>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday june 1, 2023. to enable public participation sf gov tv is broadcasting live. each speaker will be allowed uch to three minutes is and you will hear a xhime indicating your time is all most up. when your time is reached, i will announce your time is up. we will take comment from persons in city hall first and then open up the remote access lines. for those

persons calling into submit testimony you need to call 415-655-0001, and enter access code 25971480687 and press pound twice. you should be able to listen to the hearing live at this point. please wait for the item you are interested in speaking to and public comment to be announced. enter star 3 to raise your hand and once you are raised your hand you will hear a prompt you raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. when you hear you are unmuted,b that is your indication to begin speaking. those joining webex, log in the link on the agenda and enter password cpc2023 and use the raise hand icon to ask a question. best practice is call from a quite location and mute the volume on

your television or computer. for those persons attending in city hall, 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. i'll ask we silence mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. i would now like to take roll. commission president tanner, here. moore, here. commissioner braun, here. diamond, here. imperial, here. koppel, here. first on the agenda is consideration for continuance. 2018-00 # 9733, 29 # osan bruno proposed for continuance june 15, 2023. under your discretionary review calendar item 12, for

case 2022-007953drp, for the property at 222 jersey street, discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on items proposed to be continued as well as the one which has been withdrawn. >> (indiscernible) of the residential flat policy. this is one in washington had a few months ago and had the dr withdrawn where the plat was consigned to the garage level with narrow hallway and are i just wonder if the residential flat policy is being complied with, because these two projects especially thisgerousy jersey one don't seem they comply with the residential flat policy team to be. i'll leave it at that. thank you very much. too bad

you can't see them, because you can't make a decision on them. thank you. >> last call for public comment on the continuance calendar? let's go to remote callers. >> i was not- (indiscernible) thank you. >> public comment is closed and it is now before you. >> thank you. motion on the continuance calendar? commissioner braun. >> move to continue item 1. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to continue item 1 as proposed, commissioner braun aye. diamond, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. tanner, aye. so moved.

placing under consent for items 2 and 3 property at 1550 mission street conditional use authorization and for the property at 3998 18th street conditional use authorization. members of the public and commissioners this is your opportunity to request that either of these two items be removed from consent calendar and heard today or at a later date. if in the chambers come forward. remotely, star 3. seeing no members in the chambers requesting to speak, lelts polk go to our remote caller. >> this is sue hester, request 1550 mission street be put on

for discussion. thank you. >> very good. >> at the end. >> at the end of the agenda. very good. 15 50 mission street will will be pulled off consent and heard at the end of the agenda. last call for request to remove items off consent. seeing none, commissioners, item 2 is removed from consent calendar, item 3 remains for your consideration on consent. >> thank you. any motions on the consent calendar? commissioner imperial. >> move to approve item 3. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to approve item 3 on consent- [roll call] so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. again, item 2 will be considered at the end of the agenda.

land acknowledgment. >> we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> item 5, commission comments and questions. >> any comments commissioners? quite today. okay. i guess we are all set. >> seeing none, department matters. item 6, directors announcements. >> good afternoon. just want to mention if you didn't see the paper, sarah

dennis phillips who was with the planning department and then economic development and you have seen her here representing tishman and projects rejoined the city as head of economic development so excited to have her back in the city and sure she'll be here to talk with us about efforts, especially downtown, which i know will be one of her priorities leading the department. just wanted to make you aware of that. the mayor introduced the budget yesterday and we will have hearings the week of the 12 so look at the budget for the next 2 weeks and adopt by the ends of the month so will keep posted on changes to the budget. >> did remind me of one thing i wanted to say which is complement the staff and all those who participated in the advisory service panel. myself, commissioner diamond and vice president moore got to go to the presentation and fantastic so looking forward to finalizing the report

and i know we won't have all the guest speakers here but some hope can join remotely. top notch. exciting is half the panelist were local folks so they are able to keep the knowledge and understanding they gain from partners from philadelphia, los angeles, we had manhattan and detroit. other cities, seattle and new orleans and folks bring knowledge from cities even though they work in a specific city in their career so fantastic and looking forward having shared broadly with the commission and all those who interviewed. >> just to follow up the reports is due in august but hopefully can have a hearing on the recommendation prior to that. >> that would be fantastic. commissioner moore. >> the eloquence of the panelists was so amazing that i would like to see that the commission as well as the board of supervisors see the

