okay good afternoon, and welcome to the. sorry we start recording . okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, april 27th 2023. to

enable public participation as fgf tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda . each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're a lot of time is reached. i will announce that your time is up and take the next person q to speak. we will take public comment from persons in city hall first, and then open up the remote access lines. for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. please call area code 415655. 0001 and enter access code 25913. and you need to press pound twice. at this point, you should be able to listen to the hearing live. you need to wait for the item you're interested in speaking to and for public comment to be announced to comment. you need to enter star three to raise your hand. once you've raised your hand, you will hear the prompt you have raised your hand

to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. um when you hear that, you're muted. that is your indication to begin speaking for those persons joining via webex , please log in via the link found on today's agenda and enter the past code. cpc 2023 use the raise hand icon to raise your hand in order to ask a question. best practices or to call from a quiet location. please mute the volume on your television or computer for those persons attending. uh in person , please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. please speak clearly and slowly. and if you care to state your name for the record, finally i'll ask that we all silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. um and at this time , i'd like to take roll commission president tanner here . commission vice president. more brawn here. commissioner diamond commissioner imperial here. commissioner koppel here.

we expect commissioner ruiz to be absent. commissioners first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one case number 2022-9099 way for the property at 11 11 california street. a conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to june 29th. 2023 item to case number 2021-4964 c way for the property of 4001 18th street. a conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance. commissioners further under your regular calendar commissioners on item 10, we received a very late requests from staff to continue . case number 2013-2003. c u a for the property at 28 61 through 28 99 san bruno avenue, also known as 90 through 98 wolsey street. again this request was made by staff to hear the project on a different date. and not today to request

the requested new date for the hearing is may 4th. 2023 in one week. the reason for the request is for further coordination with the department of public health with regards to required mitigation measures for the previously approved project. we have translation services available in cantonese and spanish for this recourse for the continuance, and there are headsets by the door. if anyone so needs, we will be taking public comment on the matter of continuance. for the benefit of the interpreters i request we all speak clearly and slowly. to allow for translation in real time. interpreters are present for cantonese and spanish. and if you are in need of translation services, please submit your testimony in short intervals to allow the interpreters to translate your testimony. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear china indicating your time is almost up. when you're a lot of time is reached. i will announce that your time is up and take the next person cute to speak. we

will take public comment from persons in city hall first, and then open up the remote access lines again for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. please call 4156550001. and interacts enter access code 25 91 326616 and enterprise pound twice to comment. you need to enter star three to raise your hand. and when you hear that you are a muted that is your indication to begin speaking again for those persons joining via webex, please log in via the link found on today's agenda and enter pasco cpc 2023. um for those persons attending in person, please line up on the screen side of the room. please please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record um again, please note that you are able to make public comment on whether or not you agree with the request to continue the item, uh and not hear the item today. or hear it on a different date. i'm now gonna ask the interpreters to interpret those instructions and

cantonese and spanish. see you for your sub call on homa. just some lang lang lang c u a e. bruno avenue, but i would say i would say street high gothic high, tolan. god kayla, you say whole joycon hong kong tang. jungle one guy tosi joint, doc tolan. you will have quantum football. hi my tongue. dillehay

kayla. hi ling. hang tolan highway tend to again. white, often being fania kun hyg arctic seaga. later i show you find your gowalla joy chong myself that while. gone. how far. what they can dollar and billy date i see. datang uh, gill. high collar. uh, go. i see now. choice 10. how far you got you

go ahead fighting high south sinohydro eating. say? mm mm mm mm. mm. language language. in hola. hi homa. yet some you part yet? then jan.

er comments maybe invade before

you vote. thank you very much. okay. last call. for public comment on the consent calendar. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners. public comment is close and your excuse me your continuance. calendar is now before you. thank you, miss hester. the when the matter comes before us well, we will take public comment on the item just as we would end the item. and so if you'd like to comment at that time, you can come at that time. right any agendas item we would receive public comment. the time may be reduced depends certainly. with that? are there any emotions on the continuance calendar commission imperial moved to continue all items asked for a post second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed commissioner braun commissioner diamond imperial couple commissioner more president tanner commissioners.

that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered it as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item three case number 2021-12886 seaway at 4 29 golf street, a conditioner use authorization item four. case number 2022-7249 c u 8 10 58 hyde street, a conditional use authorization. members of the public. this is your opportunity to request that either of these items p pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today or a future date. seeing no member of the public in the chamber coming forward, and no members calling in

remotely requesting to speak. public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you commissioners. any emotions or comments on the consent calendar. commissioner braun moved to approve items three and four second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to approve your consent calendar. commissioner braun high commissioner diamond imperial couple commissioner more commission president tanner. commissioners in motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. yeah. and we'll place this under commission matters for item five. the land acknowledgment. today commissioner diamond will be sharing our land acknowledgment. the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland at the rama tuchel oni , who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and then importance with their traditions

. the rema tuchel oni have never seated, lost or 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. he wished to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the roma tuchel boni community and by affirming their sovereign rights, his first peoples. thank you. thank you. commissioners item six commission comments and questions. thank you. commissioners sorry to bring the mask back out. y'all maybe wondering happening? i'm recovering from a cold and so we're having a bit of abundance of caution up here, but i feel good. i'm glad to be here today and glad that the warriors won last night. did it eat it out, and so we look forward to the next game on friday with that i'd love to see if there's any other comments questions. future than items from commissioners. seeing none will move on. very

good commissioners. department matters item seven directors announcements. good afternoon known afternoons today. thanks. it's not working. right now. no, i'm good. oh no, not i didn't hear that. thank you, um, item eight review of past events at the board of supervisors. um i have no report from the board of appeals in the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. good afternoon commissioners. i have no history report for you today, but i do have a report from the land use committee. so this week, the committee took up the two home sf ordinances sponsored by president peskin and supervisor dorsey. the first ordinance, introduced by president peskin would have been the planning code to exclude article, then districts from the home sf program, the second ordinance introduced by supervisor dorsey would amend the planning code to

allow projects under homeless f two subject new dwelling units to rent control rather than increasing the affordability requirement. the historic preservation commission and the planning commission heard these items on february, 15th and 16th respectively. the hpc adopted a recommendation of approval for both ordinances, and the planning commission recommended approval for the first ordinance and approval with modifications for the second ordinance. those modifications include one amend the legislation to allow projects with fewer than 10 units to participate in the home sf program. by subjecting the entire building to rent control. to require leases for these projects to disclose that the unit is subject to rent control. three eliminate the shadow wind . historic resource criterion from the eligibility requirement and revised the eligibility requirement to allow the demolition of one unit. the supervisor incorporated the first two recommendations, but not the last two. in addition to four other amendments, which are

one eliminate the exemption from parking requirements, since there are no longer minimum parking requirements make the minimum below market rate units size for studios consistent between the home sf inclusionary housing program. revised the comment. open space reduction to simply 10% and allow reduced requirements for private open space. this week. there were no public comments. president peskin noted that there were no amendments to the item one but that since the two items had traveled together thus far that he would also continue both items so that they could be here together next week. both items within continue to make first. the committee also considered the proposed ordinance that would rezone the hotel driss code to permit up to 47 tourist hotel rooms. this would allow the dress code hotel just go to continue its operations as a hotel and was the result of a settlement between the city and the owners of the hotel commissioners. you heard this item on consent on the consent calendar on march 23rd and voted to recommend approval at the

committee. there were no discussions and no public comment before the item was sent to the full board on the positive recommendation. next to the committee heard an ordinance amending the general plan by adopting the san francisco environmental justice framework and amending the amending the introduction to the general plan . this item was initiated by the planning commission on january 23rd and approved on march 2nd. during public comment. all commenters were in support of the item. the item received support from the people organization to demand environmental and economic justice, the chinatown community development center and the film or media systems and services. the colors mentioned the importance of establishing citywide policy for environmental justice targeting resources and action in environmental justice, communities and the community led process for outreach, engagement and policy development. during the hearing, committee members ask questions about how general plan is implemented. what tangible outcomes or come from the update and questions about the boundaries for the environmental

justice community maps? the committee members then voted unanimously to recommend the item to the full board. also on the agenda was the castro theater, but that was continued to provide more time for discussion. and then finally, at the full board. the article triarc passed its second read, and the gates railings and grillwork exceptions sponsored by supervisor self i also passed its second rate. thanks thank you. mr starr was the castro theater continued to a specific date. i'm sorry i didn't castro theaters continue to specific date. i will check on that for you. two weeks. we still on target. we're still on target, but it's cutting it very close. supervisor still needs to act. exactly. okay. keep us the rest of that. indeed. if there are no further questions for mr starr, we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter. jurisdiction

of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting each member of the public matrix the commission for up to three minutes. and when the number of speakers exceeded 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda again. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. you're calling in remotely. you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. let's go to our remote color. eileen broken csf n speaking on my own behalf on the april 25th agenda for the four buddhist supervisors. there is sport file number 0468. petitions and communications. i remember nine on that file is from the pc to the board of supervisors regarding the ocean beach climate change adaptation project status and related updates. this topic, however,

was never agenda has got the pc commission. this also relates to the april 24th meeting of the capital planning committee. the capital planning committee agenda. item number four is the two year capital budget in the two year capital budget is database id 11 95 for the ocean beach climate adaptation project . ah the low scenario funding is for one million and the high scenario funding is for 2.25 million. my comments to the capital planning committee and also to the peace he commissions are as follows. during the ocean beach master planned community community meeting i approached the project leader principal berg and ask directly for was aware of the u. s geological survey study. which concluded that thin lining at san francisco bay was exacerbating erosion on the southern area of ocean beach near the ocean side

treatment facility and exacerbating accretion on the northern area of ocean beach near the end of balboa. he said that spur was aware of the usgs study and was reviewing it. and yet in the final report by the ocean beach task force the usgs sand mining study, isn't he the mentioned or even referred to as a footnote? this calls into question one of the ocean beach master plans mean conclusions. the only way to definitely managed erosion on the great highway between slow and skyline is through managed to retreat. this also calls into question in the ocean beach master plan. process at a predetermined outcome. thank you. thank you. last call for general. public comment for items not on today's agenda. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners

general public communist clothes and we can move on to your regular calendar for item nine. case number 2023-1197 c wp housing for all this is an informational presentation. just yeah, just before we get started. we've got a but a couple stuff members who are going to speak, but i wanted to introduce julia saberi, who is in the front row who will join and be part of the presentation today. she joined us in august of last year. um as our community engagement manager in our community equity division. although you may have seen her around the city before she worked at m o. c. d. before that , uh, launching and managing the city's cultural district program. and prior to her work in cultural district. she was a grant manager. in policy advisor for six years on indigenous and latino issues. and manage the immigration legal services. in deportation event portfolio. she has more than 20 years experience with the city and

city government, including work with the juvenile probation department. the youth commission in d. c. y f she's a proud mother of two a mills college graduate in a ceremonial dancer . we're happy to have read planning. so welcome, julia. welcome okay. hello. good afternoon, commissioners. memory rogers, director of citywide policy, and i am joined today by our welcomed julius boeri, as well as lisa chin lives what he and jane pappas who all of whom will be part of the presentation with me. miriam chilean lisa gibson and aaron sar are also all available for questions. you'll notice. we have more presenters today than is typical , and this is no ordinary project. delivering our housing goals demands even more than those people you see before you today, many planners are currently at work on the housing element implementation and they're working alongside government agencies, community based organizations and with

residents. with that in mind. here's what to expect for today's presentation. we will outline the challenge. we will describe our four buckets of work in the planning department in our presentation will end with a look at what's next to reach our goals together. so our challenge san francisco is a beautiful place to live. from the earliest aloni people people came here, perhaps attracted to the combination of natural beauty and opportunity. that drew many of us to san francisco has long attracted immigrants from around the world entrepreneurs artists. l g b t q refugees, flower children, people looking for opportunity. people looking for a new start. and why that draw remains. the reality is it's very hard for all but the most privileged to get established. even for those born in san francisco, many will struggle to stay near family because of the high cost of housing. so as we start the hearing today, it's important to remember the depth of the problem and the real people with

deep struggles to stay afloat. so protect to protect the identities of the photos. i'm going to show you our stock, but the quotes are very real. as adults transition into senior status there needs change their income changes. staying connected to community is crucial. for elder health. and yet many will not be able to do that. while growing families, uh when growing families cannot find affordable space to fit their needs. either leaving or living in overcrowded, untenable conditions are their only options. housing affordability is so extreme that displacement is a very real risk, even for the middle income. adult children who want to stay are forced to relocate far away. so that's a glimpse of the real harm that housing costs levy across the city. as we move with

a multitude of actions to correct our course, we must also be mindful. mindful that our equity communities have historically been hit the hardest from our societal failings, including this housing crisis. and we must take special care to ensure that when we mobilize for needed change, we uplift these equity communities for resources for policies and for services to turn the tide of historic inequity. and that's the gift that advance. and that's the gift of the adopted housing element. it declared that san francisco is for everyone. and we committed to the fundamental ideals that housing is a right. we should repair the harms of historic racial, ethnic and social discrimination. we should build enough housing for existing residents and future generations. and the city is united in that vision. we can be proud that this commission, the board of supervisors in our mayor unanimously set this ambitious plan in motion. to

ensure that the words on a page we're lit into action this winter mayor breed issued her executive directive instructing the city on how these homes will be delivered on time to meet the need. so here's our work. all of the actions are department will advance can be summarized into these four areas. activating community priorities. expanding housing choice or the rezoning. improving housing production and process and strategies for delivering affordable housing. so what better place to start? then with the priorities of our equity communities, so here's julius boeri to start with the heart of our work. thank you for having me. thank you for the warm welcome. it's very much appreciated. um as we say in our community, i'm here with an open hand and a kind heart. good

afternoon commissioners to members of the public here in the room and online. i'm julius saborio, the community engagement manager of the equity division, and i'll be reviewing the activating community priorities component of the housing element. implementation effort. our first goal is to broaden community participation and awareness of the adopted housing element its goals. it's community identified priorities and the various implementation scopes. our second call is to intentionally and authentically engaged with equity community voices and community organizations and include them in the various housing element implementation processes. we will be identifying community driven strategies that were in the original housing element and was thought were adopted. that help inform and support. all of

our city planning goals, including housing, economic and land use. these are the communities we will be engaging with by bringing together community based organizations and residents who are deeply rooted in these neighborhoods. these equity communities have been negatively impacted by government policies, and this is an opportunity to include their voices and vision and activate their priorities. will be attending and facilitating workshops, policy discussions and community meetings to one foster community self determination by returning to equity communities and cultural districts who participated in the initial engagement for the housing element. will be highlighting the adopted actions that were included and address the community's feedback and input. two we will also be

sharing the results of this engagement with the planning staff, the interagency housing implementation group and the affordable housing leadership council. we will also maintain communication and coordination across city agencies. before i complete my presentation. i'd like to take this moment to acknowledge and appreciate the san francisco community. who came spent their time their precious energy contributing to the development of the housing element. a core component of this forthcoming work will be the truly activate and deliver on the community priorities. we know that the city and community efforts are stronger with better outcomes when we work together. thank you. next is my colleague lisa chen, who will be sharing and, um, sharing on expanding house choice housing choice. thank you. good afternoon

commissioners. lisa chen, principal planner in the city wide division today. we're pleased to give a brief overview of our housing element zoning program, which we're calling expanding housing choice. per the mayor's executive directive . the department is responsible for developing a zoning proposal by january, 2024. so you will be seeing a lot about this effort in the coming months here at the commission and out in public. here are some of the desired outcomes that we'd like to see with this project in accordance with state and federal law are primary goal is to start undoing historic patterns of racial and economic segregation by expanding housing opportunities and well resourced areas, particularly for affordable housing. we want to do so in a way that respects and builds upon what makes our neighborhoods great while adding space for new neighbors and resources. and we want to think holistically about how we can plan for housing and concert with other infrastructure and services that make for healthy and complete neighborhoods.

