'm ed schneider with staff. here with lilly. we are here to give the presentation on our report part of the presentation we'll give you a quick back upon ground and

talk about issues the pedestrian year and we electric at each of the plan yours to give an update. >> the interagency plan committee is a committee comp prized of staff of multiple agency implementing such as public work and mta and rec and park. who were joint low plant implementation of area plans through the spending of impact fees and ref now source. it was create in the 2006 as planning staff working on area plans. areas include implementation documents as well as rezoning which was typical. [inaudible] provides community benefits and infrastructure to be carried out and part of the area plans implementation

strategies we created the based impact de feos to help fund the projectless. >> we have 3 community advisory committees that was the cernel billions to the interagency implementation committee that helps us think about how to plan and strategize for the carrying out of the community benefits. these cac's are eastern neighborhoods market, octavia and south of market. each the area plans have their own history and context and their implementation documenters different. however this 6 years ago we consolidated the types of projects funding throughout fee and categorize in the 6 now. transit, commreelt streets. rec and open space, childcare,

administration and added community facilities. just reasonable with the adoption of the hub plan long with the central soma. key issues and considerations from the past year this are post covid. again we are reporting we had less ref now for public improve ams than we had anticipated. so behind in transferring funds for projects we appropriated we thank you we had money for. so -- to aggress that one thing we are looking at is to decrease the amount of projects we will be looking to appropriate the other budget office in the next 2 years so revenue can catch up. some of the projects we have large development projects you will see that revenue can be lumpy. because one project paying a large fee. that means won't don't have the ref now f and to address the

sleing down working with agencies to think about how to carry out the projects. through if bor oath or finding other funds or rescoping the project it means we postponed the impelementation of the projects. >> next we will quickly look at the actuals. to give a sense what the trend of the ref now has been. since we started. this chart is shoes you the 4 learningest plan areas what we will talk through the graphic a bit easier to see as you see what we had coming out of the last recession was somewhere to now. revenue grew quickly. you see a bell curb trending of our impact fees then started to come down before covid. now you see that it is coming up

again hopefully out of covid the other thing you see you look at the colors individually the revenue can be lumpy based on large projects and makes predicting the revenue difficult. >> looking forward over the next 5 years. just a note about how we dot projections we assume if the project is in the pipeline we will seat revenue. we don't take away revenue from a project unless it is with draws or the application is cancelled. we have been trying torcomfortablive given the trend of development. trying to be conservative we may be optimistic in 24 and 25 we assume 113 million dollars will come over all of the 7 plan areas. >> and the.

years are the years in which agencies budget for the budgets creating the work plans and then for the 3 following years in the 5 year cycle ref now can go up to 2 where are 9 million dollars. one thing we did if we have a project we notice today is in the pipe line but noticed it is lingering we'll push it out to the 5 year cycle so i don't don't count on it in this budget cycle. >> i will run through the 7 fee areas. we have not seen alost activity. swon bell boa park. one of a smaller of the plan areas. we collected 2.2 million dollars since inception half of that is out of inkind. there are few opportunity cites in balboa park within the plan area it it is a da they don't pay impact fees.

so00 autosame time the plan that a place of all the cities and transportation networks has identified night. we don't expect to spend a lot of impact fee we track transportation project and report out in our report. eastern neighborhoodses is the most diverse in terms of development projects with scale and type and uses. and a let of variety in terms of the types of project this is we are fungdz. from small projects to the community challenge grant program. to the major transit projects dp major rehab of park projects.

>> eastern neighborhoodses in previous cycles we noticed the revenue was significant lowdown from the previous set of projections we did see several large scale projects that fell out of the pipe line or became affordable housing great but not paying impact fees this . ier we seen the development pipeline being more robust at the b. bypass line. projects manage in. the nature the projects are different not large scale mixed use. more commercial projects a part of the pipeline. you will see this in alegality of slides as we go through have an appropriation's deficit for eastern neighborhoods. 9 million dollars of projects which we appropriated but not been able to fundful we look to make up for that by programming less projects in the coming 2 and five years so ref now can catch up. projects that have hit sort of

phi mile stones. treat flaza associated with the 16th street, street scape and 22 fillmore bus line project. was completed last year. paid for half it impact fees. able to fund the rest of the slide we identified san bruno intersection. it is when we call the potrero gateway open space and street scapes around 17th street and the 101. minnesota street scape is minnesota grove is one component of serious of street scape projects the dog patch. public realm plan we completed for you years ago that is we are behind in sending that and witting for funds to final low move forward. >> south of market. we are part of eastern neighborhoodses that broke off 3 years ago when you departmented

the board adopted the cents roll so many plan. this is -- a lot of the infrastructure in south of market are based on i detailed implementation dum a part of approvals. upon i think south of market you will see we have more of large appropriation deficit you, proved large scale development projects that came after the adoption of south of market. which have not moved forward. there are projects this we identifyd that we have previously hopeed funds. which are going to have to wait. a legality of the project is general line items for transit and street scape. project catharsis specific low called out we koebled together money to fund those. >> and one of the big project system gene friend a key project for open space out of the central soma planning process.

>> market octavia approve in the where are 8 and amended throughout hud project in 2019, the frshth projects identify instead african-american plan in c a list of projects most of those have been impelemented. and completed. the more recent list of development infrastructure projects came with the hub that the hub public realm plan. >> um more to south of market there were mixed use projects large scale projects that were adopted soon afternoon the adoption of the hud project. am which have not moved forward a lot are coming to have entitlements reupped. one is on your agenda today. similarly we have 30 million dollars appropriation deficit electric to minimize new appropriations so ref now can

catch up. however, you know the impact fees have been put to good use. 2 years ago rec and park the rehab of the margaret hayward play ground impact fees funded a third this year public work and mta completed the upper market street scape project as well. upon rib conhill the african-american plans we had an impupon mrementation document. and theed first plan we had impact fees have not seen ref now in rincon hill in a time [speaking very fast] a couple opportunity cites left this . year public works begun implementing one of the major street scape projects.

harrison and first street. transit center approve in the 2012. it credit more development around the major transit infrastructure. the sales force park. and -- and -- bus hub. the [inaudible] plan was infrastructure plan based on detailed commune benefits plan, again, because of the mrarj scale project this is don't happen we have a large appropriation deficit is not all terrible news the transit center in the electric to funds anything so we can catch up with ref now. transit center has another revenue force. the community district tax. we have been able to transfer the projects we hopeed pay for with the impact fee.

more reliant source a tax that developers paying yearly. it hen able to enable transit center plan to wait a minute in funding of the square. as i mentioned we are able to transfer a lot of the projects for which we had hoped fund through impact de feos including new buses for the mta, bart station improve ams and street scape. one thing they are look to do street scape improvements and all the streets. visitationvilley we have not seen a lot there. this was created the original geographic impact fees help to leverage the additional development out of the executive p. have not seen few ref new in a time.

because we amounted revenue approximate upon oufltsd visitation valley. we do with we have a roster of projects and touch base every year. what we found is the agencies have been able to find other funding from the small are projects. buy backs with the board of supervisors not buy backs add backs or other source. the projects the community identified have been able to move forward we wait for revenue to come from visitationvilley. that condition clouds my presentation i will be happy to answer questions. >> very good. >> thank you. member this is is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you are in the chamber come forward if you mean are call nothing press star 3 or raise where you are hand via web ex. seeing no requests to speak public comment is closed and it

is before you. and >> thank you. comments or questions. commissioner moore. i can say the bandwidth cirque du soleil i have seen and remarkable. it is hard to follow. partially because the lines we used to understand the project are shifting over the years. the rable job i'm glad we have the tool. the only thing i'm shock beg your pardoned is how deep the impact ever will not having sufficient funding to heel the city and bring things forward. i agree stunning to seat deficits. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wanted meant on how helpful the report is to allow us to step become from looking at have theed projects and understanding how all the fees you know help all of the individual infrastructure projects and of

course. what the lack of funds does. most low i wanted let you know this each year i look for the to the report it allows us to step back and think about the policy and when it prowls exclude look at it is from i global perspect itch. great job, thank you >> it is timely as you not city is think about this refer from the pandemic what the impact fees near development harming or or a bit of both. we have this conversation having the tool to think about had do we want to do going forward and too many fees part of our reducing gentleman constraints. bring thanksgiving information in that is important. >> other request commissioner moore? >> i have one question. you mentioned i may have not heard it it went very fast. da. do they not create impact fees that are under your reporting?

>> general low that is the case. development agreements don't pay the area impact fees they have all the different package of benefits through their agreements that is trough for bell boa and pier 70. and potrero power plant. comments or questions in >> seeing none. we can move on item 12 has been continued to may fourth. that will put us on items 13 a-i. sick 556 sea way.

2022-006 five 58, sea way. 2022-58 [speaking too fast]. >> for the properties at 16 jessy street number 305 am 1863 mission street. numbers 201, 203. 301, sick 04. 77 vaness unit 407. 2040 franklin number 906. 1450 grenage street. 240 lombard unit 8 eighty-two 42 and 332 they are all cu

authorizations for length occupancy units. commissioners you will hear one staff presentation and i don't believe sponsors are prepared make a presentation but are available to responded to questions you may have. in addition to the disclosure i made about mr. glad stone attorney for the projects i wanted to am remoinldz the commission this when the ilo ordinance came i recused myself from voting because at the time my son who is in the a department worked for one of the companies. provider of ilo in caution and discussions with the city attorneyful i recused myself. i don't believe i need to recuse myself from consideration of any

of these items after discussions with the city attorney's office ballpark my son no long are works for this company and in addition that company as far as kwooe we can tell is not the sponsor of these items. >> thank you. >> of course. got new staff here for first time. i uponed to introduce joe who joins us by bay of boston attended botchon university under graduate degree in history. went it graduate school in urban policy and planning. prior to joining the department a lands use planner in boston. where he lead in the development of a range of plan and provided technical assistance to municipalities throughout the region. join the department april 2020

starting a member of the flex team working on adu's and other residential projects. i mfbt d7 and d 11 team in planning. and also part of the presentation, too we have [inaudible] present. he attended ucla under graduate degree in geography and environmental stsd. prior to joining the department with the city of los angeles and controller's office. where he was a technology specialist. working on providing open data for transparency to l.a. residence denials. join in the november of 2020 and member of the flex team worked on coordination in intake processing of adu's. and currently i planner in the 9 and 10 teams and enforce am team usa. welcome. >> welcome.