video reporting of those comments. it was hardly any way to transcribe or replicate how these people spoke and the depth of knowledges they brought to the table. that is all most impossible to capture and everybody would love to see it and have first hand witness of that. thank you. >> definitely second that. >> item 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors board of appeals and historic ic preservation. there are no reports. i note robert vurgaras was confirmed and sworn in to place commissioner johns on the historic preservation commission, so his first hearing may be the joint next week. general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commissions on items

within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission with respect to agenda items, you opportunities to address the commission in the meeting. each member may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> eileen bokeen speaking on my own behalf. as part of the 10 year capital plan, the office of capital-resilience and capital planning commission studied by fm3. the survey results showed that 64 percent of respondents state #d the city is going in the wrong direction. as part of the yearly city poll, the chamber of commerce survey conducted by emc research. the result of the survey result showed 76 percent of respondents stated that the city is going in the

wrong direction. whether 64 percent or 76 percent, majority stated the city going in the wrong direction. at the capital planning committee on april 24, i made a general statement that no city department should assume that it has credibility. i also asked general question, do city departments believe their most important customers are themselves? the city had the opportunity to appeal its rhna cycle numbers 6 numbers to abag but did not. the planning department has never officially explained why it didn't appeal the rhna allocation to abag. lack of transparency can lead to lack of credibility. it is my understanding that the housing element proposes to eliminate unnecessary meetings. the planning department has not officially explained who made this decision what process was used and what definition or criteria used. again, a lack of transparency can lead to

lack of credibility. in 2018, abag and mpc convened the cost of compact to address bay area housing needs. during the meeting one of the compact members stated on the record that the problem is too much democracy. the housing element is the planning department's message that agrees the problem is too much democracy. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we are engaged with a number of housing elements across the entire region. we've identified about 15 cities where we are working hand in hand with hcd and actual city themselves to insure compliance and also

putting ourselves in a position where if the city isn't following through with what they are supposed to be doing or not enforce state housing law we prepared and you can believe when i say this, excited to litigate to insure cities around the region are building their fair share of housing because this isn't just about san francisco and i know that often times we make policy decisions and understandably so, you serve the people of san francisco in a vacuum. certainly when we got planning commissioners who pay attention to things in other cities and you start to see this holisticly and locking arms and will jump together. so much of the housing conversation is we assume the future is worse then the past and unable to learn from mistakes of the past and put ourselves in a better position in the future to make better decisions that actually impact all people. the planning process in the country

as you all very very well known has hurt a lot of people and we made significant mistakes, and we are now at a moment in time where i feel fortunate to be involved doing the work. there will be more ministerial approval of housing in the future so you all get the opportunity to weigh in on what those rules will be. how do we avoid mistakes of the future and if san francisco does what they are supposed to be doing and oakland does what they are supposed to be doing and everywhere else, we can build our way out of this mess. it will take a long time. it is quite frankly going to skip my generation entirely. we will get boxed out of that opportunity and that is the realty of it, knut but we can do better for future generations and think that is whyb everybody i assume is up here because you have seen the past and know it hasn't worked but we think perhaps

the future might be better and if we can actually put solid guardrails around things and move things forward, that future that is better can become realty. my grandfather always used to say, i don't knowhy people opine about the good old day s. i was there for the good old days. we had out-houses. the world is better place then it hads ever been and need to keep pushing to insure it will continue to get better. the rhna numbers are a part of that, there is a lot of challenges there and really excited there will be a opportunity for middle income housing. i think that will hopefully take hold and make a difference so appreciate the time. thank you. >> good afternoon, georgia shootish. just to spin off with the residential flat policy, those two buildings mentioned jersey and the one on washington you didn't see the

dr for, those were two decent flats and now consigned to the garage with a hallway basically. my point i was trying to make and i'll spin off what mr. smith just said is, if you do ministerial stuff, please make sure the flat policy preserving housing middle income housing potentially rental housing is saved. what i was going to say--unlike the info on the sanchez street project and sent for the may 25 general public comment, project that should have been demolished not approvedads alteration creating a monster home, the info on the chavez street project was about a sound building that could have been preserved and denseifyed without demolished. it had a tradesman entrance. thrfs a huge amount of existing sound housing like this, some of which may already have a udu