these maps are probably very familiar to you at this point, but underscore why this project is so needed. on the left is a map of housing production over the past two decades, showing that new housing has been concentrated in the south and east of parts of the city, where zoning rules tend to be more flexible. on the right is a map of well resourced neighborhoods, which are the areas designated by the state is having good access to quality schools and economic opportunities, combined with low exposure to environmental hazards. these are also in many cases, the areas that have historically excluded people of color and low income communities through discriminatory financial and legal tools, including exclusionary zoning. as a result, less than 10% of new housing and a similar proportion of affordable housing has been built in these areas over the last two decades, even though they cover over half of the city. even as san francisco home prices skyrocketed by almost 75% in the last 10 years, many of these neighborhoods added few units units and, in fact, some lost housing units. our rezoning

program will focus on adding capacity for mid rise housing in these neighborhoods, primarily 55 to 85 ft. tall with higher heights, considered in a few areas. we plan to concentrate this growth along transit corridors, commercial districts and other key sites, which we project will have the most potential to result in new housing. based on the adopted housing element are rezoning program needs to create capacity for a minimum of 36,200 units, which is the deficit in our regional housing needs, allocation or arena. however that number could increase as the plan also calls for additional zoning for up to 29,000 more units of housing production falls significantly below projections. as a refresher. these are the example zoning scenarios that we submitted to the state with the housing element. here is the e i. r map. and these are the two

other examples that we submitted. all of them revolve around the theme of concentrating growth on major corridors and sites. however as we move forward, we do want to emphasize that these were not meant to be an exhaustive range of options. we are excited to launch into our public outreach process and fully intend to create a final zoning scenario that is informed by public feedback. we also know that this is not just about creating space for housing. it's also about creating stronger and more equitable communities. here is a list of just some of the related policy topics that we are starting to think through, including, including housing, affordability, historic preservation, urban design and support for small businesses, among others. this work will leverage the best practices and lessons learned from our past couple of decades of area plans development agreements in other policy efforts. we can't go through these topics in detail as part of the presentation, but we welcome your thoughts on other issues that should be considered in tandem with the rezoning. this will be a broad

outreach process and we are looking forward to hearing from people throughout the world resourced neighborhoods, but we plan to be especially proactive to ensure that equity communities have a voice in this process, since they have the greatest unmet housing needs. here's a snapshot of some of our planned outreach with two main phases, concluding at the end of the year. we are planning both in person and virtual outreach events, reading from smaller events like focus groups to larger open houses. i want to just close by acknowledging that this will be potentially one of the most transformational land use decisions that we will be making as a city rewriting fundamental assumptions about how we grow and develop in the years to come. we know that this change may be hard for some people to think about, and so we see a lot of our work as being about engaging people in dialogue around why these changes are really needed, um, and also reminding people that places with diverse housing can still be wonderful places like in this example photo at alamo square. we can still have

neighborhoods that we love while making room to welcome more neighbors without our past to make to liz watty. thanks lisa is wadi, director of current planning, i'll be presenting a high level overview of the various process improvements underway in order to speed up the permitting process and lead to the construction of housing, particularly affordable housing and housing and high resource neighborhoods more efficiently. i'm presenting today on behalf of lisa gibson, our environmental review officer and our legislative affairs team for the sake of brevity, but they are all available for a follow up questions. we know the problem. we have the longest housing approval, timeframe. timeframes in the state and time adds costs. we don't want to be in first place anymore, and the process improvement efforts that i'll outline today are the first step in moving that needle. the housing element actions outlined ambitious goals to change this, um, the housing element. uh yeah . outlined ambitious goals and we need to do that we need to do

in order to make this a more equitable city. ah recently, mayor breeds office introduced legislation that will make it easier and faster to build housing, particularly in high resourced areas. part of this legislation focuses on reducing governmental constraints, making pragmatic adjustments towards zoning code and removing process . things like conditional uses for scopes of work that are routinely approved by this commission. while other portions of the legislation focus on making code changes that will shift where we spend staff time to better align government resources with the priorities identified in the housing element. we will be before the commission on june 8th for more robust discussion of this legislative package and how it advances the goals of the housing element. one of our top priorities and current planning is to improve our compliance with the permit streamlining and housing accountability acts, which has been flagged as a priority from hcg, and is a critical action item within the housing element. we are making a variety of internal process improvements to accomplish this , which i see as good government

efforts, including how we track our work and deadlines, using data and dashboards in ways we haven't been able to before giving our planners better tools to manage their immense workloads and management the necessary tools to make strategic staffing decisions and performance oversight. we're planning going on. we plan on going live with these improvements july one. so to all those folks out there with applications, hopefully they will be feeling an impact in the second half of this calendar year. another good government process improvement effort that we are leading is to improve the sight permitting process. we won't go into a ton of detail on this effort today as well have a robust discussion during our joint hearing with the building inspection commission on may 11th. but in short, the goal is to reduce redundancies in the permitting process. increased transparency, oversight and accountability and reduce the time it takes to get a project fully entitled. we had our first stakeholder outreach event last week. it was very well attended and plan to move forward this effort later this year. lastly

but certainly not least. our environmental planning division is undertaking changes to save time and expense for applicants , simplifying processes, improving transparency and predictability, all while ensuring compliance with state law. that concludes my portion of the presentational hand things over to jean james papers. thank you, liz. good afternoon, commissioners. so expanding. funding and other resources for to build and retain affordable housing is key to achieving the goals of the housing element, specifically producing and preserving the 46,000 homes affordable of low and moderate incomes to meet arena. to achieve the housing outcomes described in the housing element. we will also need to coordinate investment in programs that protect vulnerable residents and achieve the priorities of our equity communities as julia and, uh,

lisa discussed to achieve these outcomes will be working with the mayor's office of housing and community development and other housing implementation agencies. along with partners in a range of sectors in the city and region. so the affordable housing funding and strategies work will address a range of implementing actions called for by the housing elements, including expanding funding and financing tools, speeding up development of our pipeline and acquiring additional sites for affordable housing, acquiring existing housing to preserve as permanently affordable investing in affordable homeownership programs and expanding supportive housing and other housing for special needs populations. as one of our first steps of implementation will be working with most another city agencies to organize and affordable housing leadership council who will advise on

affordable housing funding and financing tools. the leadership council will include perspectives from community organizations, housing developers, business and philanthropy. the council will have an executive team of seven leaders from these sectors who will guide the process by identifying key strategies and making recommendations. the leadership council will also include a working group of approximately 20 additional experts. in these sectors who will provide additional feedback on specific topics. the work of the leadership council will last until january, 2024 with a report produced by the city by winter of next year. and with that summary of the leadership council, i'll hand things back to ann marie. thank you very much. james pappa's, um, so that's an overview of the departments for work areas, community priorities, housing choice or zoning, housing production process and affordable housing funding. it's

a lot of work within our department. and yet, if it were only that it would not be enough. um i think i was supposed to chance that again. nope. okay. slides don't really matter at this point. um, let's talk with you. of course, commissioners. we need your help to and i know that you'll be there asking all the right questions along the way and helping move forward the work that's needed we also have the massive weight of sf gov behind the effort. as i mentioned, our work is not isolated north siloed. it is side by side with the city family government agencies at all scales, community based organizations and residents. this work demands great resources, public and private and at great scale. new services and programs will be created. community organizers. builders finances equity communities. we're all going to

need to work together. the vision and the policies and the actions are in place, and now is the time for moving into action together. by this. the work will not be easy. as i said the temptation to stake out lines of opposition is always present. but today we know that we cannot forget the people who are at risk. if we delay we must remember to find room for growing families with young children. we must remember. uh those who need to move as their housing needs change with their life cycles, and we must remember to uplift the racial and social groups who have traditionally been harmed. or housing stock must be flexible. we must provide room for san francisco's to find in afford the housing they need. this work is for all of us. this work is for us. thank you. concludes staff presentation. we should open up public comment. members

of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission. on this informational. presentation. in the chambers. please come forward. seeing no one in the chambers come. good morning. good afternoon commissioners. my name is christopher oquist. i am with the american indian cultural center of san francisco. i'm here as a representative of the cultural center as well as a partner and member of the race and equity and all planning coalition. um i want to thank you for your efforts to try to try and tackle the issue of housing equity. um however, we do have some, uh um we do have some problems with the plan that is being addressed. um first we want to thank you for adding in

the color of the american indian cultural district as one of the areas that need rezoning. however, we do have a bit of a issue with that, um, the plan is distinctions of equity communities and private equity geography is which were not bedded by our communities does not accurately and fully capture the community's citywide. that will be impacted by the actions and the housing element that are slated to be implemented, including the rezoning on top of that, the way that the planning department is engaging communities with their community education workshop continues to feel like it's just a matter of checking boxes and token izing. as a member of the american indian community and other there is a lot of displacement that is happening in the mission. um and although that trying to implement more affordable housing units and the mission that doesn't actually guarantee that they will actually find placement in the mission, so in terms of trying to prevent displacement, there is no promise that they will not that

they will not continue to be displacement of american indian people from the american indian cultural district. we do believe that, yes, it is good to be living and, um, community is of all races and things like that. however our community continues to be displaced, which only decreases the number of american indian population in san francisco. so we need a better plan. i would still highly recommend working with the race and equity, um, plan and trying to implement a better plan to help our native population. thank you. k seeing no additional members in the chamber is coming forward. let's go to our remote callers. eileen broken csf bands speaking on my own behalf. there seemed to be a number of statements in the staff report, which are inconsistent with san francisco status at the charter city, such as creating more predictable and

fair process for many sites, projects will be eligible for a ministerial review. eliminating a long list of the used state. uh stating in eliminates unnecessary processes in hearings that reflect the state's preemption of the commission ability to shape those projects, helping accountability act as well as ensure compliance with these states. was state scaling back or eliminated local substantive and procedural practices that go beyond what's state law requires . the staff report repeatedly refers to well resourced neighborhoods without defining the metrics of what makes a good school or good transit. and without explaining how there are job opportunities and heavily residential neighborhoods, shifting housing production to specific neighborhoods suggests

that this is a latter day form of redevelopment. in the staff reports. staff spends kind having itself on the back with trust building opportunities. good government process improvement, rationalized development standards, modern permitting software solution are improved processes and customers permit journey without removing a few options. and despite the department's generous use of common sense exemptions. the staff report states that environmental review processes will be improved but not sacrifice compliance with sequence. the report refers to predicted growth in housing even though the state auditory for reports say cds questionable rina methodology which has resulted in inflated members. community advocates have noted that hcb has stated yes, the governor likes big numbers. the

staff report makes statements which appear to be conjecture, such as this accelerated time timeline may help stimulate housing production and mid rice , multi family housing may be slightly more likely to be financially feasible and finally moving the rezoning deadline. step by expedia. january 26th two their housing for all deadline of january, 24th. 2024 is questionable. is there another significance? two years 2024. thank you. this is a semester i request the commission nailed down what it's going to happen at. they may 11th hearing joint hearing with beck. the six pardon me june 8th

hearing on finding commission. there is not a whole lot of information at all on the advanced calendar. and the way they cut oh, i can explain to what was going to happen at future dates was not very helpful. so give us an opportunity to prepare for a hearing by capping items on the counter. i asked the planning commission to nail down the joint hearings with the big that's very important in coming into it. big is part of the problem in processing. the planning department is part of the from in processing permit. six more so i ask. pardon me. dvrs more i asked the planning commission to deal with asking questions. thank you. good

afternoon commissioners jake price on behalf of the housing action coalition. thank you so much planning department. for this presentation. um, we're really excited to, uh, implement the housing elements that we have already committed to. and we think that the mayor's housing for all program, and subsequently just elation is. is completely necessary and what we've already said we are going to do. so i am encouraged, and we are encouraged by what has been introduced so far and look forward to working with you all in ensuring a successful implementation. thank you. good afternoon commissioner.

anesthetic open up. elissa member of san francisco tenants union and the race and equity in all planning coldly. we appreciate planning steps work to mobilize the equity team for housing or implementation. they reached out to rep to design an input and engagement process that honors strong wishes. from our whole coalition to engage in discussions was planning as a whole, rather than being slug sliced and siloed and partitioned off summit planning have recommended planning must work with communities and relying on community expertise to identify strategies to retain and strength and communities voices. and direct resources to a real plan to build affordable first and achieve our affordable housing mandates. for them to be a authentic and meaningful community engagement communities of color, low income communities and cultural districts must all be in coordination together. the

mayor's legislation appears to supersede the programs, community engagement with streamlining and removal of community voice and tenant protections. and any of the input that planning might gather from the communities they seem concerned about. we are extremely concerned that in calling her program housing for all the mayor hides the backed that the priorities for implementation or entirely dependent market based strategies, which inherently exclude people from the communities web said, represents communities of color, seniors, disabled and those with very low and low and moderate incomes, and that planning is programmed up. expanding housing choice is not a strategy to expand affordable housing. it's a program for his owning transit, carter's and the best areas of the city to prioritize and enable market rate housing in

low income communities and communities of color. our last 1000 elements. cycles fell short of producing 8000 plus supportable units while greatly overproducing market rate units . the implementation of the housing elements still relies entirely on market based system that will continue to produce massively massive inequality and discredit that communities and their needs. where is the aggressive plan we desperately need for producing 46,000 affordable units in this eight year cycle. can we rely on the industry leaders on the affordable housing leadership council to create a real plan to reach our affordable housing goals? well, the newly proposed technical committee welcome community expertise and our voices. community came with coalitions and labor organizations must be included meaningfully in the council to develop recommendations together to reach our ambitious,

affordable how it goes. thank you. that is your time partner. good afternoon, commissioner chantal labyrinth with rap asaf . the coalition appreciates the hard work of planning and mobilizing the equity team for housing element implementation and appreciate carla lisa and joy of equity team for being in dialogue with rap about engaging our entire coalition and discussion, as opposed to saddle conversations as a planning peaceful community engagement process. we continue to be concerned about the goals of equity being realized as housing element moves into implementation, and the priorities are entirely dependent on market based strategies that don't serve the needs of the communities remnants that represents as obviously said, for there to be authentic and meaningful community engagement planning has to work with communities and rely on our expertise to identify strategies to retain and strengthen community voices

and direct resources to a real plan to build affordable first and achieve our affordable housing mandate instead of discussions that limit limit open discussion to already predetermined concepts and solutions that show that decisions have already been made communities of color, low income community views and cultural districts, all the coordination together. further as the immortal housing leadership council has been recently formed recipes just convening as an opportunity for a coordinated and dedicated space to create that real plan for affordable housing, but exploring new approaches can only be done by moving away from marketing strategies that haven't yielded our communities truly affordable housing we need and instead invest in creative and both thinking around affordable housing, which must include community solutions and plans that are community based organizations have offered and even developed alongside the city for decades, many of which articulated in rep citywide people's plans. the coalition

was informed that planning was in the process of creating a technical committee of the leadership council. and are looking forward to receiving information about how community expertise and voices can be part of that committee as we believe community coalitions and labor organizations must be including meaningfully in this council to develop recommendations together to reach our ambitious, affordable goal. the coalition appreciates the intentions and language prioritizing equity, but we urge planning to ensure that the implementation focuses on more than intentions, but makes the goals of equity real. any housing for all plans must prioritize affordable housing first and engage communities and cultural district authentically and meaningfully while retaining our voices. include innovative community based solutions in our affordable housing strategies, strengthen tenant protections against demolitions and honor the expertise of our communities as documented thoroughly and the citywide people plans and we really look forward to working with plannings equity team towards these goals. thank you.

um good afternoon commissioners . i'm kristin with richmond district writing and i still remember of race and equity and all signing coalition. um we interrupt coalition appreciate the hard work of planning fashion bubbly the equity team for having on implementation. we appreciate julia, lisa and carla been in dialogue with us to design an engagement process. the honors our strong wishes to engage in discussions with points as a whole coalition together rather than being siloed and partition dog as some at planning have recommended, however, were coming to this hearing once again with great concern because we've seen goodwill and intentions on one hand, so we're also think that the real substance of this housing element implementation still credits our communities and their needs. as we in, uh, the red coalition has had many times during the housing element

approval process, relying entirely on a market basis. tim to extend how this massive inequality in the city in reading the staff report and the mayor's proposed legislation. there's a continuing disconnected the intentions of property and the continuing focus of planning to encourage both of market. that rep has been cautioning about during that approval. the mayor's branding of this program as housing for all the fact that the priorities for implementation are entirely dependent on market based strategy for inherently exclude people from the community. represent we, uh inequity. um as we questioned in previous hearings in our communicates the planning this housing out as a potential cost massive distance , like the city's past urban renewal and redevelopment projects, but on a vastly larger scale. the marriage legislation is proposing to relax demolition controls everywhere except for

uh, these prior quick egypt is and we had rap, along with tennis advocates are extremely concerned about this. we can hear you recommend additional use of issues process for our development that proposes to demolish existing residential e. unfortunately even if a rough property to be vacant or not sending off why we have found the developers and more than tendency to redevelop their properties often hide the fact there that there are tenants living or mitigated to leave no conviction record. treating a different process for buildings where there don't appear eight minutes. mike tactics, buildings appear vacant or no longer occupied. funny itself has acknowledged it in housing actions to the 0.1 point four and 4.2 point eight the rezoning process will cause increased displaced at rolling out their makeup tricks. predatory real

estate. um, instead of prioritizing developer giveaways , sliding with focus on affordable housing and anti displacement strategy. despite planning recommendations to increase funding group friends and turn it passing your time. hi my name is pre at the bunker and i represent the recent hispanic foolish. the coalition and people. current media. the red coalition appreciate the work that is done to mobilize the equity team for the implementation of the housing element and clearly stand carla for engaging with rest and having an ongoing dialogue with us. we're here to talk about the grave concerns that we continue to have, and we'll continue to have um, to vocalize in regards to the elements. this system under which you want to implement this healthy element is dedicated on our system and commissioners of market based system means that profit is always put over the well being

of our communities, and that's exactly how this implementation is being proposed. there's a huge and fundamental disconnect , subpoena language of equity that you're using, and the actual material impact of the implementation. one way that planning has been doing this is through their branding of the reason program called extending housing choice, which we saw the presentation. this is seems that it's housing choices are expanding that there actually might be housing that people can afford. but when you really dig into it one sees that this is not a strategy to expand affordable housing, but rather to zone transit quarters and vast areas of the city to enable market rate housing and low income color. we really encourage you to take a look at what people plan which has an innovative plan to build how we can build a whole parts of our city. while we appreciate the intention of privatizing equity , something element proposed implementation will cause a lot of violence harm in our communities. and that's the definition of destruction, using language that people can get behind when the reality is