>> great. thank you for the introduction director hillous. good afternoon. planning staff. i'm here as part of the project team tasked with processing the approximate occupancy applications received to date. program is relatively new and somewhat unique explain why prior i will provide an over view presentation. >> although the program is new the composition of the commission when introduced considered boy this body in january of 2020 of different. i wanted to walk through the legislative history. introduced by supervisor peskin and situate in the a policy context with legislative president to protect rental units. but the program was designed to revving lit what are called corporate rentals and in the

language of the ordinance intermeadiat elect occupancy units, they have operate instead city and recognized serving know important function there is no single user of corporate rentals but they could be used by companies with employees hor relocating and give the them time to find permanent acomdagsz. performing artists and also life events like coming to the city for a medical treatment. they were recognized providing a use but there were a bit after 2010 there were no entrance in the marketplace that affected supply and demand and had affects on price controlled units and the sinltive for occupying units. the legislation which was created is revving lites

features the rented for more than 30 days they're in the short term but less then and there a year on an if i canned term lease. >> and just so we are all clear on the definitions it can be a bit confusing. intermodeiat length occupation everoccupancy is not a news and of itself. all units class fies ilo remain dwelling units but have the permission to be rented or occupied by a person for a duration greater than 30 days but less than a year. qualify are person is important because if it were master leased by a [inaudible] certain such as a company it would, ploy if they are sublosing to tenants after that in terms of preps dent, there are other characteristic. less common with residential use.

but student housing is a residential use characteristic. commercial use. formula retail are also use characteristic. there is precedent in the code. and just for a brief introduction or high level over view of the controls for the program of so, as i mentioned there was concern about distorting affect on reason controlled units subject to price control. so, the any unit subject to price control with rent ordinance cannot be classified as ilo north as part of the inclusionary program. below market rate unit in a building are not classified as ilo's. similarity buildings with 3 or fewer units may not be if classified as ilo's and not in mix said use zoning districts. there are processing buckets

defending on number of unit in a bodiesing. for you-9 can be with a permit only do not require entitlement from the planning commission and up to 25% of dwelling unit in a building may be classified as ilo. for cu authorizations such as those today triggered when the building condition tains 10 or more dwelling units. no more than 20% of dwelling units in a bodiesing may be ilo's. in addition, the program has an over arching cap on the next of iol's permitted at a thousand and additional remember criteria met to concentrate ilo's in some areas and discourage the consciencetrician in others which i will get into in the next portion. which is a high level over view

of the applications received to date. this is just to provide context and why there is an ilo team, so although the legislation became effective in june of 2020 there was i 2 year exemption period to aluunit this is were pritting as ilo's to come in compliance with the new program and there was a prohibition on the classification of unit in units the building which is had received their permanent or permit issued after the date of the ordinance. example so, that there was an online platform sent out a message to the users that mischaracteristiced the end of this exemption period and said there is a dead listen to apply if you want to use your unit as an ilo get it in by end of june. prior to june of 22, we had received -- numbers are in here.

um -- received 11 applications april of 21 and may of 22. in june of 22 we received 63 applications for ilo units it credited an application log gentlemen we needed to have a procedure in terms of how to review and treat them. because of the restrictions and the total unit caps required additional tracking. so, since the ilo team was formed we have been able to review all of the mrksz which can be granted ilo classification with permit only. we approved 20 of the mrksz, which 22ilo units. there are another 16 we reviewed but need additional information. either providing floor plans showing the location or

clarification of the rent controlled status. the applications which were tomorrows ineligible the common reason the building predated 1979 were not eligible to permit them as ilo's. for those applications requiring a c u authorization the commission has considered and did, prove one cu authorization at 2000 post street in february of 2021. i believe. yes. no. february of 22. that application permitted 33 units to be classified as ilo's there is a disconnect in situations where there are common overship we allow multiple units to be classified under single c u authorization. if there are different owners in the same building they are required file separate low.

and so the number 38, propotion 160 include the 9 cases before you today. this is the next few slides are to show the progress toward the caps referenced in controls. so, to date we approved 21 applications that includes the one cu authorization and the building permit for toast 55ilo units if we were to approve every application we received to date that would ad arlington 176ilo units put us at 231. there is still significant capacity within the cap to per mist ilo units. but there are geographic restriction catharsis part of the ilo program. one is that the in order to concentrate them in the downtown

with the policy goal of being near the job in cultural upon center them is downtown not less than 2 thirds of the will total number should be located in the downtown that the code language has an affect of limiting the number permitted outside of the downtown which were defining based on whether in the c3 zoning at 333. and so if we were to approve every application received, there would be 1 front units permitted outside of the downtown core. which leaves a bit more than half of the 58% of the cap remaining. and -- as a note i think we expect attrition from the applications labeled. them is an upper limit as of today. and then next. in addition to concentrating in the downtown core the legislation seeks to limit their

proliferation in what are sensitive communities defined by the uc berkley urban displacement project. following the urban displace am project methodology they are on the census tract level defined by concentration of low income residents. people of color and proportion of rent exerts how many are rent burdened. and some form of marketplace displacement they perform the analysis and we incorporate tht and identified of the applications received, if all were to be approved there would be 152 units within sensitive xhounlts. again a bit more than half at the moment at the estimate left in that capacity. and so since we can tell that all of the applications received meet those geographic criteria part of the c u authorization

consideration, we had lee way in choosing what to bring forward to you today. we bring a sample of properties in terms of location. so one is in the dun town core. one is loeshthed in sensitive community and 3 on vaness criminality to the cap. the others are not subject to the restrictions and just count toward the total cap. so thank you very much for your attention that concluded my presentation and hundreds it off to my colleague. >> goods afternoon. the 9 projects before you today represent the different

locational varieties of ilo's in the sensitive community. downtown, both or none. the units proposed for classification had it verified not subject to rent control or inclusionary program. why there are no locational considerations for the cu findings the sensitive community and dun town caps crip tear enthusiasm findings of planning section 303 are all this must be met to approve the application. they are necessary come desirable due to flexibility in housing choice they provide residents also repeatedly highlighted in policies. the department recommends approval with conscience of the

9cu applications before the commission today. gain the nature we will be policing the future ilo applications on the consent calendar with similar recommendation. >> department has general low not received public comment on the item it is before you. inquiries received requesting when ilo's are. the exception to this is the project if 1450 greenwood street residents of 6 other units in the building express opposition to ilo's in their building as there were concern that the unit would be pritting like a hotel. the homeowner's association for the building has been informed of the differences with short term rental and intermodeiate length occupancy. and clarify the defy niegz ilo's

are not hotels. they are dwelling units and residential use. due to the similarities with the 9 applications before and you routine nature of the cu requests project sponsors were not asked to be present to the asked to present to the commission i believe as one experience has requested to speak here should the commission have questions specific to their applications. this concludes my presentation. department staff is visible for questions the commission may have following public comment. thank you. >> that concludes staff's presentation. i believe the project sponsorments to make a presentation through the chair you have 3 minutes. >> gladstone left-hand side use attorney for jennifer sulveteran the reason we wanted peek ours

is the only one subject to negative rerus and negativing to planning d. jennifer? >> good afternoon i'm jennifer the owner and ocpants of 4715 grenage street, 403. there were great misrep centations about my plan was in the building among several people and the building manager. upon anyway 2 bathroom within bathroom department i bought it in 2011 one reason is the ccnr allow for rentals of 30 days or more when the building was condition verted the right each owner's right and defined with conditions in the ccnr's. everyone who owns the unit bought it knowing this. the property is in an apartment

in a condo building a bar across the street and not a co-op or retirement home. i rent it several times a year when i travel. vehicle it, lus mow it continue and machine to use it had i'm away. i travel, let my daughter and her family live in washington. my son and mother live in los angeles and a partner outside of the country. as a dancer over the years i supported arts community and provide house to visiting artists and developed good rental religions with artists visit to perform of i'm up the street they walk back and forth to practice not perform. i have been able to rent to couples looking for home and families w or have school needs in san francisco part of the year. i appreciate the income and enjoy helping people with housing need its is better for

the apartment not to be vickant if a kitch brain plugs we know. had the plumbing if i can sures the geographicets reduce flooding, in the building i met the requirement and zero change in the historical use of the apartment my hopes planning will grant this permit. there is an opera singer hoping than i can rent the unit this next season. thank you for your time. >> the objections from the bodiesing that were received boy planning mention have had 2 issues one is the proliveiation of ilo's in the building yet this will be the first one in the building you approve and mentioned property values decreased and property values are in the a consideration in the planning code. thank you very much. >>

>> commissioners. public comment. member this is is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these applications. if you are call nothing press star 3. no dwes peek. go to remote caller. good afternoon, commissioner this is is tray [inaudible] i'm calling to the speak about both units at 240 lombard street. 8:32 is an applicant who live in noe valley. and per owns 832. again. he his contact information is rekosovo thanksgiving he is actually out of the e mail, is a corporate rental firm.

this it is for me worry some. again. i think this individuals who are searching for homes -- such as mary who -- had actually been burned out of her home and lived on the 300 block of lombard. he is searching for a home also to continue caring for 1 where are 5 year old man 3 doors down from her this unit will not be available to her. again i stated this. i thought i would be able to speak about both units but i sent an e mail that when over my huge concerns about the ilo's they will not be upon actually preserving housing for san franciscans rather they will not be available. for so many of our residence

denials those who have been e victd and searching for homes in the neighborhood. upon please, make sure you read my e mail. there are things that can be changed it make this better and appreciate you listening and considering my occurrence. thank you very much. >> okay. last call for public comment. public comment is closed and matters are before you. >> thank you. >> commissioners in addition to comments on the individual applications if you have any thoughts around how the staff report was written we'll see these on consent if there is something you need to see in the future or appreciate that would be helpful for staff watch this, commissioner moore. i wanted to thank new staff members for very thorough

report. fiwould have had this report earlier it would have been less time for me to review what was in fronts of me. because while we all participate in the legislation at least there are 3 who did, how you implement today and the tools you developed presented boy mr. [inaudible] is give mow a different understanding about how to look at the applications. i'm not trying to make anybody feel bad but next time present us with your mechanisms prior to creating a lot of w for us. >> i'm saying that because it clarified 60 of my questions including mr. gladstone having his client present the circumstances. how she used her apartment. including that in their ccnr's there are already provisions now codified throughout legislation

gives me a different understanding about that building or potential like cases may be in forward at a different time of the i appreciate the thoroughness by what you are doing. we may or may not individually agree we do all want to project units. however the 30-day restriction is what make its not an open rental it makes a different animal all together. i want to leave it with this and thank you. i would be able to look at this entire item with different ice >> i will build on yours the graphs you have that were shown the things are helpful. which versions can be part of individual cases to see where is the dot of this case adding to the totality behalf is there. and keeping an eye on the metrics. hopeful low now that the maps are created you update them.

we can keep our eye on the specific case but the birth picture as well. >> commissioner braun. >> i echo the comments in terms of information helpful in the future. seeing where we stand in terms of the total progress of in the number of ilo's and locations we have been permitting them if through cu authorization in terms of overnight counter. this will be helpful. the over rowel had we have a new planning commissioner helpful to give over view in the packet ownership the out roach it is said here there are 3 of us. i could have roached out i acknowledge but i was just going on the website to see the ilo page and understand it that way. a thorough presentation and appreciate the great work bring so many forward at the same time. i have a few question and thoughts.