with egress that allow a livable viable second unit if you worry about a garage you keep the space and don't get rid of the curb cut and let someone park there because they can park there anyway and don't have to pay. that is a side issue because everyone says you need a garage. there is a way to keep the space if someone wants a car. as for both projects they are screwy demo calcs. both are on the market again which is true for many of the extreme alterations. they pop back up on the market within a few years and it seems it is really unstable housing that has turnover and are another couple million dollars more. there are many opportunities to add a unit to increase density and existing sound housing without demolition or alteration that really is a demolition. adjusting the demo

calcs as the planning commission has the legislative authority to do could incent vise that. thank you and here is my 150 words for the minutes. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. (indiscernible) san francisco land youth coalition. i like to draw your attention to a subject that hardly comes up in the planning discussions and that is displacement of tenants resulting from demolition or rent eviction. no, i'm not talking single family home, i'm strictly talking about homes that are multi-units because they come with adu or even udu. for the most part the public doesn't know but you probably do know that demolition of such buildings falls under the sb330 provisions for rent

controlled units. as you know, sb330 provides the right of return for the tenants and deed restrictions on replacementm units to make them affordable. based on of course the previous tenants income and that brings us to my question. how is the department planning insuring these provisions are enacted properly? while we can rely on our new rental registry and the rent board to figure where tenants are and how much their rents are, we have no way of knowing their incomes. so, sb330 is going to educate these issues, the demolition of not single family homes, but single family homes that come with adu or udu and fall under the provisions of rent control, so if we rely on sb330 educating the demolition of these units,

we want to know how the department is planning on figuring out this data. as i said, the rental registry is not going to cut it. the developers onlie about the condition of existing buildings they attempt to demol ish. knowing it is perfectly legal to demolish a single family home in this town, they often pass a multifamily building as a single family with no history of tenants. i argued two such cases before you recently and you may recall that thanks to the public vigilance, the developers were forced to abide by the sb330 provisions in both cases. so, back to my question, how is the department planning on very fine developers claims on the applications? great question for director hillis.

who is supposed to notify past tenants of the right to return to the replacement units and how is the past tenants incomes verify ied in order to set the new rent and replacement units? thank you. >> seeing no additionals of the public in the chambers, let's go to our remote caller. >> hello. my name is francisco decosta, and i want to talk to you about the housing element. we need a plan how you going to come up with a 82,000 units in 8 years. we need some

sense how you are going to address 1/3 of the commercial space in the financial district that is unoccupied. and when i talked to you all sometimes, i mention quality of life issues. today (indiscernible) full of drugs, drug addicts, they are not safe and i want to know you members of the planning commission how you going to address quality of life issues, really. finally, i want you to read the general management plan and see for

yourselves what the malone tribe and the significance and the acknowledgment of the tribe. (indiscernible) . if you cannot honor the host tribe that was incorporated into your general management plan, and you thought about another tribe, it is on you. it isn't for me to educate you and the other speakers have spoken, you are not educated on issues. you are so pompous that you bully people and talk in terms that

(indiscernible) we do not believe in the autocratic type of place like some other countries. thank you very much. >> okay, last call-we have one more. >> i'm sorry, i'm for item 8. i apologize. >> are last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda? again, if calling remotely, press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. seeing no additional request to speak, general public comment is closed and can move to the regular calendar for item 8. family housing opportunity special use district design controls and review procedures. this is a planning code and zoning map amendment. >> good afternoon. veronica flores, planning department

staff. again, the item before you is the family housing opportunity special use district. it is sponsored by supervisor melgar who i'll invite shortly to introduce the ordinance. we are also joined by supervisor engardio who wanted to speak today and give a brief overview of some forthcoming proposed amendments. that will appear formally in front of you at a later date, but jean again, just a preview today. with that, i'll invite supervisor melgar. >> welcome. thank you for being here. >> thank you. thank you so much for having me. thank you for hearing this item. i wanted to start out by thanking veronica flores and aaron star profusely for working with me on this legislation. it was a very iterative process and they provided really invaluable insight and what if's and technical assistance while we were writing it so thank you so

much. you guys are rock stars. i want to thank my colleagues supervisor engardio for being here and supporting and also helping quite a bit with what eventually will go forward to all of my colleagues at the full board. i just wanted to explain to you how this came about. we wanted to in my office address the specific housing needs of the west side. i think when we talk about housing element and our housing crisis, we sometimes talk about it as the city as a whole, and you know, yes, we have acute housing needs for the city, but i think the west side has a unique housing needs and also a unique history. there is a reason why most of the west side is zoned for single family housing, and how red lining and history of financing