completely the opposite of what will actually happen. you must engage communities and culture. please refer to the same like people's plans to under the expertise of our communities. thank you. oh, commissioner. i've read the housing government. you know that you haven't done a good nature. we have over $71,000 himself, francisco. we have over 40 million square feet of commercial space. we can end sentences go. and you have caters. to market price housing. my returning to tell the people about the affordable housing. that doesn't station you have to do something. but y'all overload

the presentation. so that people cannot speak. to one day need to speak to so once again. in the eight years. that you have. being about. 2000 housing. do you and that's you're going to fail. because you can't do anything assessment. and the need to much is not about your housing, adamant. but because you have no clue about the economy that's going to hit you in the bus. and you don't have the ability to do an assessment. that speaks to experience. so you will fail miserably. if you don't change your ways. as the

first speaker, there was only one speaker. in person spoke. the indigenous people. have been treated like dirt. and even though you all include them in some way in the housing hasn't been haven't kept it to them. that's how you're lying hypocrites. each one of you. some of you. i know you and i can call you by name, but i've been monitoring this for 40 years. so again, i'm telling you housing elements. is an abject failure. thank you very much. definitely commissioners. my name is don masumi and i'm the richmond district, but i think the member of richmond district rising one of the organizations of the race and equity and all planning coalition. being an actively engaged member of rep. i'm aware of the efforts of the

equity team. i need to implement the housing element and their attempt to engage with our coalition. and while we appreciate the efforts of julia, lisa and carla this goodwill and artist intention of seeking unity equity is in stark contrast to the objective reality of the choice that has been presented to us. the concern that our communities have had that united us in this coalition had been revealed to be completely justified. as the historic market based strategies for housing supply continue to be promoted. these strategies have always been about incentivizing profiteering to develop housing at the expense of the working people of our communities. and have led to devastating displacement. the years programs should be renamed from housing for all housing for all that can afford it. i'm all too familiar with the rhetoric put out by the city about housing through the decades. i would not be speaking here today

as a member of richmond district rising in my community had not been forced to be dispersed to this neighborhood by the redevelopment of japantown sixties. this housing element is no lift. unless the trojan horse was considered a gift. planting itself has recognized that its design process for cause increased displacement, and that would be a windfall for predatory real estate developers. while planning is presented in frank housing element. as if it is about creating affordable housing and equity in our communities. it is anything but. without providing eviction protections or any plan to develop funding sources other than private profiteering financial interest. the words are meaningless. you can talk all you want about that week, but with no real plan to execute. our communities will continue to be plundered and decimated. thank you. good

afternoon. um. the mayor's housing for all legislation will be a total failure. the syrians, bro. only independent developers have enough financing to build the housing that the mayor need . therefore, developers will be telling the planning commission what they will be doing. not asking for permission. within the broad geography covered by the so called well resourced neighborhoods. the trend is zoning program will start by targeting zoning changes on transit quarters, commercial corridors and key opportunities site. these areas are expected the yield the greatest amount of new housing much of the rezoning development will be mid rise. 55

ft. 85 ft. higher. hi. considers for selected areas. um, rest in peace. with no conditional used . notice crecion eri view. no observance of public notification laws. no one adherence to demolition regulations. and no real sequel for site. this project timelines will be determined by developer financing. last many the people included in yourself called well resourced neighborhoods. little money in or not well resourced so please. stop calling them. well resourced. they have as much need as anybody in the city. the old lady, the western , a four bedroom home because her family is gone. has no money

, just like putting young person who has no money. so thank you very much. good afternoon commissioners joseph smith at the westside community coalition and the race and equity email pointing coalition. but others from express we greatly appreciate the equity 10 stuff. we've reached out direct to design an input and engagement process that honors the strong wishes from our entire coalition. to engage in discussions with planning the whole coalition. however we are coming to this hearing once again with grave concerns because we see goodwill and intentions on one hand, but we are also seeing signs of this having element implementation is just as broken as we have feared it might theme that's housing element threatens to cause massive displacement. the mayor's legislation proposes to

relax demolition controls everywhere except for priority equity geography. brown along with pendant advocates are extremely concerned about this. advocates demand that there continued to be a conditional use requirements for covering proposed presidential demolition. unfortunately even if a property appears to be vacant or not occupied. developers and landlords intending to redevelop their properties. often hide the fact that there are 10 living there. or they have intimidated their tenants to leave, in which case there are no eviction records. creating a different process buildings where there don't appear. being intentional trading incentive for developers. and landlords to escalate these tactics to make the buildings appear vacant or to be no longer occupied by tenants. cleaning itself has acknowledged and having element actions. 2.1 point four and 4.2 point me. the rezoning process will cause increased displacement. despite planning

recommendations to increase funding for attendant legal defense intended counseling resources. increased funding allocations have not been made. i went for the mayor's directive has accelerated the timeline for rezoning, moving them up from three years to one year. this makes our concern even more urgent. in order to prevent widespread displacement. the minimum the city can do is prioritized, putting strong eviction protections in place. and ensuring all networks of support. capacity and funding are set up to support tenants at risk of displacement. well before proceeding with the rezoning. which argues for putting the rezoning on the three year timeline required by hcb. the coalition appreciates the intention from language prioritizing equity. we urge planning to ensure that there implementation of the housing element focuses on more than intention. in mexico all of equity real i think housing for all plans. must prioritize affordable housing first. must

also engage communities and cultural districts, authentically and meaningful. honor. the expertise of our communities has documented thoroughly in the city white people. we look forward to working with plenty equity team towards me these goals. thank you. hi. this is diane ruiz. representing the race and equity and all planning coalition sf the planning the san francisco planning department. it's putting all our resources into developer giveaways, even if they continue to have no plan for affordable housing. the plan presented today is full developer giveaways such as zoning and rezoning. large swaths of san francisco policies that prioritize the profit of predatory real estate of stability of residents and affordability of the city.

improving the approval process should not mean removing the voices and self determination of our communities. removing conditional use for demolitions reverse the public hearing requirements and that's takes away an important opportunity to protect tenants from predatory landlords that will want to cash into these new developer giveaways. speeding up approvals and permits, not build housing. developers are sitting on tens of thousands of already approved. projects and they're not building why, because they are motivated by profits, high interest rates and high end customers fleeing the city has more to do with, think, build or not build. we already have a vacancy rate about 15% in san francisco. what we need is affordable housing. so what is the city doing about that? um so

on the affordable housing side, there's all this nice language, but the action the only action that is the leadership council that will produce a report by winter of 2024 a report. for developer giveaways. you have all of these maps, plans process changes. all of the specifics where the specifics for the affordable housing and planning talks about unifying, but they're the ones splitting up the city between well worth while resource neighborhoods and priority equity geography is different roles for public participation and self determination of each of those groups. so you are the ones imposing these labels and divisions. and for outreach. it's all of these policies that you have already decided that you'll be presenting to communities. this is completely disingenuous. expanding housing choice means more market rate choices for rich people buying new areas of the city and

continuing displacement and communities already facing advanced gentrification. the planning department shared today our policies and plans that will further gentrification and displacement of our communities of black indigenous other people of color communities, low income working class san franciscans, people with disabilities and seniors. we need real strategies for equity, and we already know what they are. they are in the repped citywide people's plan. they should be for the planning of the city. thank you. oh hi. it's george bush. um i just hope that care will be given before the eviscerating of section 3 17. whether that's for the conditional use or unit merger, which is one reason why i keep submitting information about find the residential flat policy to preserve flats in their

existing configuration. like the one i sent you this morning. that's so pretty over $7 million during the pandemic. um which i think illustrates the whole problem with market rate housing i won't talk about panamax demolition. i know it was sick of me talking about that. but i think it's the couch had been adjusted a lot of the policies that you had in the 2014 that we're in the 2014 housing element would been implemented in terms of preserving starter homes for people to wrap this whole process of the housing element. one thing that's sort of haunted me and i suggest pleased that you look at your own staff, not century urban mellow. but your own staff open the informational hearing on sp nine, which is dated october 21st, 20 and 2021. um 14. it expresses the worries about people cashing out. and i think

that's a worry that can carry over into any rezoning. it's done under the housing element. um and i'll submit that page again next week before whenever i come back to the commission. thank you very much. take good care be well. okay looks like there's one more color. ah! hi my name is lily. i'm calling on behalf of the support that work. i'm also the director secretary cultural district. um and calling in um so appointed professor subject forwards needs assessment that was done over two years in in our community and it sound that you know, we under west side. i want to see an increase in affordability. we want to see new housing being built, um, because he how

ability um, and parent housing with community services. i want to emphasize that with the housing element that this is possible, um, that you know our communities. you know what we want? um and that anything that happens within the helping a woman should um, keep the community interest at the forefront. yeah. okay last call. take it back. there's a little. yes. go ahead. oh, my name's me in and i am part of it was like times. no association and the eviction responsible one part of bread. and just went to again emphasize that the current

housing element does not emphasize affordability as much as it emphasizes market housing , and that's the real issue. at stake is the displacement issue about the housing market housing issue? um, so i just want to emphasize again to work with rapid in the citywide people swim. okay last call for public comment again. you need to raise your hand by pressing start three or using the raised hand icon via webex, seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners. public comment is closed on this matter and this informational items now before you thank you, i'll start off with a few comments and questions and then look forward to hearing from other commissioners as well on this topic, so thank you. staff for bringing forward great to see so much of robust group of staff. i think we've got almost two rows deep staff here so excited to

have you all. badges here, but as we heard working in the field with our community with many stakeholders and implementing our housing element i think we're at. i believe it's over 350 actions, so i'm not sure how many were knocking out with today's presentation, but i think we're making a good headway into those hundreds of actions. i want to thank all the callers who called in and for one speaker who was here in person. i want to make sure we're on the same page, though, which is that we have an adopted housing element that was adopted by this body and unanimously adopted by the board of supervisors and signed into law by mary breathe. that is part of our general plan now, so any imperfections in it? our imperfections that we're going to live with until unless and until it's amended or until the end of the year cycle, which is likely when it will be amended for our next cycle. so i mean that that that document does contain both market based strategies to build housing and non market strategies, which is looking at affordable housing, which the market does not typically produce unless it's made to by public policy or

intervention into the market. so if there is dissatisfaction with the fact that we have market based strategies as part of our housing element certainly recognize and can appreciate the dissatisfaction but the charge from this body and from the board and from the mayor to the staff is to carry forward those actions and those plans, including those market based strategies. there's going to be clear that we're all on the same page. we have a housing element. and now that's what we're talking about implementing, and i want to make sure we're also clear. and i know staff knows this too. you know, all communities are not united. all communities of color are not represented by anyone body or anyone voice and so we are going to continue to be out reaching to all and to making sure that we are expressing the different priorities. different communities have in the different experiences they have. there's also a caller who, um noted that we didn't talk about the definitions of wealth resourced neighborhoods that came up a bit and again that has been, um, defined in our housing element. i'm sure staff will be happy to walk you through the process and the procedures by which the maps were developed to identify well resourced

neighborhoods, which did the directive again from the state law, and i think one caller also kind of suggested we should not be following state law because we're charter city and that's not exactly how it works, and against that can walk you through the details of where and state law we can do things because of our charred where we are, like other cities subject to state law, so that's detail i won't go into. but similarly well resourced neighborhoods are part of every jurisdictions housing element in this cycle, both in l. a here in other regions about the state and so again when we talk about well resourced neighborhood, our priorities biographies. those are things particularly well resourced that we are doing, and that again is to specifically combat government harms that really helped to prioritize and give resources. to certain areas, both government and non governmental actors. we think about redlining beings. financial institutions were involved in that and gave some communities both geographically but also based on race preference. access to things like building wealth through homeownership, and those were allowed and prioritizing certain part of our cities. and if you look at our city in particular down, zoning happened,

specifically try to keep people of color from moving into areas was pretty effective at doing that. and so that's what really trying to redress through a lot of our housing elements again that stuff that we've been working on for the past three or four years in development plan, and if you missed some of that you can watch previous hearings or again talk to staff and they can catch you up on things that you may have missed in the intervening time. now that said, i do have some questions for staff and want to dig into the things that we have here. i'm wondering if miss water you could talk a little bit about what we will be talking about a few weeks with our big hearing to miss hester, i have been working closely with the president of the bic and with staff, both b and planning and the permit senator prepares. so maybe you can just give a little preview of what we're talking about. so focus on what to expect in the permitted streamlining that we're talking about more than happy to. yes director of current planning so on may 11th, the planning commission will have a joint hearing with the building inspection commission. the sole topic of that hearing is our site permit reform effort. um this is a multi agency multi permitting agency effort to make improvements to the permitting process. simply put to try to we

hear time and time again. the permitting process is broken. it takes too long. that was sort of the quote i had in the presentation. we take first place in the length of time it takes to get a permit and we're trying to tackle that problem. um and so we are gonna on may 11th. we're going to present what we feel is sort of the problem statement with the current permitting process. um highlight what some of our proposals are to fix that and then open it up for public comment. we're approaching it. we are not coming to the public with a fully baked proposal. we have enough of a proposal to get feedback, but that's the milestone that we're at right now where we've got a bit of a proposal, but we're still requesting feedback. great thank you very much for that. just wanna applaud staff and their great work on that. and then we'll hear it at this commission with the bec be able to give feedback and for member of the public who are interested in the permit process and want to give feedback. that's a great opportunity to attend, either to listen and give feedback in that moment or two. afterwards we talked to staff and provide feedback on the proposal. there may be some legislative changes that develop from that work.

that we would then work with the mayor's office or other supervisors to get that legislation proposed, and some of it's just changes we can make internally as a city as agency and again make it easier to get housing built. um i want to also ask a little bit about the first body of work. mr worry that you were addressing. could you talk a little bit about how this is different than the prior outreach? we did to create the housing element because one thing i'm concerned about is more workshops more of the same . and how is it advancing beyond listening to people so that we're moving in a direction where we're getting two more results? than just hearing so i don't know if you can talk a little bit about how that will be different. or if miss joan wants it to address it. medium term planning stuff. thank you for your question. so what we did, and the rounds of workshops for the development of the housing element was a consultant ation and developing in the

development of the policies, getting input to shape the policies and then to shape the actions and that those actions, especially from the equity communities were highlighted there. so we're gonna go and check this is this is this is the document that was approved. these are the priorities and as you know, it's there are 357 actions. but even if we just go to the latino community, the black community there are a number of actions and in the in the current economic climate, we want to be very thoughtful about what we can accomplish. so it's not just a conversation, but it can be delivered into specific tasks. whether it's greater access to the existing affordable housing whether it's changing some of the systems because they cannot use it. whether it's bringing different type of supportive housing. so the idea is to, uh, work with the community to identify some of the priorities that they have articulated within the housing element that you have adopted and figured out how we can work

together, meaning the community and as a marine, rogers indicated there are some. number of city agencies that need to participate in the process. it's kind of going from the level of here's the priority. maybe there's let's say there's 50 that a community is interested. but what are we doing first and also the deeper level of kay? well, how we actually gonna get this accomplished that extent. okay, great. excellent um, and i'm assuming that we're doing a lot of this through cultural district connections, but other other like grass tops like how is this actually unfolding? is it is it workshops? is it consistent group? it kind of depends on the neighborhood. so us it depends on the democrats. it depends on the community and , um the cultural districts for sure are giving us a solid platform. for example, in the case of soma filipinas they have articulated in the chess report or in japantown. they have a chess report the cultural district report where they have identified their housing priorities. so they are already

in the implementation process in we're jumping, for example in southern market in the youth and families zoning district, um, in the case of the american indian community, there is a cultural district. but the reality is that that community has a broader, um footprint throughout the city. in the black community , the film or we don't have a cultural district, so we're working with the community to figure out what of the set of strategies that are most appropriate at this time. okay? great. thank you very much. um, the rezoning big project big program. um i like our little three boxes of our timeline, especially the throwback to raising the roof. i don't even know if people say that anymore. but i'm glad we put it into our proposal. um can we talk a little bit about how we're really going to get this done because one of the things that i was expressing hdd interviewed some of us as they're doing their policy and practice review. one of things i expressed to them, is it this is pretty different than how we've done. our other area plans in the past one is not an area

planted and have all the wells and whistles and things of area plan timelines. extremely compressed. the area geographically is quite large, and we're tackling all at once, and i think under mayor breeds right leadership, doing it extremely quickly in order to make sure we really do meet the deadline. that we have with enough time for dialogue. so director hill is maybe it's a question to you or to and marie. i'm not. she wants to tackle it. but like like specifically like, how many meetings are we having? i just don't i don't understand how we're gonna get all the things done that we need to do. by what timeline? so if there could be just a little more expression of what exactly we're doing? um and how like when we're going to see it here. what are our milestones that will see a commission. he said china's department staff i can speak to this. um yes, you're right. we acknowledge this is a pretty herculean effort. we've been planning for the last several months internally. we have a staff team assembled. we've been thinking through the technical aspects that outreach been thinking through just how it all