i guess one question is i'm confused about there was a mention that i think the legislation pass in the twenty twenty and a two-year period for ilo to come in compliance? >> good afternoon matthew with planning department of yes watch the legislation passed in 2020, and there was not alost activity, we had the odd application here or there the within cu in post street. people just kept operating the way they had been always something that was historically legal and not controversial. in june of 22 last year, one of the online short term rental plat forms sent an alert to hosts say thering is a dead line to apply for ilo's do it by this date we will had a huge flood applications in a week and the -- misunderstanding was the

deadline was an expansion of eligibility. so the original legislation had a 2 year window existing units could apply for authorize of an ilo new units build from the dates of the legislation and beyond could not. it was a chance to give all existing prirts a chance it apply before the cap filled up and then june 2022, expansion opened to go unit no matter when it was built. deadline was an expansion of eligibility. >> i'm wondering for the units that were operating prior to the legislation, by union of 22 is this when they should have applied. >> no they are eligible to apply it was like a -- not a real amnestef period but it was giving anyone operating a chance to get legal before the cap filled up with new applications.

if you, played you in and the cap is full, which it is in the, you are out of luck. if a new unit beat you to the punch. so be it. >> the ones previously operating they can mou come no requirement. they are eligible to be enforceod we have complaints coming in occasionally by units pritting as ilo's without permit. joy was wondering if in 20202,000 operate negligent city and we only seen the low numbers presented today there is, let now operating. why they are out there and the law is in affect we enforce as we find out. >> and the typical complaint driven. why yes. >> i see. >> so they are still interesting wrinkle. i think i on the whole i was not

here when it was reviewed boy the body but reason in the way it prosecute voids the cap and the geographic specific capps as well i don't have extreme concerns about united states, proving cu authorizationss longs than i full in the caps. i would say i think this you know i have seen a reason why member may need these. there are different reasons and the various items a friends of mine during the terrible storms and winds events in january their officer pealed off of their home in san francisco and water got in the walls and ceiling and toddler needed to find short term housing. these other housing units that can help to address not just corporate rentals but people need that less then and there a

year short term housing. when their home is being repaired. i don't have concerns about the authorizations theory before us today. thank you. commissioner imperial y. in terms of the since as mentioned that mark for identification them in the future will be on consent. as far as this legislation if -- required it a building 10 more units? >> yes. the request for cu will being on consent. why okay. i guess just to be clear again like i appreciate this presentation. again it answered a let of questions all of the sudden the applications of ilo's hai would like to see in consent is that over vow presentation as to how much are on geographic areas, so

that also gives me education how to are we detecting and tracking this legislation. itself. >> but another question to, that i have is this as commissioner braun pointed out in terms of other entities say corporate rentals or other the best as far as i know and of course it is always come complaint driven how will it be prosecute active in tracking the kerpt rent wills? why so -- there is, what mechanism. >> a 2 part answer. first is just the staffing resource perspective can't be

prosecute active in like finding a build and figuring out which is an ilo the enforce am team go through the process. more unique situation is we were alerted to a hosting platform for occupancy and instead of going on this approach of enforce on every unit we roached out and said, looks like your business model does not conflict with planning ked but what you do is requiring cu for each u nits you operate. we meat met with them. walked throughout process. got an unldzing of criteria and took inventory to figure out which are eli didn't believe and which are not. ceased leases the withins that are not and in the process of compiling the c u applications for the withins that are. we are still trig it stay in

front the issues dough so wean don't have i large scale enforce. issue. i think the ordinance was a bit of a way to get to the problem of learninger corporate rentals taking over permanent housing but revving lit the use not the user. program includes both corporate that do this and individual users. we don't differentiate between the 2. if you are building timer way you use tupz is an ilo we treat everyone the same. >> can i jump on your question. having another question for prosecute active pregnancy. we know with one point new folks operate and there was a message which not exactly correct but there was a window in which they could be first in line. do we have mail or other information going out to the

prirts to get them to be in compliance or they operate without authorization we may know it. but we are not able to community with them? >> the large plat forms are well versed. i don't think there is confusion with learning platforms there would a new are company. as new companies come on the line we do our best to out roach to them as we learn about them. it is not we are aware of addresses being ilo's that have not filed the permit press that was an analysis part of the larger legislation presumption of units i don't think we are aware of each addresses, for example. to do it. >> thank you. this legislation does not require 4 like an annual reporting? does it? >> there is a reporting

requirement. i think what our plan is in the projectical way each of the applications come forward as you asked for it make sure you are, wear where does this hit relative to total. this is the critical aspect so you can track t. men time where it it is in big sdpeel a moment as we approach getting close to the caps we want a larger policy conversation. our strategy is to make sure on each application you are kept aware of where we notoriety macro. >> okay. >> thank you. the only thank you my big issue not with the legislation but for the planning department is tracking. i think having a report would do that more prosecute active knows of reenforcement and i home we have an am amount of staff in terms of doing that as well.

also one question i have is the map being used. as far as i know of course, and thank you for the presentation in terms of debased on the census track but uc berkley are updating their maps how are we keeping up with that? >> a bit of in the weeds answer. legislation specific low calls out a uc berkley map. and the map does not, uc berkley abandoned that map. they have decided to go i different direction with methodology and how they are form litting hypeoth premesis and saying we need to use this map for a sensitive community. we have a copy of the map.

for the time being we are tracking the sensitive communities as the maps illustrates. so this is something we have energid buzz there are a now ways to rectifying that it can include a match map. it manage we energy as a problem so it is yea >> thank you for highlighting that. if the board of supervisors are listening this is one of the amendments that can be added on or recommend on this legislation. you know there are -- thank you. andiel. first i had an issue with this one under american inld yen cultural district. with legislation it is in compliance. i think this is more of a critique on the legislation itself on how -- how first is

the sensitive communities based on which map we are using. and also you know as also per presentation there is outside downtown core. thereupon is no categories of what is outside downtown core whether as far as we know like for, i 19it is close to universities. hospitals there are no categories outside downtown core y. we usually do as c 3 zoning. outside of 3c is when we consider out of the downtown core when we talk about larger refer wore specific about talking about the other zoning districts for the purposes of of this monopoly we use doctor , 3 zoning. >> my what i'm trying to point

out are categories not in terms of land use but other like the definitions or description that is near transit and the university and schools like that. i think this is the reason why there it is the ilo's in downtown it is close to those use. i think this is like probably needs to be redefined or -- policies that we can been in terms of looking into had. yea. those ever my comments y. thank you commissioner imperial. >> commissioner koppel? move to approve a-i. >> second. >> no other comments or questions commissioners a motion that has been seconded to approve items 13 a-i. commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner prul y. aye >> commissioner koppel y. aye yoochl commissioner moore >> aye >> commissioner president tanner

>> aye >> that passes unanimously sick-0 and accomplice us on items 14 a-d. for case numbers 2616-where are 148 where are 2 pc a map s hd-02dba -- and dmx-02, 98 franklin street. these are for planning code and zoning map amendment. shadow finings, development agreement and downtown project authorization. >> thank you. jonas >> good afternoon i'm christie alexander with planning staff. i like to brous to you cal smiley from the supervisor preston's office here to make a few remarks to open this and i

will continue with my project update. >> good afternoon president tan exert planning commission, kyle milet chief of staff for supervisor preston the sponsor of item 14 aon your agenda. i'm here to peek in support 14 a-c related 98 franklin as well as projects 600 van ness and parcel k in haze valley. items before you will activate the projects 2100% affordable a total of 600 units of housing. this package unstick the development at 98 franklin a residential housing project that would sit on a new high school. has been unable to move forward rezone nothing 2020. this will enable a land dedication for the cities to develop the property 600 van ness up it 168 units of 100%

affordable housing and jump start the long housing project at parcel k in hays aggravate site by alicating a million dollars in impact fees to predevelopment costs welch see this as a win. new high school. new site in d five for 100% affordable. renude investment enemy parsal k and good jobs building new housing at 98 franklin. in 2020 the board approved rezoning proposal that included 98 franklin because of rising construction costs and pandemic supply chain issues we were told the development was unable to move forward. our office was skeptical butt project sponsor was transparent with their financials and made a compelling case about changes the proposal approved project would not move forward. woeful worked to identify an alternative path and our office

eye highlighted possibility of am van ness 2 blocks from city hall. we met with owner and appreciated them collaborate and experience having this be a legacy project to make sure that low income inference france have a place in the city for generations. this has been more then and there a year in the makement to thank folks deb, jim, methodue and the team at related california for commitment to make thanksgiving work and the planning department director hill us and director shaw. i want to thank lee from oawd and a number of folks from the city attorney officil leave details to staff i want to note our strong supportful i'm happy to answer questions otherwise i will turn it back over to miss

alexander. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners the project experience prosecute poses modifications to the previously approve the 98 franklin mixed use project approve in the twenty 20 involved demolition of the surface park lot at franklin and construction of new threat story mixed use building roof height up to 400 feet tall. and the project include approximately 560, 543 square feast use with 416, 286 square feet of residential use atop a 5 story podium containing 84, 991

square feast school use for french-american international high school. >> 2, 978 square feast retail and class knob 2 bicycle park space. . 3 below grade levels up to 110 vehicle parking and car share space. 385 gel dwelling u nits condition tin a mix of 275 studio or 1 bathroom units. am 72, 2 bedroom and 383 bedroom units. the modified project is adding 2 levels of residential to the previous approved project. and am a difference with affordable housing. the development buffer the modified project method of affordable housing under code for15 is a land dedication the project sponsor will dedicate a site which is 600 van ness not

limited to this site. to the city for purposes of constructing a 100% affordable housing project. the land be dedicated in cost to the city and modified project proposes 385 units. 35% of those u nitses would total 135 units. if the sponsor dedicating the 600 van ness site as entitled the 600 veteran nesz project includes con63 units 33 more units than required boy the planning code. as for changes to the officer line design, of the project architect is here to share the design changes to the project. which than i will address during the sponsor presentation. as for public out reach the sponsor processed the project with neighboring supervisors. since packet pub laboring 9 new

letters of support. and zero of opposition. you may recall in 2020 previous out reach included out roach to the civic center cbd, spur accident sf husbanding. the sf chamber. local business owners. merchant and hayes valley association and sf jazz, sf bally and the church of christ the king. all of which expressed support. the hud plan 30 veteran nesz frvenlth navy franklin and hud housing districtan likewised in a certified environmental empicture report. the department staff issued an eir for the project on march 9 of 23. there are few minor edits to the

motion as per commissioner comments. this will be updated in the final motions. mainly inserting the standard conscience of president trump for hundred dollars real facilities the new upon standards condition. approval. clarification of usability open space requirementos page 23 of the motion. there was a misspelling of a word that sentence confoutzing we are clarifying that. and were left low addressing the validity and da determination obligation and flexibility for implementing affordable housing requirements i would like to cldz an update to section 2.1. 3 a development agreement. jonas can you police? these are red line additions provided by experience that the city attorney is currently

reviewing and finalizing. i know commissioner diamond was spicht of flexibility and wanted clarity regarding options provided under the development agreement. so the da required the sponsor dedicate a site sits more than 35% in the project. and alcohol is proposed to be 600 veteran nesz bucked be another site approved. and in exchange the sponsor received the fee waivers under the da above the required 35%. the fleck abltd provide side if the da is terminated. and the project will lose fee waivers and lose the vesting under the da the sponsor could then develop the project. and to either the 2020 initial project proves 20% foordzable on site or develop turned the notions before you today.