and development in this country lead to what we have today and patterns we have today. it also has created certain conditions unintended consequences so district 7, one of the things that has happened is housing prices have gone up increasesly. forty years ago it lfs possible for a teacher, a nurse, people who were middle class to get and buy one of these houses. today it is not possible. communities that have grown up and that are cohesive with a idea identity and sense of community are now increasesly mismatched with how the housing stock that is available. the other issue is that people wanted to live a certain way 40 years ago with a big single family home with 3, 4 bedrooms, a big yard in the front, yard in the back and increasingly younger generations don't really want

to maintain that yard and would be closer to transit and lower carnen footprint so there is also a generational mismatch. the third problem that we have is that we have a large population of folks who are older and kids moved out 20 years ago and have 4 bedrooms and are it is just them, but their tax base is low and they are on a fix ed income and they are stuck because if they want to stay in the communities they love and they are part of near their church, near their folks that they are used to, there is really no where to downsize. there are very few apartments or senior housing on the west side. they would have to move to a new community so we were trying to address multiple things. part of what we were trying to do is impediment to housing production we know very well that are in the housing element. part of it also deal with unique needs we see on the

west side. we started out with what i thought was a really good idea, which was demisty white paper with a lot of design and lot of things that needed to be you know, put into the code. part of it is the single family nature of the west side, so we wanted to add density within the parameters of what we have, and also show some of those good ideas like lot merger squl increase in density. what you have before us is that attempt for my office. we have worked with many of our constituents on the west side to take care of their concerns and address some of their worries. of course it doesn't address everyone because not everyone wants to see density and there are folks who want to see quite a bit more density, so this is our first attempt to sort of address all of those

issues. i think it is balanced. i think it is nuanced. we have thought through a bunch of stuff like you know, rent control, like demolition, like mergers, like all of those things, and so again i want to thank veronica flores and the city attorney julia who also was just a rock star in doing all this with us. so, i wanted to invite supervisor engardio to come up and say a few words in the hopes he can explain what he wants to contribute to this and not have it come back and be rereferred after it goes to land use, but also i wasn't here last week because i was out of the country and i wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you for hearing the (indiscernible) issue last week. i watched it on tv, but couldn't be here with you. if i had been here i would have, but i wanted to thank you for your thoughtfulness and deliberation, i so

appreciate you always. with that, president tanner, if okay i'll turn it over to colleague supervisor engardio. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm here today because i support supervisor melgar's legislation. her proposal is a important step creating more housing on the west side and neighborhoods throughout the city. a century ago beautiful 5 and 6 story apartment buildings from the art deco era were commonly built and see along west portal, hayes and (indiscernible) built multifamily housing until the 1970 but we implemented zoning laws. supervisor melgar and i share a common vision where the west side neighborhoods can add housing for seniors, young adults and new families and there is a opportunity to let supervisor melgar's legislation include more housing on corner lots. i believe the survival

of our city and our environment depends on embracing the 6 story building like we built hundred years ago. back to the future to fix our housing crisis. here is why we have a crisis, people want to stay close to their families. when the average home price around $1.5 million is difficult to buy a home here so that means multi-generational families with adult children and grandkids can't easily find housing opportunities in the same neighborhood. we are facing the missing middle. san francisco housing stock for families is severely constrained. today renters and owners who were fortunate to find housing have no options to relocate when they have kids or when they need more space or they have different needs. our elders cannot age in place. when it becomes too difficult to navigate the stairs or maintain a large home, seniors lack options to

down-size within their neighborhood. they have no where to are locate with a elevator without leaving their neighborhood or san francisco. the 6 story building is essential to concept called domisty, dime siles in the city. ideal for san francisco west side neighborhood so picture active ground floor community spaces, a market, senior center, child care, and above that 5 stories of residential units. on corner lots a domistty project could secure additional height bonuses beyond what current height and bulk zoning allows and increase housing unit density. on a one lot corner project we could have two additional units constructed with added height bonus for two lot corner project. four units. for a three lot merger, six additional units. all these new residents would enjoy amenities on the ground floor and existing residents

mid-block which would not be effected by the height increase enjoy the amenities as well. this would create foot traffic, it would literally how the customers that sustain our neighborhood small businesses. i like to points to gus's market, noriega and are 44 as a model for what i'm talking about and never hear anyone in the sunset object to that building and we can do more like gus's market and aim for up to 6 stories. neither supervisor melgar's legislation or the amendments i intend to introduce, we don't intend or want to replace all single family homes. these proposals are not going to force anyone to redwelt development their homes. west side areas like the sunset are always majority single family homes but we also need to offer options that don't exist. just think of this, if only 5 percent of sunset homes were converted to domisty, we create 6 thousand new housing units.