fits together. and you know, like i said, we are really trying to leverage a lot of the past efforts. um like the area plans, which we know those are meant multi year efforts. and so we're, um, you know, we have been directed to try were but we do tear to your point we do have we are starting to put together our outreach schedule. um and kind of thinking through if you go back to that three boxes of outreach thinking through how all of these events are speaking to each other and how we're going to really use them to inform the technical analysis of how of the stoning proposal. so it is really going to be a mix. um, you know, some of the events are going to be more public like the open houses, which are, you know, really everyone, some of them are going to be more intimate, like the focus groups conversations, which are really like briefings with existing groups meeting them where they're at. so we're goal is really just to be as many places as we can be talked to as many people who want to talk to us, um and do that, you know, with staff with consultants just you

know, it's kind of all hands on deck. absolutely another plans for online opportunities for engagement noticed a lot of events listed but can talk a little bit about like non event based activities. sure yeah, um, that's that's a great point to, um yeah. you know, i think that's kind of the promise of this new hybrid reality. we really do want to do both in person and virtual events. we've really seen that that is a great way of expanding who can participate in getting a broader dialogue. and so you know, we're planning what we're calling virtual events or virtual workshops. all the names might change, but, um, you know, trying to do things like workshops on specific topics so that people can dive deeper into whether it's german design or infrastructure or economic development. and, you know, maybe invite speakers from other agencies and kind of dig into those topics and really hear what people's goals are just one other thing. we're also really excited to be doing some educational materials. um and workshops were actually partnering with community based organizations. indeed one in d four, um, leveraging a grant

from moc, d, um, to partner on developing curriculum that's really about her affordable housing and why we need more housing. um and so that's another way of kind of getting some kind of capacity building in the neighborhoods for some of these ideas. and we're hoping that some of that curriculum can be also spun off into things like fact sheets that we can put on our website. great two things that would maybe just suggest, i think, making sure we have some videos or things that we can put online that can help people understand things that they can't come in person. and you know, these days, the shorter the video, the better or chop it up into short bits and maybe as its winding towards maybe it's between phase two and three. or 1 to 2. i'm not sure some type of online survey or something where people don't have to sit in attend. they can just answer some questions. and maybe that's one of things have gotten narrowed down. and there's some choices people can make, like, you know, helping to get to those trade off discussions of would you rather have it this way or that way and we can get some feedback there. the other thing i want to know in the

rezoning program, at least in our staff report today, um was mentioned design standards and it still said guidelines and i really want us to get away from design guidelines because we don't need any more things that are subjective. we just need to be objective, so i really, really want us to get to objective design standards. please do not bring us any design guidelines because, you know, i will say, why do we have these new guidelines before us? i want objective design standards. there are no plans to bring you guidelines. we're going to be bringing you standards. thank you very much, mr rogers. um last thing process improvements, very excited, very excited about our joint commission with the beck very excited about data and dashboards and hopefully being able to see more information both ourselves and also the public, which also made me have the question of how is the rental registry advancing, which is a long promised set of data and information that connects in some ways to mayor breeds proposal. and that we have their robust set of tenant protections . and we want to try to have this commission and this department be able to lock step more with our rental, rented ford and this registry is this missing link. anybody want to

answer that question? no one's jumping up a director hill is what do we have? i mean, i don't have a ton of information and we can follow up with you. but i know recently there was the deadline. we're all property owners. i had to kind of file their information and kind of put it into the rent boards database, so we'll get back to you on where that where that is not exactly the answer to your question, but similar to that is one of the one part of our process improvements. streamlining to improve compliance with permit streamlining act and has any accountability act. we're going to be front loading and sort of systematize ng or requests to the rent board, for, um records . we often do a screen of their records when a new project comes in. if there's any question about was there a tenant here? was there an unauthorized dwelling unit and so right now, that's not always happening at the consistent, same consistent moment in time, so that sort of system ization of that request is part of our efforts rolling out july one. great thank you, and then also make them feel less comments and i'll go to commissioner diamond. um as far as the major legislation. you know, it's not actually before

us today, and it will come in its full form, so i'm just going to kind of make a few overall comments. i think that the effectiveness of this legislation my perspective just generally as a policy advisor 2 degrees that this body advises policy is, you know we should do our code describe what we would like for people to do, and then when they come and do that, and they present proposals that achieve that they should have their product approved relatively painlessly and quickly and easily so that we can they can enact what we've asked them to do. and so i think this to my knowledge is in line with that. i think conditional use as we've seen from state laws is really kind of phasing out in terms of some aspects of deciding project by project whether or not this is what we want to see. and i do think conditional use is still important planning tool for communities and needs to be deployed. but i do believe that in this city and in my opinion, we use it a lot to try to shape things, and i think there are ways to shape things more specifically, more directly, and i think this goes to that. i think it also picks up on again things that we approved and approved in concept in the

housing element in terms of getting rid of governmental constraints and the housing development, so to me, part of it is getting rid of certain processes but again, replacing it like with the objective design standards, with very specifics of what we want to see so that we can be assured that these things that are not maybe getting a conditional use, it's because the conditions have already been spelled out and are actually part and parcel of it. now, the one exception that we continue to struggle with this estate density bonus. and one of the outs we have is to improve our local density bonus program, and there are certain actions that are kind of being done a little bit piecemeal, and i think that's all right to try to bolster or sheep home sf or to make that more attractive, and i think if we could really spend some time as a commission dialing in how our local bonus program looks and how that operates, and really at least give the state entity bonus program a run for its money, i would love to see that day. um but i know he struggled with how to how to reconcile having a see you for a project. while it has the density bonus and the limitations we have, and i think

this legislation in some ways tries to acknowledge that we don't really have a lot of tools to deal with it at this body. and so the real tools, the one that's missing, which is a very robust, effective and attractive local density bonus program. so those are my comments that i'll make. thank you so much staff. very excited for your work. keep it up. continue to be out there. we're so glad we heard all the kudos to all of you for being out there in community. i know it can be hard, but hopefully it's also very rewarding the work that you're doing and the difference that you're making here in san francisco without alcohol on commissioner diamond. thank you. um, first, i want to thank staff for their inspirational and poignant words reminding us of the importance of our mission, and it's real world impact on individuals and families. i thought your presentation was extremely effective and reminding us of why we do what we do. so with that i want to make a few process and substantive comments on the plan that is in front of us. um i will start out on the

process issues seconding several of the points made by commissioner taylor. i'm very eager to get to the may 11th joint hearing because it doesn't matter how much we expedite the planning approval process if people are bogged down by the site permit process and like all of you, i am sure i am hearing numerous stories about how long how many months or years it takes, um to actually get the all of the permits that are necessary to build a project and i believe that we need to be working in coordination. and so i'm excited about this joint process joint hearing but mostly about the process to actually improve that. um so it feels like, um. the housing element implementation is being split into two components. one is covered by the mayor's legislation, which is focusing on some of the process

improvements and standards. which is coming before us very quickly, and the second is the rezoning effort, which is coming from before us. just a little less quickly, um and i want to talk about. well, actually, i want to get more comfort from staff on the outreach efforts that are involved. with the mayor's proposal. i um, i believe that many of the ideas that i believe in the mayor's legislation or good ones, which is trying to have clear standards, um and reducing, um, some of the subjectivity around projects by eliminating some of our conditional use permits, but i am very concerned that this is rolling out so quickly. um, that i need reassurance about the process that you're going to follow to ensure that the well resourced neighborhoods understand how the process is going to change. we may not

agree individually or collectively with whatever it is. people have to say, but i sure want to hear it before i make my decision, and i believe that the housing element. um get a really good job of engaging in community outreach to the priority geography areas, with much less attention paid to the well resourced neighborhoods, which was understandable for that part of the process. but for the implementation stage, i believe that the west side of our city city is going to be dramatically changed if we're successful. and in achieving the goals in the housing element, and that we need to hear from the people who are living. there are currently about their concerns or their issues or their ideas, and i don't want to leave it all to the rezoning because the process changes that are suggested in the mirrors. legislation really will eliminate many of their opportunities to come here and express concern about particular projects because we are replacing if we go forward with

that the c u process. ah we're actually eliminating it in many cases, and so could you. let me know like now what the plan is for community engagement on the west side in the well resourced areas with respect to the mayor's proposal. uh sure. so in addition to the outreach that was done for the housing element, which is where a lot of the mayor's, um practice come from, so these are ideas we've actually taken from the housing element. i believe that, as part of the rezoning will also be explaining the new processes during that presentation as well. i'm not interested in having interested in hearing not what you're doing as part of the rezoning that part of what is being done as part of the mayor's proposal, which is coming much ahead of the rezoning. sure. mm love to meet insufficient, so it's the mayor's ordinance. so she's in her office is in charge of outreach in my understanding is

that they are reaching out to impacted. uh, areas and, um. i'm sorry organizations that are interested in it and feeling a little uncomfortable with that response because it feels like you're passing the back and i recognize it's the mayor's ordinance, but there are numerous well established community groups on the west side. the planning department has all of their names and phone numbers. i guess i would like more specifics. and maybe this is for you, director hillis about the effort that or the conversations we're having with the mayor's office about alerting them as to how the process is going to change going forward. a couple of things one. you know a lot of what's in the mayor's ordinance is called out in detail in the housing element right, which went through a significant amount of process. i understand you think and believe it was mostly focused on on party. geography is, but while we did focus more on priority

geography is we did meet the citywide in opened ourselves up to supervisors in their constituents and community meetings throughout the city, so you know, i think you know it as well as we do. the housing element was much discussed throughout the city. and did we go to everything? that's just one to a i mean, just let me just just finished. um, we will include it. in our discussions on the on the rezoning, so you know to the extent it may or elements of it may be enacted already, as well as every process we go through when we re zone. we make changes not just to the resigning, but potentially to the process as well. right so that's another kind of chance to get out that we can certainly do take on some of the initiative to reach out to communities and kind of explain what's in the mayor's ordinance. right? we've got an extensive outreach lists from the housing element in all parts of the city, where we can kind

of lay out what's in the mayor's ordinance. it explained, you know, kind of how it may impact. but both communities now in the zoning that exists and then how it could impact, you know, future reasoning, so happy to do that as well. both both send out something. before you hear it. so. people know about especially those who are on our housing element list, but also as we engage in the rezoning effort, talk about the process changes they may be enacted by them. they may not be enacted by then, depending on the timing. so are you saying that prior to the hearings in front of our commission about the mayor's ordinance that you will send out notification to the community groups in the well resourced neighborhoods them as to write and work with the supervisor's office is to make sure that they are working with the other groups that are in their neighborhoods. okay i feel like that's really important because quite frankly, while we all live in the world of the housing

element, um most people don't um, and while we all think they should be well aware of what we proposed in the 357 proposals in the housing element. my guess is most people don't um and these are the people that are going to be most affected on the west side. um if we are successful in doing the zoning that we are one which eve and therefore we ought to hear from them before we start eliminating their abilities to have conditional use hearings as a way to modify because historically, the way neighbors have had input is on a project by project basis. we're trying to reduce that that's our goal. to make it go faster, and i feel like well, when we do that we should hear from them so that we then don't get to the rezoning and all we're doing is talking about you know which corridors are going to be upset owned and the suit and that's when they're notified. and they're going like what about the process? don't we get an opportunity still to weigh in on

each project and our answer to that will be no. we should have been here in june, so i just really care. that they are notified so that they don't ever. it doesn't look like, um they didn't get noticed this so when we may have some of those rezoning meeting, we're going to be in the process of having those community meetings as part of the rezoning. while you're hearing some of the process changes, they may not be all the process changes right? we may come to you with more process changes, adding or subtracting process is part of the rezoning. so we will do that. i mean, you know, we will. we will reach out . we've got an extensive list. we'll talk to supervisors. we were planning to do that. in in get get input on the next few weeks before the before the june ordinance will do it. you know, obviously you heard some of that from callers today. about kind of conditional use for demolition. you know, i'd say we still are protecting tenants, right? we're only we're only saying we're removing 3 17 where

there's a unit or two units not to victory and control. so those , you know, i think we've got some explaining in the mayor's got kind of has to explain in detail kind of what's in the ordinance, so it's understandable because it's complicated one. but we will endeavor. to do that. okay obviously, before you hear it. i appreciate that because we're changing the regime. right? we are. we are trying to dramatically move away from project by project. um appeal? well, you know, hearings and appeals because if we remove see us, we're not only removing hearings in front of us. we're removing an appeal to the board of supervisors through the ceo process. so if we're taking away process, um people should understand that and be able to weigh in on that and secondly, it's an opportunity if we're meeting with them to explain why we're doing this, you know and what the consequence of the last few decades of project by project you know, hearings has been has been in the deficit of housing and so we can shape the picture as to why we adopted the

housing element for all those people who weren't here. or didn't listen into our hearings , which is pretty much almost everybody. i just think that's a really important thing. okay enough shadow on that. um the second thing is, i really agree with commissioner tanner on the need to bolster our local density program so that it can accomplish um all of the values that we hold, dear, that are in the planning code that this escaped entity. bonus legislation has removed from us tech hearings we had last week. i thought but really underscored. um the need to, um . find a way to encourage developers to accept what we want instead of as you called it , commissioner brand the blunt instrument, um, that the state has imposed on us, but we got to make it more attractive than the state density bonus programs. so rather than tripping away pieces of the local density program, like there were suggestions at

the beginning of the hearing today that various supervisors you know, trying to amend bits and pieces. i feel like we need to take a comprehensive look at it and say, okay, what can we do that would make a developer want to choose our program? and why do we like our program better and how do we preserve what's best about it so we don't end up with these state density bonus programs that are, you know? you may get more housing better. perhaps too blunt an instrument . um so it also, i'd say when we you know, this is the first time will be endeavoring on kind of a larger rezoning where we have a lot of knowledge of state density bonus and how it's being used. in some sense, the state density bonus program has been around for decades, but it's only been utilized in san francisco, you know, for the last five or so years, so before when we re zoned. we weren't thinking state state density bonus and how our zoning interacts with state agency mars. we will do that. in this round. it kind of account for

into in anticipate state density bonus being used, but i think you're right in president tanner . your comments earlier, right? we've got to come up with a program. that works and is a true we hear them. got a compliment to stay density bonus where where a project sponsor may utilize our own local program and maybe reduce some of the waivers and concessions they asked for that they would otherwise ask for understate density bonus. so yes, i think that's a part of our problem with the state density bonus program is we can adopt all the objective standards we want. um and then they get waked with the state density bonus program. um, so it's very frustrating. visitors commissioners and be presented with projects were supposed to approve and i'm supposed to also make conditional use findings on um that, as we saw last week are extremely challenging to put it mildly, so i understand why there is a desire to remove the conditional use hearings when there's a state density bonus

project. um with the only focus under those projects is health and safety. those are probably better, uh, reviewed in the jurisdiction of you know, public works. public health department, the fire department. nonetheless, um. if we load the local density program with too many requirements, you know we won't have people using it. so i do believe the comprehensive look at it relative to the state density bonus program is in order. so just a couple more comments on the substantive issues. um could could stop explained to me where in the various buckets the promotion of senior housing, um occurs. i am concerned with two areas. one is what are we doing in the rezoning? um to try to encourage the productive increased production of skilled nursing facilities, assisted living memory care facilities and also , what are we doing in order to

make it easier for people who work for seniors who choose to remain in their homes are older adults who choose to remain in their homes but need to make modifications to their homes. for accessibility to make it easier to gain those permits. so who's bucket is and that in and how is that happening? the channel department staff. the short answer is it's in all of the buckets. um you know, we acknowledge this is an incredibly important group that we need to be planning for, and a growing segment of the population as well. and so, um, and it's actually very timely because just this morning there was a hearing at the public safety and neighborhood services committee on the findings of our inner agency, senior and disability. affordable housing needs assessment. um and so um, that was actually part referenced in the housing element as an action, you know, kind of, um, linking back to that report and uplifting those recommendations as actions of the housing element as well. so it is embedded throughout the buckets and throughout the actions, but specifically, we've

also recently hired us senior and disability housing implementation planner. who started about a month and a half ago. um malena leon ferreira, who you'll remember from the housing element. and so that's another link between that work and the implementation of the housing element. um and the we're currently scoping the effort because she's only been there six weeks, but, um, we're we are trying to incorporate it into the rezoning as much as we can, but we do know that there's other actions beyond the rezoning. that may be programmatic. it might. they might be things that require more budget like senior subsidies or other changes that need to happen. um currently, the needs assessment is focused on affordable housing. but as part of the scope we want to see if there's ways of expanding that selectively but kind of within the scope of the one year implementation plan effort. i'm very excited to see the results of that work, and i do believe it goes far beyond just the rezoning. but that's within our purview and sort of the initial step, and we need to make sure that we are accounting for the

growing population of older adults. who many of whom will most of whom will stay in their houses. uh um because of the cost of assisted living or skilled nursing, and we need to make sure that our housing stock can be modified to accommodate that population. and so that people don't feel like they need to leave the city because they either can't find appropriate primarily because they can't find appropriate housing here at the cost is too great. and then in the same vein, um, who's bucket is family housing in and by family housing? i don't mean our code definition, which i think is way too limited, which is any housing with two units is considered to be family housing. um i want to know who's bucket is looking at what really is family housing, you know? are we designing family housing? so there are bathtubs and not just child's, so they are requiring bathtubs and not just shower, so it's appropriate for families with young children. you know? where are they? parking