specifies a land dedication. 35% affordable off sight. they are legal possibilities. . have had exclude fee waivers. i don't work diligent low to complete a land dedication urn the modified project and accompanying da. there are 4 required actions detail in the the executive sum row to implement the modified project. why to be brief, one to recommend that the board prierzs approve an ordinance for planning code text and amendments. 2, recommend the board approve the da. approve a request for a dun town project authorization. purstudent planning code section 3 where are 9 with exceptions. . state instead executive sum row.

and adopt shadow findings. the department finds the modified project is on balance consistent with the downtown your plan. the market and octavia area plan and policies of the general plan and public benefit it was a site undeveloped this is all from planning. i will be visible for questions. we have rob from ocd on the line who is here for questions you may have regarding the housing site due diligence. il pass is off from oewd who would like to share remarks. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners president tanner thank you for hear thanksgiving item. i want to thank christie and kyle. kyle hit the highlights. i wanted to just talk a bit

about will the city cooperating on putting together a new principle near 98 franklin. that you know address the issues of the concern conditions we have in san francisco. i know all of you are aware of the post pandemic landscape and how it impacting the construct ability of needed housing. city staff is encounsellings by the mayor's office and members of the board of supervisors to think creative low on how to off set escalating construction cost and increase interest rates inhibitingk sesz it finance for construction. am issue.ed clarify.

thank you for being here. thank you for working with the team.

i want to understand this red line version reviewed by city attorney are we adopting this. i want to clarify this. >> the city attorney is wing on this travel thanksgiving week stated his approval for it but could in the finalize it he is out of the office. >> okay. >> thank you. can we go to the computer. please? good afternoon. commissioners. pleasure to be here in person i'm mark.

from [inaudible] on behalf of the project experience it talk about the changes to 98 franklin and over vow of the project for those of you who were not here the left time we were. it is a join venture with the french-american school and related california to build a high school and apartments on one sight the french mark for identification american school has a history. the site is central to the development of the hub. rezoned by planning staff. directly adjacent to hayes valtheis a continuation of the transformation that the valley seen since the central freeway. the site is at the western edge of the hub on the east side of fringe listen. kit corner toft main building of the campus. close to all of the city's major transit line and a few blocks

from 49 south van ness approximate 50-50 mission the project the team delivered the end of the pandemic. has similar elements of city build and creative think burglar public realm and open space. sidewalks and revitalizing a neighborhood ariam rue in red shoes the southeast sufficiented oak and franklin roaches through a small flag it market. yellow other french-american school existing buildings, within 50 oak the high school and krsz from oak they have a yim and cross the alley art's campus. soap in planning the site the first move is to accomplice the school facing west on franklin so it connects to the existing campus. residentialent row north on oak. same street has the building for one oak and condo built since

left proposed. a 5 store podium low are than the adjacent street wall on franklin and higher than the buildings on the other side. gets to the scale of the street. and then it face west to gift school a prominence that faces the existing campus. there are openings to bring light in the class and space. and atop the podium open spaces for the school president apartment building. menities and the tower which has shared open space @officer level. the major challenge of the site is am the mixed use snach come pact. we think mixed use projects are part of the key to restarting development in san francisco using land for more then and there one thing. policed school facing west and rung through the site to market

street. there is one point vehicle lawyer access for school park. residential parking, bicycle and service located mid block on franklin. giving the entirety of the oak street to the lob competence tw retail space. retail are were flanking the school lob and he residential lobby so they can be activated by the spaces. and you see in this plan, the street scape improvements proposes this includes sidewalk widening on franklin and oak. upon new street trees and other striet furn tufrm a couple images looking across franklinlet top of the podium is wind mitigation can open. the view of the corner of the school. school as a transparent upon facade for daylight and vows for

the xrom clad with oshg pang material in a frame expression that relates to the, buildings on oak street. president market street of facade houses a multipurpose room at the base and laboratory classes botch that are transparent leading to the mall terrace facing south for students. >> the building is know important part of the hub sky line a cluster of buildings around intersections. the views show from the north and the west. and the resunrised elevations show the over all architecture of the build suggest similar to hawas proposed before with same artic lagz and same affordability and diagonal xhengzs 35 feet and 2 stories taller. that height was studied by planning staff. and the a justments it shadow

were approved at the reshg park commission. this shows the changes from the 2019 project pink and the grown at the top. and the bottom tables the changes which is sloit low less some have been constructed since the original analysis. this shoes the mixed nature sum raising 85 parking, 385 units 25 for the school special 400 feet to the officer of the tower. with this jim will talk about the development agreement and i'm here for questions. thank you. >> good afternoon i'm jim land use upon council on the sponsor. i want to ecoat comments others made. this was a very strong group effort we want to thank supervisor preston, kyle, and christie alexander, nick foster

and also the environmental planners elena and tonya shaner everyone chipped in this was air strong group perch. america noted this project was, pruf in the summer of 2020 the purpose of this package and most important locality development agreement to increase production of will bmr and market rate units comper seed the approved project and making feasible. da has 2 priority requirements dedicate free of charge a property with more than 35% of units in the project. this must occur prior to the submittal of the first construction document. and the city waves orrouses affordable impact fees applicable market and van ness.

the fees are reduceed a million dollars and the proirz's office are w to have those that fee payment allocated to hays valley. this last slide shoes the increased housing production. the aproved project has about 70 on sight bmr units. 20% in total 345 units. and revised project has 385 units and there is the land dedication is 35%. when you add in the land from sick00 veteran nesz you get on 553 units. i'm here for questions as is america and matt from related california is here. thank you very much.

open up public comments. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

aciding the 35 not height increase and dedicating left-hand side result in 100% affordable, essential to making this project happen. we are appreciative of the commitment to the project x. are thrilled the possibilities this project presents for our community the development at 98 franklin is the type of mixed use project this will benefit haze valley and san francisco for generations to come.

thank you for your timer today and for your support of this important trans formative project. >> good afternoon president tanner i'm jp. i'm a member of the french-american school and president of a high school junior who attend thered since preschool. i support 98 franklin project. unique tounlt for french-americans in san francisco to prosecute ride world class facilities. this is a unique student for the school to partner to development that will serve the valley and san francisco well in the future. the changes to the project

provide investment in affordable housing they will result in the dedication of the near by building site at no cost to the city allowing 100% affordable housing. commitment to the 98 franklin development changes reflect the economic environment in san francisco and necessary to move it ahead. the city can obtain house and french-american can build a new high school. i appreciate your support of the project. thank you. >> president tan exert commissioners i'm the head of school at french-american interinitial school. calling to express approximate our community enthusiastic support for the 98 franklin project. it is know opportunity to credit a world class academic building for french-american schools san franciscoy oldest and

learningest bilingual school and diverse with deep root in city and hayes valley found in the san francisco in 1962 and been there since 1997. we are committed to the project. the 98 franklin project under going changes we use third degree time to raise private money to support this campus for academic institution that served our city for decades. california made changes to the project involving the 35 foot height increase to 400 feet. changes will result in california making an investment in affordable housing in exchange for the height. dedicating a site to the city to construct 100% affordable housing development at no cost to the city. the changes proposed reflect the changing economic environment in our city post pan dem exhibiting

necessary to move the project ahead so the city can abstain affordable house and french-mensh can build a now high school i encourageure support. thank you very much. commissioners i'm karen i'm a trustee of the french-american school pirnl. 11th grader attended there since he was 4 and resident of hayes valley for 30 years. i'm here to express my support for 98 franklin project. hayes valley changed since 94 and i'm excite the project and

the benefits tell bring. project gives the unique stount for the city and the french-american school. san francisco has had a shortage of housing for all income levels. 98 franklin will provise hundreds of new housing near public transportation. will gent rit jobs with health care benefit and good wages in a time many are reducing head count in the city. 98 franklin will provide the high school with a world class facility for international french programs. the changes proposed today boy our development partner related california would increase the number of units and result in an tounlt for significant conditional low more fordable housing unit in an alternative site no cost to the city.

given the environment the changeers crist adult make the project viable and move it forward. 98 franklin project a land mark project notoriety city and the french-american school. i appreciate your support for the project and thank you for your time today. last call for public comment on this item. there is one more caller. >> good afternoon this is anatasia and i like it say i'm in support of the project. i was part of the central city coalition when there were 3 buildings proposed 2 at van ness and one 98 franklin. and now it is final low come to

pass there will be a school and will be affordable housing dedicated at another site i'm in support. thank you to supervisor preston and kyle >> no additional requests, public ment is close third degree merit is before you >> thank you. thank you to everyone involved and the callers as limp i will call on commissioner diamond. >> thank you, one general comment come need clarification i'm super excited mr. smiley about this. as you call it win/win issue win/win solution it it is a great add to have the high school be built. i'm excite the partnering of like the school with market rate

housing i help we see more in the future that aluour nonprofits to be able to partner about market rate developers in order to realize all of their visions. i also excited about the project tell unstick market rate housing. it increased the amount of forwardable we thought we would otherwise get and i like the design of project. i think it is beautiful and will be a wonderful add. with all of that, i will will say in live realities of current mark, i'm all in favor of building flexibility in our entitlements. as i read the da and entitlements together, i'm confused about off the scenario this package of entitlements permits. while i like low to be in favor of all of these i want to make sure i understand and all the

commissioners understand it is range of scenarios that might come to fruition. with these entitlements. could you come forward. i want to talk through with you why i'm confuse exclude hopeful low you can clarify. because in the entitlements, in the da read together. we have the pot of the modified project going forward or the initial project going forward. we have scene air i don'ts with the da and without the da you have the ability to terminate it. and where you maypate original impact fees or may not. wloot da is in affect. 600 veteran nesz or another off sight alternative subject to approval of mo and manipulate the possibility of you feeing out.