strollers commissioner more raised that question with the housing project, you know, and 11 51 washington patrick wasn't appropriate for young children, irrespective of whether that they had, you know, room for strollers. um what about, you know access to it if we're reducing the backyard, um, as we are talking about, or state density bonus projects, maybe eliminating backyards. how do we focus on the accessibility of family housing? two nearby parks and playgrounds who who's looking at that? and is that part of one of the buckets? medium term planning stuff. it's going to be a similar answer. it's across is across the bucket. so in the in the rezoning world, working very closely with the community organizations to identify. uh what are some of the specific qualities that we need to include in and land use framework, so it accommodates. housing units with enough

capacity for families but also in close proximity to services work. we're working with each of the communities to identify where some some of those needs are more pressing. uh we're working with the chinese community in the sunset with the latino community and, uh, in the mission and all their neighborhoods. to figure out what are the specific needs of that population and how to ensure that in the affordable housing funding. when he the resources and unless we figured out how to go the extra mile is going to be very difficult to deliver on those fronts and the same thing in the codes and regulations. we need to make that easier to produce. i thank you. i you know, there's many different lenses and many way too many ways to cut the 82,000 units. you know, there's affordable and market rate. um but i also feel like some of them cut across all categories like family housing and senior housing. and so i want to make sure we are using those lenses to look at it. it's not just

producing numbers, but it's also the type of housing that's appropriate for our population. and then the last thing i will say, which is just a follow up on on this from the comment you just made about. we need the funds, which is, you know, i am very much looking forward to the work of the leadership council. but as always, with affordable housing, it's a question of where is the money coming from? and i am hoping and maybe you can confirm director hill said. that's the primary focus of leadership council. are you in discussions with the stage and with the city about affordable housing bonds. it's just sort of what's all the above and that's the that you know, they're not looking at just city, local sources of funding but regional federal state you know, they're they're they're looking at funding but taking a broad look and also kind of how we reduce the cost of building affordable housing. so making these projects more feasible both on that on the revenue side in the car side, okay, it's all the more worrisome in light of

comment that was made by commissioner imperial a couple of years ago weeks ago with the failure of some of the regional bank, um or there is a concern about the source of funding for some of these projects. so the work of that council it is absolutely critical. nick got hurt us. yeah, okay. thank you, mr diamond. commissioner imperial. thank you. um and thank you for the for this planning team for continuing doing this work. and yes, this is herculean as as we have all you know, all of still questioning you the same questions. i feel like we have questions. but of course things change. um one. actually, one thing that i would like to ask is about as there are different buckets. how are the different buckets actually working together? so one of my question is in terms of activating community priorities. how is that also being communicated to

the affordable housing fund strategies or to do membership council? is that part can that be part of the communication between different buckets. um. medium chun staff. yes the whole intent is that the work in the equity communities are coming up with the kind of top strategic priorities in the summer and that information will be shared with the affordable housing leadership council as well as with the interagency working group that director healy's is leading um, across city agencies . that sounds like there's going to be a lot of meetings. yeah i mean, it sounds like yes. which is, um, i hope there is a bigger resume or you know where it's everyone it one meeting. um so it's okay. i can see it overlapping in different, um, in different areas. and another

question that i think, um, committee short diamond. real emphasis is the. the affordable housing leadership council. um it looks like it's going to start. um, by may they're meeting by may, um have they been selected already or who are the members are participating on this. yes we have recruited seven leaders from different sectors, and that's up on the web page for the affordable housing funding and strategies on our website. and then there's 20 members more right and we have not finalize that group yet. and so we look forward to recruiting from a range of different sectors to be part of that, and in as i'm trying to, you know, also listening from the public comment as well. and also thinking a swell how to, um , you know how different buckets can actually also moved together. um so i understand you are recruiting from different

sectors. um how are what are your criteria are they do they need to be, um connect with the community or business. i mean, what are youse criteria in the sectors that we've generally emphasized, are both nonprofit, affordable housing developers, privately financed developers, community based organizations with a focus on housing? um, business philanthropy. and then c d f i s or other community, dumb and finance institutions or other lenders, investors in housing and affordable housing in particular, so that's generally been the focus. i think there's been a suggestion around labor, which i think makes it i think we agree makes a lot of sense. and so that's generally the picture. okay um, and those 20 members, they will have separate meetings from the seven executive, right. the idea is that i mean, there's a lot of

very esteemed people in the seven members and the leadership. um group. and so, uh , the idea is they will be kind of driving a broader agenda. it's setting high level topics that will drill down more deeply , but there's so much expertise in san francisco. we want to give other folks and ability to participate in the process. and so the working group would be an opportunity to dig down more deeply into particular ideas. topics that would end the risk and also, this group will um, with lead advocacy, whether in the state or federal level to get more funding. that is the goal that absolutely yeah. so there will be so i guess i'm just trying to, um, trying to visualize the goal or the objectives of this council as well. um and how again realistic there, you know, um. the strategies will be, um and so

again. i can i would like to first see this council is very proactive lobbyists in terms of the state and federal level going to the going to the state meetings and talking to different state assembly members and really putting out funding for this. i mean, and also in a way that also, um enticing regional, um, advocacy on this as well. so i hope there is that kind of big, um, understanding that it's not just also meaning, but there is actually a push for political advances on this as well. everyone who's on the leadership council and i imagine that most people who will be part of the working group are people who have shown a demonstrated commitment to be advocating for affordable housing funding. through their careers and would continue through this work. this work will wrap up in january, but i think part of what we're hoping it will lead to is essentially a work plan of things that will be striving to implement in the

months and years ahead to find affordable housing. i can see this council, um, having really long meetings as um, as we are trying to again the way i tried to visualize or, you know, i hope that this is something that the membership council also took . take a look into as there is a zoning program. outreach is happening. that's also also been part of their of their advocacy as well, um, not in a way of choice of building affordable housing, but again, like what? commissioner diamond has mentioned that different types of housing that is actually for supportive housing needs, um and so forth. so um, thank you, mr papa's. and um, i hope we could get some informations as well or the progress of their of their meetings. um i do think that may 2023 to january 2024. probably

need to be more extended, um. you know, just being realistic. housing is going to be an ongoing issue. so, um. you know, even the goals of this, um you know, it should be beyond the 2024 2025. i mean that this eight year housing element, so i think as this council probably evolves, um, you know, we'll see how it's going to evolve. but perhaps that timeline can be extended as well. um another thing that, um, actually looking forward in one of our joint hearing with building inspection commission is talking about the demolition. and um again. i know we have discussed about the protections attendant protections. but how? how is the planning and the building department doing the site visits? um in this kind of buildings in terms of the demolitions. um i think that's

something that, um i would like to bring on in that joint hearing. um um you know the next joint hearing, so also would like to, um, support what commissioner diamond mention as well. in terms of the, um, the permitting process ordinance that's coming on june 8th. and also, how is that going to be part of the zoning program? outreach um, i think it will be good if there is also like there's a phase one phase two phase three that we can get a progress of those owning program. um zoning program. outreach um, updates on that and the commission. um so those are my comments and again. thank you . and um, we'll hear from you still. thank you. thank you, commissioner imperial commissioner braun. yes uh, well , first of all, i just want to also echo the thanks to staff that in particular i was thinking even as i was reading

the staff report. this is a really well written staff report. this is very succinct and clear and yet covers a whole lot of very expansive topics and a lot of work that was going on. so it both reflects uh, it reflects the just magnitude of the work that stuff is doing, but also the thought on this that is going into this process. i really appreciate that. i also appreciate seeing the some of the timelines for actions other than the rezoning process that we're not quite so clear. that report came really came through in the presentation today, and so i'm going to actually start with that kind of topics. so you know, i've been listening to the discussion about the meetings and outreach process. it seems to me like we have a lot of dimensions going on at once for those meetings. i mean, obviously, but, you know, i'm kind of telling it up as that minimum. there's the rezoning process. there's the sort of general implementation of a cross cutting set of policies, um, that are going to affect different neighborhoods in different ways. and then there's also the process improvements

just for our own sort of, you know, site permit processing and internal communication coordination. and then i think that the scales where we have both, you know, there's an element of geographic targeting to certain neighborhoods and communities. um and that includes the parity equity communities, uh and then also the high resource neighborhoods that mr diamond was mentioning earlier. um and then there's sort of a non geographic equity communities that are not so geographically targeted, and then there's also the kind of city wide implementation and policies which i think some of the callers were speaking to today as well, as you know, some of these are not, um there need to be that citywide engagement continuing from the from the prior work. that was done the housing element. um, i guess i think all i'm saying here is this is a this is a lot of dimensions with a lot of like different elements happening that that interact in different ways with different parts of the city, some of which are subject to more rezoning, some of which are subject more to the, uh uh,

to broader policy discussions and implementation, the housing element i'm wondering. i mean, can what are the sort of touch points for us to understand and get updates on how this process is flowing timing? i almost feel like i need a flow chart for what topics and areas and groups are being sort of outreach to along the way. i appreciate your question, commissioner and it is a complex process. in fact, the way that we have summarized it as four buckets of our work is kind of an arbitrary summary of us trying to advance. many many , in fact, 359 implementation actions, so we've sketched out the targets that we have in process in our general working method of advancing things is advance what we can administratively through clear processes in partnership with you and affected parties and then where there's legislation needed work with through the normal legislative process. and for our own proactive, big efforts, and that's what we're

doing more on the ground community outreach and engagement. but i think, um, i'm going to propose something we'll see on the fly. see what the director has to say. but i think a good idea might be for our touch points with you or the public. whenever we're out that we summarize the four buckets in the next steps for each of those work items. so you have a may mid may hearing coming up. we can start that hearing with. this is one part of the housing area implementation and talk about the next significant things which will be the june hearing on the rezoning with you. and then there's also outreach. this also happening later in the summer, so we can kind of outline those next steps and give you an update on both affordable housing strategies and the community prioritization process. so we can always just start with a succinct overview of where we're at with the four efforts and what the next actions are. and then if there's an area that you think you'd like to engage with us more about what our next effort maybe then we can have that dialogue and we can also orient the public to upcoming commission

hearings or other events that are being run. as you said, in other geography, ease. or under different time frames. yeah i mean, i certainly would appreciate that update. um i can't imagine there'd be an objection to kind of try and understand how this is all how this is all unfolding and i'm also i also am trying to be mindful of sort of engagement fatigue. i know that there's a lot of very interested people and organizations who want as much contact as possible. but i also want to make sure we're not read re treading the same ground or we're out ahead and some aspect and not as far ahead in another. with different organizations. so um, yeah, those updates. i would very much appreciate those updates. i think it's a good strategy. um okay, so then let's see the other. i just have a few comments. so the you know, part of this is the site permit processing improvements. we have the upcoming hearing on that. i'm really looking forward to that discussion because to me, that's that's a mechanism for

getting our affordable housing built as well on an expedited timeframe, so any process improvements we can make their of it's very it's going to be really critical for meeting their affordable housing needs in the city. um my other. made a question here. i know, but my other comment is around displacement. displacement was brought up by a lot of collars, and i think it's being kind of discussed in the context of removal of housing units. and you know, mostly we're talking about, uh, reduction in the conditional. you thought the realization for removal of the kind of 1 to 2 housing units at a time, but i also i sort of feel and echo the concerns around displacement. that displacement was mentioned numerous numerous times in our housing element. it was a huge topic in the housing element and the work that we're discussing here today is about implementation, the housing element, and it's not just supposed to be about one small part of the housing. let's implementation housing element

overall. and so, uh, you know, i just want to emphasize the need for us to be thoughtful about displacement impacts, and that that has to be part of these conversations and policy development. um, because, you know, even just searching the staff report for today. it was really not clear. um how we are accounting for displacement impacts in all this work. i think it is baked in there. there is the work to produce affordable housing. there is where, you know, we know from the housing element there a number of policies and actions to address this placement. but even so, i think it's such a critical issue. rightly so that , uh, it would always be good to be mindful of. we're not just trying to talk about producing. we're trying to talk about how we are also preventing displacement. um and then, lastly, on the affordable housing leadership council. ah! i'm really looking forward to that work. i, you know. as has been said already. i want to echo the comment that the challenge of the portable

housing is finding the funding opportunities. and i think that was again raised by a lot of callers today that you know a lot of our affordable housing is dependent on market rate production right now in revenues generated by it, and there are a lot of tools out there that could potentially be adopted that we're dealing some of that, such as through the for browsing bonds mentioned earlier. some of this could happen both. you know the city scale and at the regional scale, um and so i think it's gonna be really critical. and i, and that leads me to actually kind of a question. maybe mr pappas, but the that group's work. you know, there's gonna be an advocacy component. the state regional maybe in federal level for building those funding resources for affordable housing. but are there members are there going to be members of the affordable housing leadership council or that executive group who are actually not from within san francisco, but actual participants from regional agencies or i'm just i don't. i'm just curious to know what the composition is. yes james

purpose planning department stuff? yes. so we have um, representation from the san francisco foundation, which of course, operates in five counties around the bay and the bay area council, which focuses on the regional economy. um we have two people who have worked in the service cisco specific development but are not only focused on services. good development, for example, related, california's affordable wing and silverberg, who used to be at bridge, so i think and then the sermon rebecca foster from the san francisco housing accelerator fund. um they are now making loans outside of san francisco, even though they were initially started to further our affordable housing development and preservation acquisitions and san francisco so i think we've got a pretty good representation of people and, of course, carol galante ish and leave her out. she started the turner center. she was at bridge she's been at hud, so i think we've got a pretty wide ranging

group of people who know not only the internal servants, cisco landscape, but federal, state and regional yes. thank you. and. we kind of touched on this earlier, but a lot of the implementation work is going to have to happen after that leadership council has done its initial work, and so i just want to make sure there is that avenue for advocacy to develop. um perhaps even regional ballot measures that might need to be a , um, that might generate affordable housing funding for us, as well as other communities in the region. so i'm just trying to be mindful of that. um, and with that does my comments and questions so thank you. thank you, commissioner. more. when one chooses to speak last. it is always good to acknowledge. not only is this tremendous work that staff has done i think you are moving this , uh, effort into the right direction. but thank you to my commissioners. for all provocative questions. you have

asked. i will only ask one provocative question. and that will be too, mr pappas or anybody who wants to pick us up. where do we stand in competing with the many communities in california who are in the same predicament where we are, and that is affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing. and while we have a leg up having an approach housing element who are we competing with? and what are we doing about the competition that would vote? everybody will ask quite similar to talk just of what we have. everybody will ask the federal government everybody will ask the state government and the film topic housing resources. are we doing anything to distinguish ourselves from them or knowing other things? you just don't know? ah thank you for the question. it's a challenging question. i'm gonna answer it two ways. uh one is we're trying to do everything we can as a city to qualify for any advantages that the state gives

two cities who are trying to move housing forward. so, for example, there's a new pro housing designation, which gives funding priority and state funds . um that's the state of california program. and so we're working very hard to get that designation or that we've run into a few bumps, but the city is working very hard to when that designation. of course, we moved our housing element forward at a very rapid pace to try to make sure that we remained in compliance and qualifying. i think we also are thinking about how we can deploy. our funding and lower our costs locally, so that we are more competitive because our high development costs are part of why it can be challenging to qualify as for as much funds as possible, so those are some examples of the ways we're trying to make ourselves as competitive as possible. but i would say we also need to grow the pie regionally and at the state and federal level. they're

just there has been a number of things that have happened recently, including competitiveness of bonds and tax credits that have really been an incredible barrier for housing, affordable housing development throughout the region and the city. so i think we are absolutely going to have to push for broader, an increase in funding for all cities and build alliances with cities that that's probably going to be a more equally or more important approach. medium tune just one additional point and i do agree with what changes indicated. we need to work together and really grow the pie, but two additional 20.4 san francisco we do have a pool of projects that have gone through the process that are entitled and we have, uh, a strong community advocacy. we just had representatives of the american indian community at the white house to apply for some of the infrastructure funding infrastructure bill funding ah

to address some of our housing needs and to carry or projects so i think several of you have mentioned advocacy. um our community engagement. our community leadership is a strong resource for ah! pushing and securing some of the additional funding. one of the, uh. one of the questions i would ask you, as we're trying to stay competitive will become more competitive that we are mindful about the stewardship we have for the rest of the city. and i am a very strong advocate that we are at the edge of compromising the future and quality of the city by giving in on too many shortcoming and lowering our standards by which we built housing. loud and error . where yard? uh it said, or are many of the exemptions were granting without much. discussion or was this distance in state density bonus of great concern to me is accelerating our housing production. what

else will we be asked to compromise on particularly the way zoning question that commissioner diamond our school year what will be forced to sacrifice as we are competing? i'll just leave it with that. it's actually a creative question, which i hope that you will be the stewards of what we need to keep and what we kind of what we can get rid of. i am all for process improvements, but then we need to very much look at ourselves and how we do things. and i leave it beside. thank you. thank you. i'm just want to say a final comment and one thing maybe director helena's we can work with anne marie is like to make sure that we know when some events are happening to follow up on commissioner bronze question whether it's just during directors report just noting some things that are coming up and emailing us and please don't make a fancy. sometimes we ask for things and then staff want to make like fancy reports. and we don't need that, just like shoot an email that says these events are happening. here's where they are. here's what's happening. we can then do what that what we want to also, as we're out talking with

neighbors, talking community land baking strategies come up a lot. so if you see some great parcels that we could, you know, buy for affordable housing mixture. coordinate with mo on that, and then lastly, this leadership council that's going to have these long meetings that theresa was indicating. thank you. leadership council for answering the call to lead and whoever those folks are going to be on the technical committee. we also thank you in advance for your leadership as well with that. i think we're ready for our next item. what did you make one more comment. i would very much support. for us to consider asking for an expansion of the eight months. timeframe may 23 to january 24. one month is already basically non existent because everybody's gone in august. uh, i believe that the time frame of eight months is too short. this requires significantly longer stewardship , and, uh, i just want to support my fellow commissioners who wasted in a hope, uh, president tenor that you will pick that up with a convincing a plea for us. okay certainly commissioner diamond by last last comment on um.

notwithstanding all of the comments we all made. i just want to say how proud i am. and i believe our commissioners, fellow commissioners are to be proud of san francisco's effort to try to figure out how to accommodate the 82,000 units, especially as i see other cities fighting tooth and nail and pushing back against the state. it feels really great, um, to have the planning department lead us in this effort to figure out how to actually accomplish this goal, so thank you hear here. thank you. commissioners. thank you. staff. very good commissioners. if there's nothing further, we can move on item. 10 has been continued one week to may 4th so we can move on to item 11. case number 2021-907 c u a for the property at 2059 market street. this is a conditionally use authorization before we hear the staff presentation. can mr diamond is going to make a request for a proposal? i believe, um,

commissioners on the advice of the city attorney's office. i need to recuse myself from this matter as i own. some verizon bonds, which is a financial interests, so i would appreciate about accusing me. motion to recuse commissioner diamond. commissioner more moved to recuse commissioner diamond thank you. commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond commissioner braun diamond missionary imperial, i couple high machine or more president tanner high. commissioners in motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. good afternoon commissioners. ryan baba department staff. the case before you is a conditional use authorization to install a new macro, while wireless telecommunications telecommunications facility at 2039 market street, consisting of the installation of six new antennas and other ancillary equipment as part of the verizon wireless network. the project is located on the rooftop of an

existing four story residential and commercial building, which is considered a preferred location, according to the wireless, citing guidelines adopted by the commission. and part of supervisors. the project sponsor has conducted one community meeting which no member of the public had attended. today. the department has received no letters of support for the project. and letters of opposition from five members of the public. the opposition in this case cited concerns centered on the site's potential impacts to the historic resource as well as well as health risks that may be associated with radio frequency. since the initial applications submittal, the project sponsor, has worked closely with stop to get the project to ensure the proposals compliance with the secretary of interior standards . general plan policies relevant to wireless telecommunication services, as well as the department, citing guidelines. these revisions to the project include removing one in 10 upper sector and sending back all

antennas away from the edge of the existing building to meet them. minimum. 1 to 1 step back commissioners. it is also important to note that there's a department of public health has reviewed the proposal and determine that the proposal will comply with the current fcc safety standards for radio frequency radiation exposure. in order for their product to proceed. the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant of planning code sections three oh three c and 7 52 to allow the installation of a macro wireless telecommunications facility within the n c. t three zoning district. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the wireless telecommunications services. facilities citing guidelines the market on octavia area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will enhance the ability of the city to protect both life and property and the effects of a fire or natural disaster by providing communications services. the department also

finds that the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. i will now pass it off to the applicant who has a short presentation. thank you. thank you five minutes. thank you. hey, there. thank you for hearing me today. i will let ryan go ahead and throw that presentation on there. it's been a pleasure working with him, of course. can you pass the time until the presentation gets up? thank you. i'll be quick. alright again. thank you for

letting me speak here today i am here on behalf of verizon wireless. my name is hayden piper, director of projects and development. at rich communications. we are working with the applicant as the applicant for verizon wireless. um as you heard ryan mentioned this is a proposal to establish a new macro facility at 2059 market street in san francisco. and the case the case number there would be 2021-0. c u a for conditional use permit. that the first thing i'd like to point out whenever we do any of these hearings like this, just the basic need for why we need the site. typically when you go and you are installing a new macro facility or upgrading in any way, you're doing it because there's a coverage need in this situation. we have both coverage and capacity need this site. as you can see there, the red x went ahead and threw on this coverage map prepared by verizon's engineers to show you

where this proposed facility would be located. this next slide is the obvious dramatic improvement that you can see there as the green. as we go from red to green. you can see the importance of this facility in itself expressing a need for this improvement in this new macro facility. as ryan mentioned. not only are verizon's customers affected but obviously first responders, emergency personnel, um and just your day to day normal person walking around san francisco in an area where we are a little bit more prone to earthquakes and other natural disasters. where in those situations you want the ability to call your loved ones? your family lift ride if you for example, maybe you don't have a vehicle a way to stay connected. another thing that always comes up. is how we got to this particular location. in this next slide. the yellow pins identify alternative sites that we did look at um all these

for various reasons. were rejected in favor of this candidate. um majority of these reasons were due to lack of landlord interest. the one the one alternative candidate that i think is worth mentioning is safe way and the reason why i bring it up specifically. is because we have received with ryan's help feedback from the community, and one of the specific questions was why was the safeway not looked at as a preferred candidate to this location? safeway is not interested in moving forward with an agreement with verizon. so that is the easiest way to dissuade that candidate, but we did find is a very willing and excited, private landlord who owns property in the city of california and or a city of san francisco, and was amenable to us, using otherwise unusable space on the rooftop. brief

summary of the project. i not only have two minutes here, but six antennas is the gist of it what ryan had mentioned earlier about our correspondence and our continued efforts of working back and forth to get this design. perfect is hitting it right on the head. we originally proposed nine and 10 hours with with screening multiple designs . at the end of the day, we ultimately presented two or three different options to planning in the historical preservation group here in san francisco, and asked for a recommendation on what designed a preferred and the unexposed antennas, as i'll show in the next slide, they felt was the best way to maintain the characteristics of the building. and the aesthetic nature of this you know, obviously beautiful building. quick summary of the rooftop just to show you how tight spaces again. we used to have nine antennas went down to six. all these antennas are placed in an area that both meet the coverage. um you know, the whole purpose of the scientists have satisfied the coverage objective, but also to maintain

safe access to emergency ladders and stairways and everything being considered and where we place these antennas. so as you can see, real quick as i hit under a minute here, there's a quick before picture you see there on the top right solar panel as part of this project will be relocating the solar panel and utilizing that space. for our antennas. as you can see, that would be the reason why we didn't go full screening because at that point, you are pulling away from the existing aesthetic features of the building by adding so much book even though the height limit would technically allow it. so quick elevation page just showing you an actual snippet from the zoning grounds. six antennas positioned as tight as we can meeting the 1 to 1 setback. i will say. as far as any concerns goes, i could probably take more than 10. seconds on this, but for eisen wireless bridge communications, we work hand in hand with third party engineers and licensed

professionals that confirm our project is compliant with all sec regulations, as confirmed by the department of public health , um, just real quick. there was also a very specific time. we can ask you questions if you have any follow up questions. thank you. sure. thank you, hugh . with that commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter if you're in the chambers, please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room to your right. if you're calling in remotely you need to press star three. raise your hand via webex. good afternoon planning commission. thank you for your time and effort. this is this past week was the first i had heard of this project despite living in the building and walking the perimeter of the site every day. ah the, uh, project applicant mention that of the six landlords surveyed

hours turns out to be the greediest. currently that roof is used for solar panels. and there is presently an 80 ft tall building being proposed for the adjacent lot. there are going to be six cell towers on the roof of this building. two of them are going to be nine ft. above my head. for the next 24 hours, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. 30 years. there is no evidence. that says that these cell towers are safe for that kind of exposure. the fact that safeway was unwilling to have this over there multi acre parking lot. uh huh. indicates something of their reticence to get involved in something that is so actionable. and so absolutely wrong. but this is not. my health concern that i bring to you. i bring the health

concerns of your parents and siblings and children and grandchildren. that will be exposed to technology that has not been proven safe. health and safety are primary goals of planning. over 100 years ago, the first city planning in the united states. was designed to provide light and air. for the health of occupants of tenements in new york city. health and safety should continue to be plannings primary goal. the fact that sequa does not encompass radiation. is. bizarre when you consider where our society is evolving. you know, i was very proud of safe of san francisco during covid. we established protocols that became a model for the rest of the country. and i think as you review this issue

you should consider what kind of precedent are we setting for ourselves and for others? can a wealthy, offsite long distance landlord. subject working class long term. rent control tenants. to radiation. or not. and what kind of exposure does the city of san francisco face? if it allows this kind of exposure to be inflicted upon its residents. thank you for your time. hmm. hi there. my name is patrick power. i'm also a resident 2059 market. and like michael, i also live on the fourth floor of the building. and one of these towers is going to be placed immediately above my living space, and i'm therefore also concerned about the constant

intense radiation that's going to be permeating the building. i might also make note. that. i would i would be suspect about the. the structural and target integrity of the building that's going to be affected by the weight and the construction of whatever base is going to be needed to support these towers and the building. the building if you aren't aware was built in either 19 oh, five, or 19. oh, six. so it's a fairly old building and to say the least, and that, of course, is absorbed a number of quakes big and small ever since that time, so i suspect that. the building is not in the best of shape for putting additional weight on top of it. um basically like the echo most most of what michael had to say they were with regarding, uh safety of. the

people that live within the building. thank you. good afternoon. thank you for your time. um my name is regina sigh . i also live on the fourth floor of 2059 market street. if you check your email, you would have received an email from me to all of you individually last night around 8 30. um look, i'm not a radiologist or radio frequency technician or an engineer. i don't have the data, but what i do have is the evidence that i've provided to you just five articles that i emailed to you last night in the email, but there are several more and it cannot be ignored. that exposure to radio frequency from these mobile based towers has shown to provide some kind of negative impact, too. animals two children, two adults and the

safe. distance was no less than 500 m. that's a third of a mile away. i also live on the fourth floor. these radio towers would be essentially less than. 50 ft above my head. i have a 12 year old daughter. it would be 50 ft above her head. like michael said for 24 hours a day or you know when she's not in school for as long as we decide to live, there cannot be ignored the negative impact to our health and my understanding is that you guys are graciously here. to support our health as citizens of san francisco, please do not approve. the installation of these mobile towers. yes you may get a little bit more. what's it called coverage for verizon. but i'll share with you. i've lived there for 10 years i've had no problems contacting my loved

ones. no problems calling 311 calling 911 when i've needed to. it's been just fine. and it cannot be ignored the negative impact that it would have on the 50 households that live in that building. thank you so much. okay seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers. let's go to our remote color. colors. commissioner. planning heard. when it comes to quality of life issues. do not have standards. this issue about electoral electoral backfield and video waves. has gone before

us many, many, many times. and the planning department. should have a. the second and the total opinion, the expert so that by now you all should have known that in this case this permit has to be denied. you cannot improve this permit. when. all the data shows. that all the tenants who live in this building will be adversely impacted. in other words. you know? but this is not suitable to the tenant. yes, within kent.

kind of i agree. to let this but go ahead. as honestly makers. again and again. you have to follow. conscience. standard. and it bites. by quality of life standard. i'm the director of justice because i know a lot about this matter. thank you very much. hello this is paul. albritton can you hear me? we can. mr albritton before you begin. i'm gonna interrupt you because i believe you represent verizon in

this case. i just wanted to let you know that i was here and available to answer questions. i am outside counsel for verizon wireless. very good questions regarding sec compliance or any of the other issues related to this. thank you. thank you. okay. commissioners that concludes, um public comment and see no additional request to speak. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you to those who came in today. appreciate you being here today and corresponding with us . the question would be there for you, mr piper, or for mr albritton, depending on how you want to answer it. um i believe we have a report from, uh verizon from water food consultants. and i think you know i'm a lay person when it comes to this type of facility that question nine and b page seven of that report, which is page 56 of our packet, tries to answer the question of kind of the perimeters and radius around

which the antenna which can be safer exposure. could you go into a little bit because i will say in a little confused about um what it states about the distances you can be vertically. and in front of the antenna, and it seemed like it could be someone standing below needs to be 18 ft away. if i'm reading it correctly, so if you could illuminate how that distance corresponds with the distance into or from residents that would be helpful, understood? yeah, definitely. so it's definitely something that i really rely on third party experts for but we did take the time over the last few days, especially since getting some of the most recent opposition to get some clarity on it. just because it we want to be as open as we can on this whole situation, so i just artistic, clarify, um the exposure level on the first floor or the top floor of the apartment complex being closest to the antennas and getting clarification from our third party experts in waterford. the report is also included in the actual application package. the stated that the level of exposure at

any point the highest level exposure in the entire building is 3.4286. of the allowable limit per the fcc guidelines. now i understand the narrative of constant exposure or living. you know, 24 7 and i don't want to interrupt you. but i'm just trying to understand this specifically within that first floor because again what i'm reading here in this report says that, um, the fcc general population limits are reached when the vertical separation between the antennas and someone standing above or below is 18 ft . so what i'm trying to understand is at that fourth floor, not at the first floor, not anywhere in the building. but within the 18 ft. i'm just curious if that's if i'm understanding that accurately or how you could explain that that within that fourth floor they are at the safe population level . right. so the best way for me to explain it is that propagation on these antennas is an incident. like i said, i'm not the you know, licensed engineer. but the statement i got from him and i can just go

ahead and read it. top floor maximum predicted exposure or mps less than 5% or 3.42% of the general population limits. it has been included and they've revised the few different things just so that i had this clarified for the record, but they did want to follow up and say it can also be noted that fcc rules allow for continuous exposure levels for under 100% of the general population limit for 24 hours. so i'm saying the maximum is 3.2% 3.42% at anywhere in this building, so as far as propagation goes past that point, we would be talking about areas that aren't accessible by the public because they're they're outside and above the air. at that point, thank you very much. any other questions or comments from commissioners commissioner brown . yes, i do have a question which might be for mr barba. um the, uh in our. conditions of approval. there's reference to the projects. implementation

report, which, as i read, it is would involve additional testing. um i just want to make sure i'm understanding. what sort of. included in that report. maybe whoever could speak to this. i won't say specifically what it does say, but i do know that per customary and most of these projects do in the city. there is an after report that's done after installation that confirms the findings of the initial report, which are preliminary, but that would be a condition that we would accept. okay so because that report does have specific comments on project sponsor shall undertake to inform and perform appropriate tests for residents of any dwelling units located within 25 ft. of the transmitting antenna at the time of the of testing for the project implementation report, so i'm just trying to make sure i understand that this is something that that in the sequencing this this happen since subsequently to this approval for the additional testing, it would be a condition of the actual construction and after it's installed after turn

up, and those those that report would be finished. submitted for the record to confirm the findings of the initial report. okay, thank you very much. um, yeah, but it's that's an important point for me. commissioner run just to elaborate. it's a it's a standard condition of approval that we have, because their initial reports are sort of an, um sort of estimate based on sort of the plans that are submitted for what the exposure levels will be, but we always had a condition over portal to say once they're actually installed. we need to test them to make sure the presumptions and those original reports were accurate. we don't want to take any chances that we said 3.42 or whatever percent, but it might be more so we want the carriers to validate those percentages after they're actually installed in turned on, um and we always have a standard condition of approval that says anyone who has concerns who live in the building who are concerned about what those rates are. once it's turned on in their own homes. they can request that a live reading is done in their homes as well. so to anyone living in the building once they're installed, if there are concerns about what those exposure rates

are, they can request that. to be tested in the sponsor is obligated to do that, so that's really the intent of that. okay i appreciate the explanation. um i. i can understand the concerns that are raised about something like this. and so i just wanted to make sure that i was understanding that it was clear that there is a subsequent testing process and that even like let's say let's say the exposure limits are allowable. but then something's going wrong. and i think it's important to also still again have that opportunity to have a reassessment of what the actual levels of radiation are are, um , as president tanner mentioned , you know, i'm not an expert in this, but i do see that this is meeting all of the existing legal requirements. the department of public health has approved. um and reviewed and approved this this project. uh and, uh, also see that, um federal limits the ability to block a project on the basis of the r f emissions. um so right

now. i don't see any other commission comments. so with that i'm actually going to make a motion to approve this item second. thank you commissioners . if there's no further deliberation, there's emotion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner braun i we can imperial i couple machine or more. president tanner. commissioners of motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0. ah commissioner diamond. you are welcome to rejoin us. thank you. for your discretionary review calendar commissioners item 12 case number 2020-103. d r p for the 3 30 rutledge street discretionary review.