is this correct? >> this is the way i would yaishg characterize the options. the project today and the board would approve throughout development agreement. which includes the fee waiver and the requirements dedicate the property. that is the project. and it is the design this is approved today through planning. if for whatever reason the agreement is terminated and the development green light to be clear allows the school to terminate it before the land is dedicated. it is for whatever reason there it is a disaster something happens that necessitates the termination of the development agreement upon it is not possible to dedicate the land or the school believes it would be better to put units back on site the school has the option under the da to put them back on site the 20% and rewinds the tape

wherewhere they were in 2020 would not receive fee waivers. they would not receive vesting urn the da. not receive the 3 stories in height. it it is rewinding the tape back to 2020. given the fact we are here that project is in the feasibility as the project under the da that is a theoretical possibility approximate one important to put in to give the school comfort this they can go become to had they had before. but again without the fee waivers or vesting or the height, i think that is not an tractive option. in addition if the development agreement is terminated and the school or the school is the signature to the da terminate the da before the lands dedication the entitlements you are approving is not wiped out by the termination of the development agreement. the same thing the porns was

lose all fee waivers, vesting and the general protections provided by da over all. they would have a project that is the design of the project approving with no waivers or vesting. this say possibility a willing not likely to be attractive the latter 2 don't flult a fee waiver >> what about the fee out option? there is no fee out option. >> under any of these we will end up with off sight housing or another alternative site or on sight? correct. >> okay. >> so if i got this straight. as long as the da in affect the only project is the modified

project with the housing either at 600 van ness or another alternative location? >> correct. provided the da is in affect. iot sponsor working in earnest with the owners of sick00 vaness than i near i deal worry the sight. we don't know what will help in the future there is an option to approve another site u. if terminate the da we can end up with the initial project which has on site affordable housing or we can end up with the modified project, which might still do a lan dedication somewhere else or on site. >> correct. >> okay. thank you. and twhiel is hard to review this one page of red line without a context of the rest i want to ask mr. mylie and -- alexander if you agree with

everything this mr. able rams said is this your understanding? >> yes from both of you? >> okay. and same for the city attorney. >> whether or not you are you are asking us to approve a da we don't have the language. i want to make sure you are comfortable the way this was summarize side when we are approving. >> i think that deputy city attorney, thank you for this question. i think the anywhereo question that i should answer is had to do about the late breaking amendments. i think this may be what you are after. i think when wrae need to do is treat these as though they are a proposed modification brought to you the commission can do is recommend approval without the modifications or recommend them with the modifications subject to approval as to form by the city attorney's office. i'm not the city attorney

working on temperature i don't have the context to tell you whether or not it hen reviewd and approved. i reached out to my colleague on vacation but he is not looking at his phone i have not heard back. if he respondeds before the hearing is up i will let you know. but i being those are your options in terms of huto deal with the language >> is it your contention that the modifications that you gave you to today familiar we were to approve this the way or recommend approval subject to the city attorney accomplishes the scenario we discussed. my understanding there was a conversation commissioner with you and staff and you were helpful in pointing out you thought the language in the da minot be the most clearly drafted language. it it is a confusing document as you pointed out in terms of the issues related to termination.

so this language is upon intended rewrite the same language if a clear manner and i think when we smoothed it upon the deputy city attorney has been negotiating this it would be clean up after the it is saying the statement in different worried and it happens with development green lights or other complicated contracts amended between the commission and board. i suggest this noted required approve them. they say the same in different words. >> this prediction is had i talked to you about not just touchos it but i thought the language it was heard to follow and i ask for clone up. it is heard to look at it now and say wlo i thought it did that i'm trusting the city attorney to do this. what i wanted now clarification

if we get scenario that's clearer you in. thank you. commissioner moore. i want it reflect when we approved in 2020 and today. and like to mirror it against other incidents in the hub where we were encountered with changes. and why we were willing to step changes the projects we reviewed started to differ significant leave from when we originally approved. in this case the changes are barely noticeable. i like to note that the height of the building actually is still within the permitted height. the previously protect held

officer top equipment in elevator zoechlt an unchange the project except minor additions to 2 sdmrors in minor changes on a facade. i'm in strong support of the project. and i am very thankful that while change is inefwe are not seeing the build thanksgiving has been significant low dumbed down. that is had i forewe will encounter in the future. as we see development costs go up buildings are dumbed down in this case we have a building that holdless the quality and promises and starts to be the first shining star in the hub where we lost other great opportunities to create excellence in building. i want to thank everybody upon the city starting to be anymore

fwhel ability to rise to the challenger we are to find new ways of cooperating and coordinating and if this is one example i'm delighted support. thank you, everybody. grit work and i move to approve >> second. >> commissioner braun. >> i want to choim enemy to say i'm excite the solution found. development agreement the dedication of a site nal provide more affordable units and also leverage outside sources and also potential low provide affordable than might be possible on site. i'm supportive and i thome gets moving quick. gi add my support stellar and excited the solution and hopeful low i will see it coming on line

soon. >> for the sake of clarity this is with the proposed modifications to the code amendment as well as the amendments proposeed the development agreement. yes. >> indeed. >> commissioneros this motion to then approve with modifications planning code and zoning map amendments adopt shadow findings, recommend approval to board of supervisors the development agreement pending city upon attorney rerue and approval. p approval the downtown project authorization which conscience commissioner braun. why aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner prul y. aye >> commissioner koppel y. aye yoochl commissioner mory. aye >> commissioner upon tanner. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. commissioners that will place us on item 4 pulled off of consent

earlier >> we will take welcome back to the san francisco planning hearing. we left off on item 4 pulled off of consent. for 1160 mission street a cu authorization. >> good afternoon nek not weir department staff. 1160 mission a change of c u change of use going if public

parking grauj to fleet charging. in layperson we are talking about will a 4 story podium garage converting 69 of the public space its float charging we add ev equipment to a lufloat charging vehicles to utilize the spaces. in total there are 364 space in thes garage. the balance would remain 128. we main public approximate 175 remain patriot for benefit of the residential tower on top. approximate the department staff stands finds it mess and desirable and compatible and in service of the city and global desire to reduce e missions. we recommend support i'm available for questions sponsor

you have 5 minutes i'm mike with terville infrastructure. we other sponsor. we would like it convert 61 of the parking stalls in know existing structure to electric fleet charging. you know to net, we had great partnership with the electrical union in finding qualified contractors to dot skills labor. those that understands how to do this and do it well. we are excited bring this project forward. the other benefit make thanksgiving float charge being keeps the cars here that would have to use public charging in a parking structure separate and froing public challengering there, open to the individuals in the city use for their vehicles. thank you very much. >> we should take public

comment. members this is your opportunity to address the commission. in the chambers come forward if you are call nothing press star 3 or raise your hand i have web ex. skwoo i'm mark i'm speaking on behalf of tone competence other rate of speed of team sters 7 in northern california. the official political mitted for the cu condition vert a public parking garage to float charging there is i business over vow slide show that highlights the purpose of this change in use is to prosecute void freight truck and vehicle changing. not only this means the change in use equal remove ping for residence denials but it is replace thanksgiving residential ping with parking in charging for freight truck and autonomous

vehicle in punishmentave parcel delivery service use. board passed a moratorium for partial deliver of service use. in march of 2022. requires cu authorization for any purpose partial deliver use the political for i float charging use for freight trucks and autonomous vehicle system around the partial delivery use moratorium and we ask you stop putting these upon items on the consent calendar they are controversial and apore to be a way for applicant to avoid scrutiny as a partial delivery service. we ask this change of use application be pulled off consent every time it it is put on for consent. these are not consent items they

are request to change a use in support for parcels delivery. and but call for something else to asunrise the partial deliveref service moratorium. thank you. public comment is closed and this merit is before you. >> thank you for staff and the project sponsor for presentation. want to understand making sure i was supportive and hearing the concerns this again similar to the other vehicle charging we approved the parcel delivery could challenger here this is not approving a parcel deliver tow approving the fleet charging that would be allowed here >> that's correct. the cu is not for parcel

delivery. the speaker mentioned a c u authorization you can't virtue of authorizing the change of the 2 sales and service fleet charging and also without this clear to you. you are not asked to approve holing. >> to be clear a user could use this as float charging but approval separately for activities occurring? >> that's correct. commissioner koppel >> we have heard cases like this before and we will hear more and i'm happy to hear this our concerns are being addressed ahead of days of hearing and again just safety and for the workers intalling the w and safety down stroll when the technology is available of the

utmost importance. i didn't will make a motion to approve. second. seeing no further comments a motion to approve commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye yoochl commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore >> aye >> commissioner tanner y. aye >> that passes umly. 6-zero. >> that will place us on dr calendar. item 15, for the property of 1228 fun ton a discretionary review. >> good afternoon. commissioners david winslow. a staff initiates request for dr

of building permit application to legalize a 3 story roar addition and if sad alterations without the benefit of i permit. and to add a detached dwelling unit and second at grounds level behind the grand jury to 3 story single family nome rh2 the build suggest category b built in 1912. by way of background on february 6, 2014 filed a building permit application. for interior @rigz and 3 story roar addition. in may of 2015 it came to planning attention the 3 story,dition had been constructed without the benefit

of a permit and approval from planning department. the addition was built large are than plans submitted under that application. in november of 2015 property owner with drought this permit. accordingly the mrnlg department sent it to dbi for cancellation. however the permit was not with drawn and returned to planning for review on april 19 of 2016. in may and august 2016 the property owner submitted revisions to building permit. to seek legalization of the roar addition. and in march of 2017, planning department staff initiated i dr. application 2014-000599drm because the unauthorized addition and alterations at

front and rear of the 3 story house did in the comply with planning design guidelines the addition and alterations included demolition of 20-25 foot one sided shed one story shed in the rear yard. construction of a 3 story addition of the roar of the single family dwelling. construction of a tw story deck and spill roll stairs with front @rigzs to window, trim and the footballent row. in john of 17 the planning approved with design modifications documented under dr action memo where are 532. pursuant to dr action memo the property owner was required submit resunrised plans under that 2014026948. property owner did not submit

revisions despite remindsers and enforce am notices from planning from november of 2019. it was disapruf in the november of 2018. the property owner initial low appeal third degree and with drew the green light to comply with planning commission's d r action memo. in official 2019, the property owners filed another permit. to come ploy with that dr action memo. the site permit was issue in the september of 2020. the property ordinance required submit an addendum in a timely matter and pursuit completion of the permit. in january of 21, the property

ordinance filed a new permit. the permit before you today. this permit before you today seeks to legal ietsz the as built low store additions. and in may 2021, the prospect owner submitted not consistent with the project, proved under bba2 where are 19 where are 21 if i have 3076. the owners requested dbi to

place a denned up review on hold until a decision rendered under this per the planning department require tim low riligz, baitment to bring in in code compliance the department requested the owners to submit a full addendum the property ordinance failed to follow the planning direction. a 250 i day penalty since may of 21. and will continue to until corrective okays are taken to bring the property in compliance. to date the department received 2 letters of support and no letters opposing the project. as i mentioned the dr memo at the previous dr in 2017, stip litted the ground floor not extend deeper than original depth but let really to each side of the property. second and third stories extend in deep are than second and third story with side setbacks