thank you, jonas. good afternoon . commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request. for discretionary review. building permit application. 2020 930.54 93. to construct a retaining wall at the rear of the property to maintain great as allowed for section 1 36. the planning code. um the d r requesters norma garcia and bert. voice. of 3 29 montcalm. residents of the adjacent property to the north of the proposed project, want to ensure that the proposed retaining wall will one secure the grade of the uphill property to adequately address water. run off and drainage, you know in the plans three be designed and engineered in a manner that considers aesthetics and in, uh, provides planting in areas. ah

and for incorporates adequate tree protection. to date, the department has received seven letters in support and seven letters opposing the project. planning departments. review of this proposal confirms support for the project as it this permit is intended to construct a code conforming retaining wall. per code section 1 36. the total combined height of retaining walls and fences in rail yards. um are allowed to be up to 10 ft. in height from the existing grade. with the retaining wall portion being no higher than three ft. above existing grade. specifically the proposed design addresses some of the concerns if not all of the d r requesters, although it is not the purview of the planning department to review the design for the adequacy of drainage. the plans also indicate drainage material in the section detailed drawings. and although neither the code nor guidelines specify acceptable materials proposed

retaining wall incorporates a five ft high wooden fence on top of the retaining wall, which is shown to be three ft. above the existing grade. and the proposed design also incorporates a five ft by 10 ft dogleg that provides adequate area. reasonably adequate area for the roots of the property line tree. therefore, staff sees no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking the d r and approving. thank you. thank you, mr winslow. um. er requester. you have a five minute presentation . thank you. thank you. commissioners my name is norma garcia. i'm here on behalf of my family, and we're requesting that you take discretionary review of this project for a number of reasons and first and foremost, the project sponsors have made fraudulent representations to you and omissions of key facts about the history of this matter and their involvement. this includes their involvement in conducting the

permanent excavation between our properties that gave gives rise to the notice of violation through actions and harming the cone tree on the site where the construction is proposed to occur and inconsistent statements they have made about the health of the tree in official venues, including this one. our correspondent to you yesterday outlines these items with photo evidence and additional information. if you allow this permit without taking review, you will be making a decision based on misrepresentation. we respectfully urge you to take review and to ensure the integrity of this process that it is fair and that we received that we all have a just resolution. for over 40 months. we have been trying to resolve this matter with the project sponsors to no avail. we need your we need your assistance. the results we seek are a retaining wall and fence that is designed in a way that allows the project sponsors to retain their land while also preserving the health of the two mature

trees on our property on the site. and as we do this we also have an opportunity to promote san francisco's climate action plan. action plan 2021, which seeks to activate our cities, backyard to increase and protect greening in our city. with some redesign and your help. we believe both are possible in support of this position. we offer the testimony of two experts, mr dan dyckman and dr larry costello and i'll share my time with them. thank you. afternoon commissioners. my name's dan dyckman, amadou technical engineer and working for the downhill property owners. um it's kind of an interesting project because this is a 25 ft wide property that's going to have three different types of retaining walls built as part of the project. so you're gonna have some very chopped up look to the appearance of what's going on up there. the height of the wall

has been mentioned. three ft above existing grade. that's true, but their grade that's on the downhill side of the wall is not gonna be able to remain number one because it's being removed for the construction of the wall, and it can't be reconstructed that same height because of the steepness of the slope. so you'll end up having a five ft. exposed wall on the downhill side and another three ft that is buried below grade. you're excavations going to be a total of up to 12 ft, below existing grades to build this wall based on the design that's currently available. the one of the other problems we have with three ft. burial of the wall is that you've got to have a back of wall drain behind the retaining wall. to keep hydrostatic forces off of it. the wall is not designed for hydrostatic forces currently to get that water out. the only way you could go is downslope, which would be onto our property or my client's property, which would have to then. come through a

pipe go through their retaining wall to then be discharged. alternatively if there's another neighbor on off to the side, who wants to take it? that would be another opportunity. the construction of retaining wall will block surface water flows there is no uh provision for in the plan showing what they plan to do with the water because that's that water gets blocked by the top of the wall. it's going to run laterally. ah probably not to our property, but it may affect one of the adjacent neighbors by concentrating that water. um. i think that's all that i had for you from the engineering perspective. those are the concerns that i had. and i wanted you be aware of them. thank you. afternoon commissioners. my name is larry costello consulting arborist in san francisco. and i inspected the subject tree in sight. um in

july of 2020. and prepared a report that i think you have. um, also prepared to follow up report in january this year that i believe you have as well. um i reviewed the proposed plan for the retaining wall and fence at 3, 30 rutledge and have the and in the following summarizes my findings, and i'd like to do this by asking five questions. first question is will excavations for the retaining wall result in root loss? yes, this is very likely. it's in close proximity to the tree, and you can't afford not cutting routes. sorry sir, to interrupt you, but that is the dior requesters presentation time. you will have two minute rebuttal where you can come back and revisit. um you're you're finding thank you. thank you. okay very good project sponsor. you have a five minute presentation. project sponsor.

are you calling and remotely, if so, you'll need to raise your hand. there's two hands raised. there are aren't there. okay, let's go. to the first color. let's go to tyler. i did. this is tyler baldwin, granger and are you? are you the product, the product sponsor? yes i am. very good. okay, you have five minutes. you know what i mean? sorry. this is um. you're such a police that because this property. and what this means to me is this so his heartening to see that they have hired people to come out, you know? and make these claims. i've done everything that the city has asked me to do. i worked hand in hand what they would want slow. i'm not constructed anything.

that is outside. the scope of our whole entire neighborhood. everyone has a retaining wall. it's important to retain the soil. i've been pursued legally by these people. threatened to be sued. okay, i'm here. crying to fight my property. i'm trying to get this approved. everything you guys have asked. there's nothing else i can i can. i cannot do anything else. there's nothing else i can do. everything that you guys have addressed. i have my own arbitrage come out. just to participate in this meeting. i had to write. have a lawyer. write letter cost me $8000. okay. i'm not as financially well off as the d r review. people. they can continue to do

this to myself and to other neighbors. and will continue to do it. they've effectively weaponized the system. put in place. okay. they highlighted trimming. that's one of the things that they threatened to sue me over. however, when i did another neighbor trimmed the tree received no they received nothing from their legal team threatening to sue them. okay. this is targeted. and it needs to stop. so i have. very good we should with that we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. um you'll each have two minutes. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely need to press star three, or raise your hand via

webex. first let me say i am grateful that you can take the time to fit individual concerns into your busy schedule. um my name is gretchen mueller. i live at 17 01 alabama street on the corner of montcalm next door to norma garcia and bert voice who who reside at 3 29 montcalm. recently i was victim of a break in our neighborhood is not very secure and the plans currently allow access between between the two yards. and i think this is one reason to not approve. another argument concerns, equality of life and the value of green space. it seems to me that the wall, which has been proposed by there were neighbors would impact their back garden in a very negative way. what is now a steep hillside with lush plantings. a large old cut cut tony is tony esther and established plum trees near the boundary would become a looming

wall. the plans include the insertion of a retaining wall below grade, which i should think would endanger the root systems of these plantings and would be visible only to my montcalm neighbors right in their face. ms garcia and mr voice have consulted with an expert structural engineer and an expert arborist who have cautioned against this proposed new retaining wall. i understand that mr garcia and mr voice of actually trying to reach out to the residents of 3 30 rutledge, but they have refused to participate in any form of communication. towards a positive outcome. it appears to me that alternatives might involve more terracing, different building materials planting a living fence. there are other approaches that could be discussed that could come to a happy conclusion for both neighbors. i would hate to see concrete, displacing and killing the currently thriving all trees and bushes where there are

viable alternatives, which could be explored in a copper cooperative fashion. we need to optimize our green spaces, not destroy them. thank you. thank you. okay seeing no other member of the public and the chambers coming forward. let's go to our remote caller. nope remote color . no. okay, they're back. go ahead caller. i am. sorry i had to leave because i have to return back home to pick up my children. but i was in the courtroom. my name is austria. maria garcia. i'm not related to ms garcia. but i am a neighbor overall brown to avenue and i have known the family for quite some time i met miss garcia. an old job that consumers union that i worked at. and then after that, i continued on and provided childcare for both of her son. throughout their

growing years. and so i just wanted to comment that i seen that garden. from the time that they moved into that house and still what it is today, and it is the beautiful work of art. it is a tranquil, serene space that is just it is so special. and, um, you know, uh, i would take the kids back there and we would play for hours. it's a great place to have adventures. there's so many little plants that grow there. i don't know the names of them. but burke has invested a lot of time and energy and also researches different kinds of soil and he didn't participate in. uh, comes the combat that composing program with city and picks up compose herbal dirt, and he just has invested a lot. and i know

that norman very active in the community, you know, fighting for the small voices of our community, and, um, i just very sad to know that this has gotten the point and i think that it really can be a win win situation because from what i understand mr rtn, mr points presented a viable option where both. the people on rutledge can have their wall. and so i just wanted to come today and say this morning. it's beautiful. it's so beautiful. i had my grandmother's memorial health. thank you, ma'am, that is your time. okay, i believe. that was our only colors. so with that d r e d r request, er, you have a two minute rebuttal. we are very

much looking forward to working with. the proponents of this plan to come to a solution. i think we can do it. we just need to sit down and do it. and so if tyler, you're still listening the doors open. you know, we have some really good ideas. so let's talk and maybe you commissioners can help us get there. so continuing on to question number two. question number one was, um, whether the roots would be cut by the proposed excavations. and my assessment is yes. they definitely will be cut. the workers in close proximity to the tree. question number two is will the root loss of adversely affect the tree health? and again. this is very likely when you cut roots, you lose function of the root system, which is water absorption and mineral absorption. question three will root loss adversely affect

structural stability of the tree. and again, i'd say this is likely because, um, routes serving anchorage function. and when you lose roots, especially larger diameter roots, um this compromises the stability of the tree. um. fourth question is, can the wall be redesigned to minimize adverse effects on the tree health and structural stability? and my answer is yes , it can be redesigned and i've includes specifications in my report that you have lastly, i'll say that has the assessment of excavation impacts been prepared by the sponsors. um, have mitigation recommend munday shin's been prepared. hearts of tree has a tree protection plan been prepared? and i'm not aware of any of that happening, and i think these steps need to occur before this project proceeds.

oh, happy to answer any questions. be good. ah project sponsor. tyler, you have two minutes. i have no rebuttal to this always say, you know. you've had a meeting with them. they produce no results. other neighbors who have recently done construction. i've gone through and tried to reason and work with them and only costs further delays. and there's just i just need this approved. okay that concludes your rebuttal than, um commissioners. this matter is now before you. thank you. i'll just make a few comments and calling commissioner more. um wow. just hear the exasperation in the project sponsors voice. um it's pretty sad. i do agree

with you that there probably could be a solution. i don't think this is the form for that. i don't think this body exists to make neighbors cooperate. unfortunately i don't think this body exists to make people get along and reach compromise, and whatever goodwill may have existed is seems to have eroded and that's not something that we can repair. despite mr winslow's . i'm sure best efforts to get people to get along and compromise understand each other. so i certainly understand the impacts of the proposed project on your property. but if it complies with the code, um and is actually needed to address a notice of violation. i'm not saying anything that unique and extraordinary, but certainly hope that you all can find a way to get along and compromise. but i don't know that this body is the form for that. commissioner more i would agree with you that this body is not a forum forward normally requires a so soil and the. structural engineer to determine what is the appropriate way of transitioning. just building is lot is not an isolated building in the context of slope

conditions that extend over multiple properties. so i would like to perhaps ask mr winslow, and even for him, it is difficult to explain as to whether or not a terrorist thing solution is even possible because a terrorist thing would occur on the adjoining property and not on the property. that is in front of us sees the date of this application coming in in 2020. since that time, we had significant rains. more than anything happens cisco has ever experienced in the last 50 or 75 years. i would be interested in the performance of the slope along, not just this property but multiple properties in either direction. to figure out as to whether or not this is a much bigger underlying issue. not here in the city. but going to sausalito. whether it's a lot of topography between sites and against soils are different and conditions are different in terms of vegetation and how properties are built. i saw whole gardens slide away

requiring significant retaining walls in order to stabilized as as the edge towards an adjoining property or towards the public, wider way. so i feel completely out of the loop. without a better understanding of joining conditions. and just simply speaking, if i would have a property with roping condition, i would build a retaining wall. the question is what we're training walking, i afford what one is the correct response in context of adjoining sites, including drainage parents, which is not an issue of just 25 ft, but that's the issue of the entire block. so i'm basically a little bit out of my league here because i do not have enough. information. about yes and no and an impact or no impact on whom? adjacent on either side. it is a much bigger technical questions. so i basically so my hands our city attorney's carefully listening and

believing that the information in front of us for me given what we just did, and one's application came in is sufficient to make a judgment either. in support of the, uh owner or in support of the d r request. i'm incapable of doing that. did you want mr wendell to respond in every comments or hmm. i don't know. if you have any you don't have to. i don't think i have enough information to respond to those comments regarding whether it's possible what the condition was post rain or what the possibility of terracing crossed property lines are obviously i think that would require mutual cooperation, and it possibly could still occur without cop cooperation right terrorists could occur on the voices, property and lot of ideas mitigate some of the sheer wall that was described by the structural engineer on the er requesters side. have you seen the property by any chance? i've only seen the photos. okay. thank you. mr kaufman moved to

not take the r and approved second. thank you commissioners . if there's nothing further, there's emotion that has been seconded to not take the r and approved the project as proposed on that motion, commissioner braun i diamonds, imperial couple more. commission president tanner high commissioners in motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. commissioners that'll place this on the final item on your agenda today number 13 case number 2022-2033 d r p for the property at 14 48 willard street, a discretionary review. thank you, jonas. good afternoon, again. commissioners david winslow, staff architect item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application number. 2022 201.70. 70 52 to construct a rear horizontal edition and to add a new second dwelling in it. two or three

story over basement single family home. the existing building is a category b h eligible, historic resource built in 19. oh, six. the d r requester jonathan cahn of 39, woodland avenue, adjacent neighbor to the east is concerned that the proposed project is massive and will affect natural light and privacy. his proposed alternative alternatives. entail considering scaling back and planting mature, scaling back the addition and planting mature foliage. or trees to maintain privacy. to date, the department has received no letters supporting into letters opposing the project. staff supports the project as it complies with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. the proposed rear edition does not extend further than the adjacent building to the north. and steps back on the 2nd and 3rd floors. ah rearguard of 25% of the lot depth is maintained. the proposed first floor extends 12 ft into the required rearguard in compliance with the

code section 1 36 that allows for two story pop outs with five ft side setbacks. due to the downslope of the lot. the one story edition of habitable spaces set over a basement. proposed second floor edition is set back two and a two ft eight inches from the side property line to moderate the scale and preserve access to mid block open space for the neighbor to the south. therefore, staff does not see any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. very good requester. you have a five minute presentation. thank you. good afternoon, mr khan. jonathan cahn filed the discretionary review request and sent the april 20th letter and i believe that letter is in the packets before the commission. thank you, uh, as mr khan has already taken the laboring or it was agreed that i would address the planning commission at this meeting. regarding the d r

request mr. connors seated right here. my name is jonathan lowell there to jonathan's next door to each other. i'm an owner and resident of the property at 33 35 woodland avenue. ah! proposed project raises several concerns for neighbors on woodland avenue behind and downslope from 14 48 willard, the addition is large, it will loom over several of us living below it impacting light and privacy, as explained and illustrated in mr and mrs o'donnell's letter to the commission, and also mr khan's letter. the subject. law is wider than most others along willard and woodland and deeper than all of ours on woodland, making the addition more apparent to all around it as it pushes well into the mid block open space. space. 14 42 willard expanded far into the rear yard many years ago, and it's an eyesore that stands out and

disrupts the mid block open space. the current owners are not responsible for that, and they made improvements to the building and maintained it well over the years. but this mistake at 14 42 should not be repeated at 14 48. and the building at 14 42 should not be used as a justification for this project to extend as far back into the rear yard as possible when it will reduce the amount of mid block open space enjoyed by quite a few neighbors around the property. that mid block open space with the yards and trees that flow into one. another is something that makes the neighborhood special. we on woodland avenue would like the project to be scaled back slightly, so it's not too expensive, extend so far back that the rear yard we're glad to see the applicants of indicated in the response portion of the staff report their agreement to put back in landscaping to help screen the new structure and contribute to our shared open

space that vegetation that flows up and down the mid block of all our neighbors yards and allows us to enjoy it. we asked that there be enforceable conditions of approval governing installation and maintenance of the landscaping to soften the look of the addition and allow continuity of that mid block open space. we're concerned about the appearance of the addition and what it will be finished with mr caldwell and mr blaney submitted a letter about this. the staff report and the applicants. response now tell us that the addition will be of the same finish as the existing exterior citing which is reassuring to us. thank you. a condition of approval should be adopted to ensure that this occurs we on woodland avenue have not been privy to discussions between the applicants and neighbors on willard street. we're glad to learn from the staff report. there have been modifications to earlier plans, such as reducing the proposed footprint, so it's not to be so close to the south and north property lines. however lines of communication

did not form with the neighbors to the east over the rear property line. and that's a shame for all involved. the applicants. response to the d r indicates adjacent neighbor concerns were addressed, but there were no substantive communications with us to the ease and over the rear property line. the applicants point to march 5th 2022 email from me sent immediately after the neighborhood meeting that i could not attend. and say that it shows that i am in a bid invading their privacy. no i'm not. our homes are close together. what you do on your property impacts me and mine being a bright light, constantly barking dog or removal of trees . a couple of years ago, the applicants cut down some trees and shrubbery at the rear of their property, thereby providing a direct view into their yard from the rear of my home. i have tall landscaping along the rear of my property in order to block as much of the view of 14 42 as we can possibly

do, but it's a four story structure. um but a year or so after the folks at 14 48 cut down their landscaping. we received notice of their plan to explain. expand the home the purpose of my email comments back in 2022 was to encourage them to take into account our concerns, requests and suggestions about the addition and to recognize that we are already living in close proximity. exacerbated by removal of that vegetation and that the addition will make us even closer. there was no reply to my march 5th 2022 emails until i saw the staff report to the planning commission the other day, and the appel applicants response suggesting that i thank you, sir. that time but you will have a two minute exhaust. i did. in rebuttal. i hope thank you very much. very good project sponsor. you have a five minute presentation.

hi and thank you for taking the time. um, the complaints that were listed for the discretionary review were access to natural light. privacy and design aesthetic. i'll start with design aesthetic. um our plans had hardy board on the plan, so i'm not sure why that was brought up as something that was going to be drastically different than what we already have. i submitted pictures of the rear of our building. it's not pretty to look at currently. um i think we're improving it, but that's i guess our opinion. i will. next move on to light. we are on the west of the discretionary review requesters. so without drawing a diagram of where the sun goes, it rises in the east. our roof line is not changing. there is no way that we are impacting natural light. as we are on their west. and as

for privacy. most of the complaints. have all cited liking to look in our yard, liking to look at our foliage. and i think i highlighted they see and know and here everything we do in our property. now if that was a concern for any neighbor. one would think they would plant their own trees. or perhaps come up with their own way of not looking into our yard. instead they're putting the onus on us to plant trees to block their view of our backyard. we made a 2.5 and 2.5 ft and eight inch setback for our neighbors so that they could maintain their view corridor, which is where. we would now be planting trees to block the view of our backyard for these discretionary review requesters. so we can please one neighbor by

cutting the corner of our building so that they have a view. and upset another neighbor by not planting trees, too. block their view. but we cannot please all the neighbors. i think cutting the building was a bigger give then. we had to do. we did that because we wanted them to maintain the view of downtown, which is what they have access to. that's why you don't see them here. filing a discretionary review. they're happy with the remodel. we have proposed. we are relatively new to the neighborhood. and. it does feel like this was a gang up of neighbors that have been in the neighborhood longer. and it is made for what i would say an awkward and not a pleasant have little experience. the

reason for us doing this edition . i think it's serendipitous based on what housing for all was presenting today. we're doing this so that my parents can move into unit bacon, walk and access. currently, they live in a victorian in san francisco that my dad grew up in. it has two sets of stairs to get to the main level and another set of stairs to get to the bedrooms. they cannot do it much longer. i don't want to have to put them in a home when we have the opportunity to house them with us, and they could watch our son grow up as they really want to. if we have to move them out of san francisco, they will not have that closeness. they will not have that experience that we were hoping for them. and so i'm not. our goal for the remodel was not just to build as big as possible. just because we can there's a goal for our family. we plan on living there forever, although now this does feel like we have enemies on all sides on

the back, but, um what we set out to do was make it so that our family could have a place to stay in san francisco. that's all i have. thank you. okay um, with that we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission. regarding this discretionary review matter. here in the chambers. please come forward. if you're calling in remotely you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. afternoon i appreciate your patience. i live it 14 42 willard, the so called ugly building, and i gotta admit it's an ugly building. it was built in 1926. and it's 4.5 stories tall and it's a big box on the back and i own a so i'm not running away from that. um, i've

been in discussion with, um the property owners and. um they have agreed. to take care of some of my other issues, the one that i'm most concerned about. i don't know if we can this whole show. because the scanner. go to you guys go to the overhead projector, please. there it goes. looking at the. overlap of the light well, um. the proposed stairway on the north side of the property and this this ground level on the three condos that are 14 42 willard street.

that is the overlap. you can see. can use the microphone serve. we can hear you better, sir. sir if you can speak into the microphone, then we can hear you. this is this is the existing overlap of the of the existing structure. this is the proposed landing at its at the halfway point of the stairway. and this is the, um and parapet wall for the stairs. that are the firewall and, um the owners have have agreed to try. and reduce that by putting open railing or something of that sort. my only concern is if the fire department steps in and says we can't do that, then what do we do? and so i don't know if that's something i don't know how to address that, and that's the only issue that i want to raise. and i appreciate your time. thank you that that is your type. um the commissioner's

request to see it later. um is there any other member of the public in the chambers wishing to comment. please come forward. thank you for your time. can i ask a question of mr winslow? um, maybe outside of my two minutes. we did submit a letter. i'm not sure that it got to you. um i gave it to one of the neighbors on woodland. and it had to do with a conversation i had with the art, the project architect. i'm john carlson. question and answer. answer john caldwell. by the way, anyway, the substance of my letter was simple, and it just said that i called the architect. and i noted that there was lap siding drawn. but not noted in the plans. and the concern, i think of all neighbors who will see this, which is many in the rear block. is that it? be lap

siding. it is a developer owner , and it's easy to see um, construction savings at some point in this project, putting up four by eight panels. that are visible to neighbors, but not to the owner. and when i spoke with the architect, i said, well, he said, it was a mistake. it should have been in the plans, but it's not. and i said, well, would you please write mr winslow the planner and tell him that's a mistake and put it in? he said. he would. i said, would you please he see me on that email. he said he would and i never received any correspondence. i have to assume that um, the architect did communicate with the owner and the owner has never reached out to me about my concern. we do see each other walking dogs in the neighborhood. so um, i hope that this promise will be kept. and i would request that the commission stipulate that it be

lap siding has drawn um and i think i heard my bill. thank you very much. well you have 13 seconds if you need it, okay? no you may not. your time is exhausted. we could score our remote collar. okay seeing no other members of the public in the chambers. let's go to r b boat collar. good afternoon. my name is john fair. i rise in support for the project sponsor. i am fortunate to have a young family that lives down the street to the south of the project sponsor at 15 12 willard street. i applaud the effort and interest in keeping the young, multigenerational family in san francisco. as a father who struggles to keep his own family in the city, the ford it to have a dynamic world class environment in which we could raise our children nearby young editor children who get to have an experience that i choose. i love this city. i agree with some of the earlier comment.

around this is a special neighborhood. being able to allow families like the project sponsor the sermon. to invest to bring their parents into their households to raise their young son, theodore. in this neighborhood of the special thing, i hope the commission realizes that and that they've gone beyond what is necessary to accommodate their neighbors. i think that for that. i hope you support their efforts. okay thank you. um, with that. your request your you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you. i'm sorry. there's acrimony and neighbors really should get along better. this whole thing is a shame. but when people don't respond to our request to me, it's difficult. and when we filed the d r request, they

immediately trapped down the pira kanther tree that the telegraph hill parrots land on, uh frequently in response, and that hurt, but what we're after is not to stop the project. we are trying to make sure that the continuity of the mid block open space continues. we all get to enjoy that greenbelt. and we were looking for reasonable conditions of approval that will sort of shield the structure will provide put back in the landscaping that they've taken out and make sure about privacy . maybe moving the deck fencing back slightly that the deck railing the applicants are developers. at least that's my information there from a family of construction people, so they know the rules. uh and i think that they are pushing them as far as they can. there is a way to get that second unit in there and let the parents live there comfortably, but also make sure that it doesn't harm the neighbors as much. ah we understand about aws. we think

they're important. also wonder will the a d you be subject to the rent stabilization ordinance , rent requirements and registration requirements. just curious about that. my unit has my building has two units. i understand that and i put an 80 you in another property elsewhere in the city, so i do understand it's important. i hope we can work with these people. thank you very much. and thanks for your time. very good project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. um. i don't know where the developer came in my husband's family physician, the microphone a little closer, the uk thank you. thank you, uh , sermon construction has been in san francisco for 30. plus years. it just so happens that i'm married to one of the sons. um we're not a developer who's developing selling and flipping houses. we plan on living here.

otherwise, i think we would have given up this fight and called it quits by now. um and just because i want to clarify i'm looking at the plans that went out to everyone. and it does show, citing. that everyone's requesting we specifically put in. you can have the overhead sf go. thank you. thanks, ma'am. so as far as i know, that is the requested, citing that has been asked for is a stipulation, but we've already cited that as what we were using, so i don't know why this is an ongoing issue. that's all i have. thank you. thank you. okay, commissioners with that this matter is now before you make a similar comment to the previous case. i hope that you all can get along

and live chemically next to each other. i don't see any code issues or any unique or extenuating circumstances with this project. commissioner more . i would agree there is nothing except on extraordinary except i think missing come communication lost in lost in. translation. uh, this is, by the way, not unaided. use this project, according to what my case, report says is the addition of a second unit. so it falls under slightly different rules and the one the d r applicant force, quoting as far as the question regarding the missing note on lap siding. that is an accurate comment that communication was received by commissioners. i made a note to you, and we will be iterated that particular stipulation in our, uh. oh approval motion, and, uh, i personally do not see anything

exceptional, extraordinary, and i actually moved to a book second stipulation that the lab side in common as being, uh, repeated. and i commend the applicant of at least having worked it out with one of the neighbors and even that is an unusual request because views to downtown or whatever are not protected by any code provisions other than public. the accepted, uh. common view corridors. but thank you for achieving that particular settlement. commissioner more if you want to include a condition of lap siding. you would need to take d r um, i would, with four to some architect winslow. i think that did want to note in the drawing. it's a drawing common, uh, tiding is drawn. however, the notice missing. yeah so if i could clarify that, i think what happened is there's a 3 11 set

of plans that go out that's abbreviated. in other words, it shows the elevations. plans doesn't show necessarily legend that elevation has a note or a symbol for a note that probably goes to the sheet of drawings that have a legend of materials that was not sent out to the public. so but we will ensure that we're in. you know, we understand that it's lap siding in our final approval on the site permit will sign off on it contingent upon it being properly noted that it's exciting and hardy board is not even an option anyway, so this would be my comment here in in what sense? there is hardly boards that simulates horizontal siding. but even that is of inferior quality, mostly some people. okay, so if you want to question no, no, she's just being a comment. commissioner you're suggesting that address your concern for your motion that it was my concerns for the motion. mr mr winston will be responsible for shep. oh, and that's er very good then. is

there a 2nd 2nd and that thank you, commissioner koppel on that motion, then to not take dear and approve the project as proposed. um, commissioner braun high commissioner diamond imperial couple commissioner more commission president tanner . commissioners at motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing. everyone get out. enjoy some sunshine and go warriors. so i'd rather see this happened.

[music] digital literacy is something severely lacking in our world today and it takes a lot to understand that. food water and shelter have basic necessities so long we

forget about wifi and connection to the interenet and when you go into communities and realize peep ople are not able to load homework and talk to teachers and out of touch with the world. by providing the network and system we are able to allow them to keep up in the modern age. >> folks still were not served by internet throughout the city and tended to be low income people, people in affordable housing. people of color and limited english and seniors, all those are high concentrations in affordable housing, so we thought given that we had a fiber network that stretched throughout the city reaching deep into neighborhoods that would be a perfect opportunity to address it in san francisco. >> the infrastructure the city and star help us run are dejtle programs. it played a critical role from the time we opened during covid till now

so we were able to collaborate with online services that offer tutoring and school support. it also helped us be able to log the kids on for online school during covid, in addition to like, now that everybody has switched most of their curriculum online we can log kids on to the online homework, check grades in addition to helping parent learn how to use the school system portm >> the office of digital equity our goal fiber to housing is insure we have all three legs of the 3 legged stool. the first leg is high quality internet connection. we liken the high quality internet connection to the highway. the second leg is high quality devices. this is the car. you want to make sure the specks on the car is up to speed

and lastly, it is important to get kind of that driver's education to learn how to navigate the road, to know the signs to watch out for in terms of making sure you are school while you are surfing the internet it is private so that is the digital literacy piece. >> my daily life i need the internet just to do pretty much everything. the internet has taken so much control over people's daily lives including myself that i just need it to get certain jobs done, i need it for my life. i need it. >> the program really seeks to where ever possible provide a service that's equivalent or higher speed and quality as the best commercial service . >> we serve all of san francisco, but we definitely have to be equitable in our distribution of services. that means everybody gets what they need to be successful. >> actually one of the

most gratifying part of my work here at department of technology, it is really bringing city resources to address problems faced with our communities with the highest need. >> i think it is important because i grew up in a low income community without internet access and it is hard. i think it is important for everyone to have internet access no matter their income and maybe one day their kid will have internet access for us and help the school and with their skills.

>> what we're trying to approach is bringing more diversity to our food. it's not just the old european style food. we are seeing a lot of influences, and all of this is because of our students. all we ask is make it flavorful. [♪♪♪] >> we are the first two-year culinary hospitality school in the united states. the first year was 1936, and it was started by two graduates from cornell. i'm a graduate of this program, and very proud of that. so students can expect to learn under the three degrees.

culinary arts management degree, food service management degree, and hotel management degree. we're not a cooking school. even though we're not teaching you how to cook, we're teaching you how to manage, how to supervise employees, how to manage a hotel, and plus you're getting an associate of science degree. >> my name is vince, and i'm a faculty member of the hospitality arts and culinary school here in san francisco. this is my 11th year. the program is very, very rich in what this industry demands. cooking, health, safety, and sanitation issues are included in it. it's quite a complete program to prepare them for what's happening out in the real

world. >> the first time i heard about this program, i was working in a restaurant, and the sous chef had graduated from this program. he was very young to be a sous chef, and i want to be like him, basically, in the future. this program, it's awesome. >> it's another world when you're here. it's another world. you get to be who you are, a person get to be who they are. you get to explore different things, and then, you get to explore and they encourage you to bring your background to the kitchen, too. >> i've been in the program for about a year. two-year program, and i'm about halfway through. before, i was studying behavioral genetics and dance. i had few injuries, and i couldn't pursue the things that i needed to to dance, so i

pursued my other passion, cooking. when i stopped dance, i was deprived of my creative outlet, and cooking has been that for me, specifically pastry. >> the good thing is we have students everywhere from places like the ritz to -- >> we have kids from every area. >> facebook and google. >> kids from everywhere. >> they are all over the bay area, and they're thriving. >> my name is jeff, and i'm a coowner of nopa restaurant, nopalito restaurant in san francisco. i attended city college of san francisco, the culinary arts program, where it was called hotel and restaurant back then in the early 90's.

nopalito on broderick street, it's based on no specific region in mexico. all our masa is hand made. we cook our own corn in house. everything is pretty much hand made on a daily basis, so day and night, we're making hand made tortillas, carnitas, salsas. a lot of love put into this. [♪♪♪] >> used to be very easy to define casual dining, fine dining, quick service. now, it's shades of gray, and we're trying to define that experience through that spectrum of service. fine dining calls into white table cloths. the cafeteria is large production kitchen,

understanding vast production kitchens, the googles and the facebooks of the world that have those types of kitchens. and the ideas that change every year, again, it's the notion and the venue. >> one of the things i love about vince is one of our outlets is a concept restaurant, and he changes the concept every year to show students how to do a startup restaurant. it's been a pizzeria, a taco bar. it's been a mediterranean bar, it's been a noodle bar. people choose ccsf over other hospitality programs because the industry recognizes that we instill the work ethic. we, again, serve breakfast,

lunch, and dinner. other culinary hospitality programs may open two days a week for breakfast service. we're open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner five days a week. >> the menu's always interesting. they change it every semester, maybe more. there's always a good variety of foods. the preparation is always beautiful. the students are really sincere, and they work so hard here, and they're so proud of their work. >> i've had people coming in to town, and i, like, bring them here for a special treat, so it's more, like, not so much every day, but as often as i can for a special treat. >> when i have my interns in their final semester of the program go out in the industry, 80 to 90% of the students get hired in the industry, well above the industry average in

the culinary program. >> we do have internals continually coming into our restaurants from city college of san francisco, and most of the time that people doing internships with us realize this is what they want to do for a living. we hired many interns into employees from our restaurants. my partner is also a graduate of city college. >> so my goal is actually to travel and try to do some pastry in maybe italy or france, along those lines. i actually have developed a few connections through this program in italy, which i am excited to support. >> i'm thinking about going to go work on a cruise ship for about two, three year so i can save some money and then

hopefully venture out on my own. >> yeah, i want to go back to china. i want to bring something that i learned here, the french cooking, the western system, back to china. >> so we want them to have a full toolkit. we're trying to make them ready for the world out there.

>> to the meeting by dialing 415-655-0001 and meeting id access code: 2594 108 8277 ##1234. ensure you in a quiet location. speak clearly and turn off background sounds. wait for the item you would like to be called. press star 3 to be added. the system will notify you when you are in line. callers hear silence and waiting. operators will unmute you when prompts callers have the 3 minutes to provide comments. you may