of 5 feet above ground floor. and piroll stair and deck removed. this work was never completed. alternate unpermitted work was done in the buildable envelope it was in the consistent with design guidelines pertaining to be compatible with mid block open space and minimizing paths of light to properties. >> the most recent revision to legalize previous work without a permit prosecute poseed add 2 new dwelling units. the planning department appreciates and supports the addition of them as it supports the housing goals. because the work was done without permits approximate and without complying with the dr conditions, in violation of planning code 174 it it is in the code compliant and not

subject to housing accountability act. there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstance in history noncompopulation and recommends dr. the commission can approve this permit with conscience to ensure permits obtain in the good faith and construction prosecute receiveds. or could add here to the previous conscience of theful 2717dr action ownership modify in the way grounds level expansion to enable a second dwelling. the following are standard conscience for approval of enforce. case ensure the finaling permits reflecting the work corrected i recommend these adopted in whenever case you direction you head. upon one. final permit filed within 90 dpas obtain in the 180 days the permit upon permit issuance the

sponsor submit a coup heing permit number and construction schedule with start and end dates for review. that if construction lefts for more then and there 30 days the porns provide among low u..ed via e mail to plan with description and photos showing the progress. the project sponsor number power the sponsor spend completed w to planning once the planning department cease all is consistent with the approvals the sponsor shall move forward with final sign off of the permit by building inspector approximate send i photo to planning staff. the severalty final completion for the second unit andarc sesz row unit obtained before the a buyment of violation considered complete. >> thank you. why this concludes staff.

take or hear from the dr requestor. you have 5 minutes. >> good upon afternoon will thank you for the opportunity to peek to you today this is my mother. our family owned the home at 1228 fun stun for 3 gent rigs we are here we were defrauded boy an engineer who asured permits were issued. the document in your package show we filed a lawsuit against him and assisting the u.s. department of yesterday in their prosecution. we are here to do that is right. to kooek seek permits legalization of what was and the restore the facade and add to additional residential units to the city's housing stock. we are pleased make this contribution but only afford to build the 2 new units if we can keep the part already built code

compliant and supported boy neighbors. thank you very much for your consideration. i'm chad with architects. i have been w with my cloinlt for the last year and a half >> you are for the sponsor. with the project sponsor. >> yes. >> to essential low make lemonade out of a difficult situation. the can i have the computer? >> sfgovtv can we go to the computer? >> we want to keep the existingville um approximate add. 2 additional units. we think this is -- works because the site conditions that change since 2017 and -- there is now a new construction

approved at 1222 funston street. the propose the project meets planning code and -- all other building codes. and the project adds 2 comfortable units to a city that needs more housing. so this is showing -- the existing site. this is showing mid block analysis. and it is out with the adu. it is a state adu. seeks to restore the history irk

details on a2.1. this proposal is with a void environmental waste of demolition and make addition of 2 units with strategy limited renovations. thank you very much. yo ryan patterson for sponsor. if i can have the computer. commissioners this , is a new team appearing before to you make this right. a lot changed since 2017. back then neighborhood concerns and the neighborhood condition changed. the neighbor has reason gotten a major project, proved which

changes the site configuration and renldzers this project as proposed compatible with the neighbor context a build nothing front and state adu in the roar. ordinance sanltos putting them in this to position and the law changed the hozing act significant low strengthened since 2018. and clearly requires approval of the project. this adds 2 units to the housing stock. construction costs to remove the structure this was in question before are high. we are talking 751,000 to remove and additional cost of 421 thousand dollars to add the 2 units and i will add a written copy of that to the record. we have letters of support from both neighbors for this project

as proposed. the owners policed on the d. justice victim's let for santos they are here trying to make this right by adding units if the earlier structure were required to be removed they cannot ford temperature rivering that would be a reduction to the density of the project and violation of the haa. section 174 of planning code gives weight of code to conscience accompliceod projects for enforce am purposes. chapter 1.70 enforce am section enforcement of construction. this it is code compliant and meets requirements of the code and all objective requirement and you have the authority to approve that. it is i disagree with the notion

is in the subject to haa it it is. we ask you follow the staff recommendation approve the project and we are okay with the additional continuous which make it enforceable. they are enforcement continuous. to make the situation right. we don't know when else we can do. thank you. happy to answer questions. >> members of public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this merit. if you are here come forward if you are calling press star 3.

>> i'm jerry i sent i copy of the power point to the commissioners. the property owner and wife officers in the construction company since 2006. the planning commission issued a dra and planning initiated now dr to over turn original dr,

why? the property owner constructed an addition large were then and there on plan and foundation the electrical and the the plumbing not inspected. defects the 1228 funston are extraordinary. the permit on legalize illegal construction disapproved by the bort in 2018 and cancelled by planning for failure to mitt requested or required revisions. >> the property has the property owner paid the penalty, seszed at the time and the time and material charges? those are sizeable numbers. this project is like sam brunlo avenue. 91 of the construction work has been inspected. why would it make sense to

convert the illegal units to adu's? the rest of the packet you have is just the permits thank you. last call for public comment. seeing no requests to speak. dr requestor -- oh. did you have other comments to make mr. winslow >> sorry, you want to rebump sponsor you have rebuttal. 2 minute rebuttal. ryan patterson. appreciate the public input the people most affected other adjacent neighbors and both in support. you have letters of passport

before you with this application from both neighbors saying it ads to the neighborhood. facade is reversed and put back together as it should be. the ordinance are trying to make this right they floundered trying to find their way forward for a number of years. put in a wagz they relied on someone who reliance was not well policed in. and they have to find a way forward and trying to do the right thing. adding to the housing stock. a proposal that it is within the buildable area, code compliant. it is different from the 2017 decision had is correct. the marriage difference is this they are adding additional units instead of continuing on as a single family hem and make space

are units than i have it keep fies have money to builted units than i have to keep the space b. thousands of dollars of work involved this money has to in from somewhere. they already are being assessed high penalties 250 dollars i day high school they try to find their way out they have been pig the penalties. they are trying to make this right. we ask you follow staff recommendation approve behalf is a good, fair compromise with enforcement am to ensurety new housing gets built timely. thank you for your time. upon commissioners with that, this merit is before you. okay. i will start out with this one.

there is, lot to be said here. i want to appreciate the tough spot the sponsors are near and appreciate being victimized boy someone we all know was not act nothing good faith and outside the bounds of the law. i want to appreciate the financial challenges and thank you for the quotes regarding the cost of construction work. what i don't appreciate is the lack of response to previous direction which code from the good what i don't appreciate sift insinuation this we have it afruf this project because it is state law changes. i find it absurd prospect to fixing a problem for a number of years, mr. winslow is reading the history for a number of wherevers to come to the body consume staff and body time not follow direction and come become and say now have you to approve this including work that was

completed without the benefit permits or benefit construction. and inspections. i don't know how this body after spending the hours we spent on sap bruno can hear that and thank you is grit 2 housing awesome have this unpermitted and uninspected work go forward if this is the case i need to see more wellingness to come ploy and how you think it it is cyst for you to allow people to reside in the part of the building not permitted and not inpected? i don't understand. sdrou an answer. give me comfort i should allow people to rent this unit to live swhafl tell has not been inspected or properly permits? thank you. am i really do respect the comments this it is a difficult position. the cases are hard.

and i think that occupant safety is most important. to answer the question to make sure this is safe when work was not permitted, this will be fully inspected. it will be fully inspected by dbi and i want to offer if the planning department would like to send upon personnel in the project while it it is happening, you know the owners are willing to do this whatever we do special inspections which will be required. if you want to designate nit specific license personnel to the do this. construction has to be made safe, inspected and the owners confirmed they'll open the walls so you see it make sure it is done right you seat electric and plumbing. if there are conscience that you would like to ask for, we are

here to find a way forward y. can you explain part of when i don't understand the time performed money is an issue fees are assessed kerf years gone by, and you come become now today saying we need to do manage this is better tell save money of demolition and put it in construction. i'm confused why has so much time passed? >> i mention third degree it is a new theme come in to find a way forward. they did flounder. you see false starts, with drawing. cancellations. this is not the type of path someone follows with a plan. this is hit and miss and most low miss. they have a new team and experienced attorney,

responsiblesed architect. and i think this what we brought forward is a fair compromise and something, you can ask staff i believe we worked to be responsive and timely. we have been involved in. >> and has there been cooperation in the time had new team has been in place. >> sinces now team it has been by my mental reckoning at lest a year. but you know 8 years passed before this. soil not fault concern team for finding a solution butt question still is hanging out there what were you doing for 8 years. >> yea. >> certainly. joy don't think there is an answer we move on. i think it is lost to. whatever was happening in this time. thank you i have a question for

our attorney asertion made this application is subject to housing accountability act suggesting we have the terms of this i understand and confuse haa with other housing lutz. that is the 5 hearing limit. we can't make it less dense. or otherwise decrease the amount of housing. >> thank you for this question, president tanner. the 5 hearing limit from the housing crisis act. related legislation. you are not alone in confusing these piece we all do it every day. the housing acounsel act act does not apply here the most important part of your question the reason is this is in the code compliant. council would like you to ignore planning code 174 under 174 conscience this are imposed boy

this body have the force of the planning code. this project is not consistent with the prior imposed continues by this body this does not money this body cannot approve the project with a thoughtful conscience suggested by planning staff. what it does money it this body decides either not to approve the project or to approve with conditions or lower density you don't need to make the findings if that would be required deny or reduce the density of the project. >> thank you. >> i will may be close by say fort worth project the new latestity rigz were before us as a project and dr i would approve it. it is i great project adding housing fantastic. my holdup is the history with this project. and the past actions or inactions that are there that fdz this body wants to approve

this proposed project with conscience i would also like to add i like to see if the time lines are not met the 90 days to apply and get a permit we referred on the deed of the property there it is a notify of abate am so future buyers of the property would be awear this project was constructed without the benefit permit and it is benefit of inspections. i'm taupe typeset and taupe say, no we have a project approved we would like you to comply with that. commissioner moore? commissioner tanner's frustrations mirror my own exactly make its clear and exonerates it i'm part of the

original group of people approving the condition for the project in the in front of us is in the what it has become. i have been struggling with having to confront the allegation that the housing account act act applies here until am attorney jensen clarified it does not createed your violations that is the strong message and regret hapresent today in a manner this had us stipulate in our tracks. we need to get message cross we cannot be held hostage on complus regulations that don't apply and we have a city attorney helping us with those moments. applicant holds a b contractor license. and giving the owners the

ability to irrelevant know every aspect of what is require when you do work in san francisco. and the -- owner has licenses with other projects if you look at the dbi records. so i'm wondering -- why would an owner not let us know what to do with the project if he has the qualifications and the license with other projects and ignore them? that is very puzzling to me. i understand you are trying to have 7 years of wrongs to be now right, i question as to wlo i can trust despite the fact we have a licensed architect and despite the fact a land use attorney that things are going the right way to which make it brief, putting everything together without going in detail i think for me enough is enough.

and i would weigh with the position that i took in 2018, that was the most 2020. whatever. it seems it happened over and over. i will be basically take the position this what was approved in upon 2021 is what guyed us today. thank you >> commissioner koppel >> before i was lucky and privileged enough to be appointed to this commission in 2016 i pent my fooim time on the public side at these hearings. i thought the planning commission rulings were like law. i thought they were the last word. and i'm also the guy that thinks every construction project should get inspected. imagine mag my realities once i have been up here. i'm getting tired of hearing

excuse for thing this is don't help this we rule on. we make person decisions every thursday had it is in someone's first, they abide when it is in the they somehow don't seem to do it. and then figure they will come back and ask for legalization. to total low separate conversation here the conversation this we are talking about today i'm not ready to entertain listen to the first conversation we had in our first rowelling has not been, bide by i will not take a look at the second one. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> what a mess. so i am in sympathy with everything that has been said.

but i'm dealing with reality where our policies are trying to add to the housing stock and this project adds 2 units. and we have neighborhood support for this project. and so -- i am delayed to know this haa does not need to guide our determinations we can make this putting this aside and doing when we think in the best interests of the city. i like to understand first until you tell you where i land i agree with everything. where they are on penalties. when did than i start paying penalty and i gather it was in the until late in the process. i assume that is because the department was following its policy of trying to get people to comply and not charging penalties when submission of applications. is this correct?

>> that's correct. march starting on -- upon let me cut to the punch lineful penalties totalled 15, 500 at 250 a day. only started that is 62 days of penalties over the duration of how long the project in our midst. i have a hard time >> that was like in 2021 when we finally said, okay, enough is enough we will start the clock. >> so, supervisor ronen legislation which passed through here a member of months ago now adopted would it if in accomplice when this project came through in the past it would have changed the date ands amounts paid in penalties? have we fixd that issue with the new legislation.

i continue does not apply to this project. no audio [cannot hear speaker]. can you peek in the mic. up it za to determine if and when a sponse is pursuing compliance through submission of timely documentation and so forth. i think the penalties assessed are when we determine that no, you are not being responsive. i don't know the dollar figure difference in the new legislation how that would affect the bottom lineful but ultmitt low we seek compliance rather than penalties. >> i would say -- first there is no way this project can go

forward without being inspected i don't care how much need to bes torn ou to sign off. anything else is a nonstarter. will i -- also mindsful there is making an example making them am go back to where we were. on the other hand they are adding 2 more units and neighbors are in support. i think what i'm most upset about is that the they got away with paying niendz in penalties. i thank you is most trouble to meet hope lovely the new legislation put nus a place where we will not have that situation arise again. i could vote for taking dr and approving the project with the 2 aadditional units provided they show that the new building what

they built pass inspection. that is what my thinking is. >> thank you, commissioner diamond yoochl commissioner braun? >> yes, i am feeling meant same feelings and frustrations and torn as commissioner diamond. when i look at the project. on the time frame and how long for this to come back you to. i don't want to say close to resolved. you know i -- itch wonder about this, too. i see that even the lawsuit against santos was in 2018. that was 5 years ago. july. so -- testimony some a very

troubling path the project has been on. and there is a temptation to make an example of it. i think where i'm landing now though is -- i'm looking at the benefit adding the 2 additional units. evening that i'm frustrated boy that solution because that solution involves expanding the liveable area of the primary house. because the first unit going in the first floor and the the upper 2 levels portions of the primary resident. we'll expanding the square footage and give 2 units. income generating as well and not even rented out and then used by the primary owners. so there is a lot to dislike for sure. i am still coming down on the side of as longs that is

inspectd and it is safe. you know whatever it takes no matter how much needs to be taken out a look at the foundation of it. as long as that happens i get behind the idea as long as the 2 dwelling units. and so that some where i'm now i'm curious to hear other thoughts. commissioner imperial. i'm leaning toward it all of the history of this property i'm left laning to the staff recommendation. meaning on the original approval by the planning commission on the dr. again, i do appreciate if 2

units are added but again this is not in this the housing act does not apply sthoe is for me that makes mow feel comfortable in taking the staff recommendation also with the time line that is also put out by the staff. i think the staff put out a details time line and direction as to how the project sponsor will move forward. also i appreciate what president tanner mention in the terms of adding notice of abatement in case in the process the project sponsor you know -- we don't know when will happen. i think we have applied that before i'm language toward staff recommend sxagz othersment a notice of abatement i would add that. can you clarify your recommendation. gi waffled on my physical here

is what the building should do. recommendation. my recommendation this i stand by in this in report was the conscience of maintaining what you decide in terms of the building envelope is complied by. i gave 3 options. i'm sure there are more. one was, revert become to original conditions of the dr. in 2017 to reduce the second and third story become to original footprint. ground floor could fill had but reverted back to the original roar wall line and removal the existing stair and deck.

or approve as proposed for to you discuss or the hybrid version would be the built area on the second and third floor service the single family resident only. but if expansion at the rear grounds level in a way does not violate residential design guideline its is as the is currently built because it it is below as a fence height. part of had i hear is and taking noteses here we have possible low 4 ever us if i join the

group interested in approving the 2 units with the stip ligzs 2 are not in favor of that and if we got route of approving of the additional 2 units make decision and give staff and applicant direction on what built form those the project would have. are we approving something else. sounds like we have interest. i think with this i will ask the question commissioner moore and koppel getting the sequencing i don't know can we have the building be inspected before they are able to go forward with the project. i thank you is where i just it is still if than i get a per mist and do construction but the w performed already is not legalized i can't passport this.

we have limited control to pass this to dbi. dbi informed the enforcement and they opened a case. they are going to be ngo i don't know their time line on pursuing that. i would imagine as you -- have said that scope of project of this scope will be probably need to be inspected by take out the sheet rock and looking at frame and ins commission plumbing and electrical. may be the steel and foundation. that has to happen before that would have to happen and concluded for most to like to continue this until is done special we have seen progress on inspecting and understanding little w that already performed. if a case dbi will look into let

them and you come become and see if we want to approve the additional unit it is i don't want to kick the condition but i'm loatheed give more permission to this applicant at this time. not knowing that dbi has been able to look at what is in the field. are you saying you want them to inspect it to make building code. i'm concerned giving permission to do additional things we have not seen what is there. >> the question i have if we require them to take it down why are weave -- making them go throughout exercise of showing it is not fitting compliance. >> i say i would continue it. i would not know if you realliment it let's let this

play out and see how it holdses up to more screw no. >> commissioner moore and koppel. >> mr. winslow there are 2 things the commission expressing the project cal advice on the function willity of existing building in either case, modifying it or keeping it enis the building functional. i would like to know who constructed the building as i said earlier the applicant is has an approximate construction license. did he construct it himself? i'm not asking to you answer that i like to you think about it not to question we need to disclose in the meeting. second question is the building the proposal as is is in the code compliant based on the oversight of planning authority

on building form privacy issues. and whether or not the ajoining neighbors nought twisted their arm later and say i support it no consequence to me. for us it is important to electric at every building in the context of the rowels that exist am building rowels don'ts exist on their own they are credited credit context and liveability for all. and i cannot basically say i will skip this part when that willup hold. i like for commissioner diamond and brun to know that the building is in the code compliant. that it is our main responsibility aside from noncompliance and the way it is build we don't know there are no permits or inspections. the step we can taim take continue this project and get a reading from dbi when they will

have the time to inspect the build and give us the confidence this there is something we can do. and perhaps there is something based on the left description where the upper flowers are used by owner and lower floor exterior full expectancy like the bit of or pop out. and then see whether or not that it is even functioning based on the building code met in its form. concrow. steel. plumbing and electric. will sheet rock. whatever. framing. all of the above. fimay. am the 2 processes can work in parallel and independent low. what we are trusted with doing is the size, type and location of buildings and what dbi

entrufted with function everfunctionality for life and safety. dbi will do in order to confirm or verify the building was constructed per codes or not and rem dealt situations. that's upon inspect of of -- where this commission nights to land and directored the sponsor weapon when we are going to approve. from a building miscellaneous and other conscience of compliance they can be separated i would not like to see us waiting for dbi torque do their work ensue another year or so boy the time they have it done and men get access to the build and have the sponsor hire a contractor to remedy what may be or not when the commission could

arrive at a decision function what dbi needs to dochlt it has been 7 years so what is another year and also what happens is that you know we end up dealing with the stuff that does in the get done bidbi. respect our partners it come become again bh they fail to also perform their duties and we than there werefects not performing duty in thes time frame related this project i want to say that i -- i don't want to say we can do them in parallel we sometimes get this back anyway had it does deposit hymn i appreciate that but i'm not there with you. >> if i could clarify. dbi was not aslope on the job the building was built without a permit they never had the opportunity to called for inspection. why what i'm referencing other related challenge this is come become to this body to say like

dbi does this and oui do this we sometimes clone up a mess from their performance or electric thereofive want to be realistic. commissioner koppel. >> the way we are going about the items weer setting a precedent that says our decisions don't matter you don't strp to do what we tell do you do and it it is okay to not have your permits pulled and buildings inspected you can just do it later. and it does not work that way the codes are there people died and buildings have burned down or both. get rid of all the stop signs and red light in the city if someone happens oh , well this is the bear minimum the legal bear minimum coming from officers of a b license general

contracting company? this is like i'm a lawyer in my opinion this is criminal. i don't know at what point what point would manage not be okay. where are we going with this. this is terrible. and i again. familiar them were a storm or like a business that is one thing it it is a residence denials were people live and sleep at night. approximate i'm it -- upset and at a loss of words >> thank you commissioner koppel. i see moore, imperial and braun of the i don't like to use names i think the excuse of santos the reason upon why this is in the functioning does not quite work. there is a history that quite a few years ago they were first signs that what he was doing was not quite right on. until reason he was going in and

out of dbi getting his projects signed. that i think creates an additional wrinkle here. i like to restate the fact that any of us in our respective prosecute fegzs have the obligation no matter what to adhere to both principles each us in things we do adhere to. this applicant is a licensed condition transactor. and that stomach westerly my belief system in whatever we sdpied today is under mined because i don't believe that is acting in good faith and not acting within the responsibilities you have for yourself for your neighbor and for anybody or any agent in the city you are trying to talk to. >> thank you. commissioner imperial and braun >> i was going back and forth with everyone's ideas and you named the question of i think the end of the day.

t. is will thankful code compliant is the question. the second is what commissioner koppel express in the his frustration and buzz he was not in the commission the this time as commissioner moore was. i think this body need to recognize decisions this are made here should be follow exclude honored. so i think i'm reverting become to my original statement. so i think i'm going with 2717 planning commission approval. >> i think it it is 2021. what year >> 2017-21. so many years. i was on the commission before 2021. >> former commission. a lot of history on this project. commissioner braun. >> i'm catching up on the dates, too. >> am listened careful low to

the points made especially by commissioners moore, tanner and koppel. i irrelevant respect the point being made that ultmitt low one should not get rewarded for ignoring this commission. ive respect that the commissioners who were on this commission at the time the 2017 upon plan was approved at the dr this you know i wanted defer to that decision made at that time and go back to the fact that is never has been followed through on. so, i'm change mid minds i would prefer that we continue with the 2017 approved plans. and that resets the

circumstances a bit and if the applicant wants to build 2 more in the future that's manage they do from inspect process after the current issue has been abated y. sloulth. why that will make 3 of us. thank you, commissioners cop and he will moore for peek to us and helping to make a good sdichlgzirment to ask mr. winslow if we uphold the 2017 decision is it possible to have a notice of abate am on the deed is in the code compliant right now and that way that will be rimoved once the dr is complied with and construction is reverted back. can we do this? i will be tentative the enforce am legislation posed to be signed tomorrow and take affect 30-days from this date. i believe this is still enablings you to do that at the

time we decide that order of abatement needs to be recorded. i'm correspond about the project sold to people buy wait this is in the compliant and we are trying to help them. want to prevent this from happening. outside of this body i female comfortable with this commissioner koppel. if i move to go with option one am i taking dr? i move to take dr and disapprove -- no. approve what was said in option one of 2017. where are 532 >> is this right?

>> second that. can you clarify that and may be mr. winslow. project is a permit. one of many. seek to abate a violation. the history that i recited included the original previous 2017 memo had conscience. basically you say there will is another dr for this permit prosecute posing 2 units and keeping something existing and saying no we will take dr and impose conditions. you can record those and recite them similar to or i dent cal with the previous dr. in addition i recommend this those conscience include the step by step standards conscience of compliance i resight as well. i think that was commissioner koppel's motion. >> yes. >> does this help?

i'm trying. have not heard a second. joy second the megz. >> does this include the notice. >> i think this can happen outside of this body. >> you could add it. >> tell happen anyway >>iel j. the reason tentative has in the taken of course yet we put as a condition now when it is in the law. >> are legal team is saying can you. why deputy city attorney it it is within the authority of the commission to add that as a condition not with standing the legislation has not yet passed. it is within your authority to do that anyway. >> okay. can be recorded administratively. you can add that as a condition y. through the chair i like to add that. i will support this. >> great.

>> du get that jonas. >> i think so. i don't know i will try. reiterate what i understand the motion is. but i believe it it is to take dr and approve the project reverting back to the conscience of approval 2017 for option one. including the standard conditions of compliance that was cited by mr. winslow including the recordation of a notice of abate am. >> correct. why yes. >> on that motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> no. >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel >> aye >> commissioner moore >> aye yoochl commissioner tanner >> aye that passes 5-1 with diamond voting against. >> commissioners this will accomplice us on the final item on your agenda number 16, for

the property of 415 grafton avenue a discretionary review >> good afternoon. david winslow. the item is i public neighborhood request for dr of building permit application 0815.0109 a vertical edition it a single story family resident the existing is category b historic resource. the dr requestor of 4 twain grafton ayeasant niche to the west is concerned the project with property line windows impacts light, air, privacy and does not address building code compliance with fire and life safety. the aisles are to limit the height of the addition to existing height and present new

property line windows. the department received no letter in support nor letters opposing it is project. staff supports the addition complies with planning code and design guide lines. the second story addition does not pose a burden given the separation provide at side and front setbacks on the dr requestor's properties. and for point of information for dbi bullet tin the property line windows are allowed with conscience fit 45 minute fire rated and located 6 feet, way from existing openings on ajoining buildings and not used to provide light ventilation or emergency egress or rescue opening the windows on the west property line are more than 6 feet away from the dr requestor and bathroom on the first and

stair and bathroom on the second floor. dr property has 7 foot wide and p side set become for airfully and light to windows on the building sidewalk. staff deems no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends approving. thank you. >> dr requestor you have 5 minutes y. thank you. poke in the microphone. >> definitely. i'm he were on behalf of the property owner they could not get. a family of 4 this it is 1100 square foot house. lived here for 10 years they have kids. they need more space. son goes to school down the street they would like more space for growing family. . this is i modest vertical

addition we are pending by set become there is is nowhere top go but up. according to the surhave an it is 11 feet from the property line to the dr applicant's wall. we are adding 3 feet to the rear and the this is when tell look like. we are removing 2 existing window and adding 3 new ones for a net of one new window. totalling 5 on the side. the dr applicant has 12 windows facing this property.

we did a shade study it see how much less sunlight in the morning from the east. the dr applicant would receive as a result. we found on average it is 45 millions a day which is not nothing. but we don't think it is significant or on to their well being or thriving. >> we urge you to recognize mr. wins lose recommendations and, prove this project as designed. thank you very much. dr requestor. thank you.

hi. good afternoon. commissioner, staff, and citizens. i'm and i'm the property owner of 4 twin graph ton west of the application of property. i'm here today to present why we don't support this application. but before i do that i want to spend a couple seconds i really appreciate the commissioner heard work and to protect the resident of sudden front. i'm a witness today how challenging and situation you guys have to deal with. and long working hours i persh

this is my first time here i'm here since 1 p.m. and waiting and i know this is my last case but i appreciate you guys work. protecting the safety of the citizens of san francisco. so here is my story. i think i picture mean thousand cord everword says. i will [inaudible] left machining i was in the able i did not know when i need to do i print a picture. >> able to see on the over head and we can see it also. in statute pictured i took this

is the afternoon picture. you see this the height of the 2 building is very close. the application owner of the tell you it is twp the 2, so it is true is that they are going to upon -- had is the height. you see that you can [inaudible] about 12 panels for the siding. which is i think about 8 foot. tall. and then they ask addition extensions. they will build up the whole thing is up and you see that will be serious impact my blgdz. block the sunlight and air flow

as limp this is the picture for the property. this new wall will serious impact my building. we will might have up not here prosecute here all the way up. so that's why you will serious impact my east side of the building. 3 win everwindow in the lower leve employed i. to a wagz this

is -- we have elder low residence upon dent in the property. in the building and the resident hen suffer a ptsd, an accident happen in the 2009 and has that person has suffer friday ptsd for 6 years and got this person guest recover in 2047. we have this property before the our neighbor. we live here much long are then and there our neighbor and seeing the property and you can see this it is a because they

have an a shape roof. even though we are cloves we have both properties have one right. they and in the morning and we do need the lights. go become to this slide. thank you. mem that is your time. you have 2 millions later. 2 more minute in a second. why okay. thank you. i offer the ability for public to comment. give me a second and you get 2 minutes. anyone wish to address the commission. seeing none. public comment is closed have you 2 minute rebuttal >> thank you, i'm hoping the commissioner will take this as a consideration because you in she is seeking for a [inaudible]. p.m. help from her health provider. i hope this you guys can provide

assist analysis. thank you for your support. >> you have additional time if you want to use it. why you have additional time if you want to use it. >> no. >> so i talk about that we have a resident and suffer with mental issue. that require sunlight. any reduction of sunlight will impact the lives of this in the building. and also based on my neighbor explain to me the sun situation, but we don't have a lot of sun in the morning i time it myself. not simulation i time it on my own. 2 hours about 3 hours sunlight and if you ruse half. which is serious impact the

resident of in the building. and we plan to use as retirement. and we lived her so long no way we can move out because of this. as a matter of fact, by this person looking at the thinking about the new building rimind her accident help to her in 2009 trigger the symptom againful i mentioned earlier this person has been seek medical help i hoping asking you to help so we reconsider and support mr. evidenty for have an extension if he can consider this we passport this but not vertical extension. thank you this is your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. why project sponsor a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you. evelyn.

we are not able to do a horizontal extension there is a roar set become and moving further back would they have a nice garden there and chickens they would prefer not to lose that. i like to say that evelyn was direct boy a planner to roach out she had requests about the fire rating of windows i answered them the same day. followed up later with more questions. the property ownermented address those and discuss with her and try to roach an understanding. i made suggestions to the property owner about concessions to make. this might make her more comfortable. that is when the client decided to do the solar study. we have also reached out to do mediation with mr. winslow which the d r applicant did in the follow up on.

we repeated low roached out to roach a compromise and just have not had gotten response. so we foal like we made an effort to -- compromise and do manage this she is happy with and have not responded our proposals at this point i appreciate if you would approve as designed. thank you. >> with that, merit is before you. >> thank you. thank you to the dr requestor and applicant for being here. understand the challenges this posed. i think it is a fairly modest addition that is code compliant. commissioner diamond. >> argument about light and air we hear with almost all our dr's there is nothing exceptional and

extraordinary i understand the concern about the person with ptsd we make decisions based upon the use not the user i move we don't take dr >> second. >> nothing fourth well is a motion and seconded in the to take dr and, prove of the project as proposed commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner prul >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner president tanner >> aye >> that passes 6-0 and concludes your hearing for all of your hard work you have next week off and come become to a big hearing on the 13th. >> [laughter]. i am look to seeing if we can't use board chambers i have not heard become. starting at 10 a.m. >> 10 a.m. on the 13th. >> right. >> that enjoy your weekend and

holiday. we got pass over and east exert things happening. enjoy every holiday coming up. we are adjourned. clear clear

is r. my name is debra alvarez rodriguez. i'm the deputy director in san francisco. my background is one in which i have spent the entirety of my life committed to finding solution to poverty and addressing the issues of inequity so people and communities can have accesses to resources and financial freedom. one thing true anode dear to my heart was the power of business ownership in creating pathways to financial freedom. we have still in infancy. we had over 100 entrepreneurs come and start their businesses. some are food trucks. some are restaurants. some are in farmer's markets and so farther. that's an incredible legacy

and record to build upon. this was the perfect opportunity for me to come back home, you know, come back to the neighborhood and take my skills and networks and resources and put it backseat in service of the community. given everything with racial reckoning and pandemic it was time for me and everyone else that had the opportunity to leave and get educated to come back home. we have a opportunity to grow our impact in terms of the number of people we serve and how we serve them. we grow our impact in taking the money we make with our entrepreneurs and circulate those resources back interview the community for community development. the third thing is we have a opportunity to have an impact on public policy in terms of the policies and practices the district has been notorious about interms of inequities.

all of those are just the beginning of what is possible in terms of growth and impact. ♪ [ music ] ♪♪

[bagpipes playing]