these are much needed both for the middle income families and seniors who want to age in place and stay in the neighborhoods they love. the family housing opportunity act will move the city in the right direction. i know that the demand is there. people want this. i had a resident write to me offering his residents as a opportunity site. i had several ort sunset seniors write to me saying i want to live in one of those, please build it. this brings me hope that san franciscans are willing to create housing opportunities for new residents if we the policy makers give them the right tools. commissioners, requesting your support for my colleagues legislation. i believe it provides a robust foundation to unlock new housing across the west side and i hope to have your support to take my colleagues legislation a step further when i offer some amendments. i appreciate your consideration of these general ideas. if you have any questions you can contact jonathan goldburg of my staff.

>> i want to make sure i captured what the amendments are so we can discuss them today during the deliberation. i got the note-the one i was able to capture was additional height bonus for corner lots which would be two additional units and how much additional height would be allowed for the lots? >> the amendments are currentsly drafted through the city attorney office, so am i allowed to-maybe jonathan- >> i think in order to talk about them-not that i want to come back, but we have to talk about them today. >> the concept is for domisty to work it has to be 6 stories. on the transit corridor i think that is fine, but we want the corner lots anchoring a neighborhood. my amendment would say on the corner lot only we go up to 65 feet so we could have 6 stories, and the merging will be the definition of a corner. if two residents the corn er lot and the house

nextdoor said we want to be in on this, then the corner lot would become those two units-two lot merger up to three lot merger. >> as they add lots they have the height bonus of 65 and additional two units for each lot- >> that's right. exactly. i have one other amendment, because i really want to focus on senior housing, because the whole point. people want to downside and have a elevator building in the neighborhood. for the corner lot only i like to make sure all the units could be one bedroom because that would be ideal for senior housing. and just more efficient to design something all one style. >> great. excellent. thank you very much. really appreciate that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore, did you have a question you want to ask now? sorry, supervisor engardio, if you can come back. >> thank you for joining us today and saying thank you for introducing your self-for the first time. i have a

question. have you had a opportunity to discuss this particular building type of 6 stories with builders and building economists, because 6 stories require elevators, which is indeed an added cost which most builders do not like. >> yes, so this concept domisty, the housing action coalition i think executive director spoke at public comment has been actively involved in this with developers. it is a popular idea. people like it, they want to do it. even heather knight is i are think going to do a big article about it in the sun day chronicle so there is a lot of interest and been talked about a while. >> i appreciate the height myself saying it doesn't pencil out and i'm afraid if a good project of that height comes forward, somebody will still tell us this doesn't pencil out and need additional 2 or 3 stories which

undermines the idea of keeping densification as a gradual level in outlying neighborhoods. >> right, but i think it is important-now we have nothing so i think if we say let's go to 65, this gives us the opportunity to do it, which is better then nothing, but agrew agree we don't want to go above that or midblock. we want these to be anchor units. if you live in a single family home midblock you benefit what is on the ground floor and amenity so win, win for everybody. >> i want to ask while you are here and supervisor melgar, if you plan to stay for the presentation so we have question frz the two of you so can do those now or are you able to stay? >> i have another meeting. >> commissioners if you have questions for supervisors we'll do some now and go to the presentation. sorry veronica. i see commissioner diamond has a question. >> thank you. nice

to meet you and thank you for coming to present your amendments. i'm intrigued by the idea of the corning buildings going higher. i believe from a urban design perspective it provides nice book ends and not inconsistent with the pattern on the west side in certain areas so my only question has to do with whether or not your project with 6 stories would then be eligible for a state density bonus that would take it higher and maybe that's a question for staff and the city attorney's office because while i'm supportive of 6 stories, i would not be supportive of 9 stories and the waver of requirements or granting of concessions that come with state density bonus. >> it depends how it is (indiscernible) if the supervisor could write it in a way that does not allow for state density

bonus in addition to the 6 units and think that's the intent. >> that's my intent. it isn't to go to 9. it work s for the neighborhood. we have nothing now but 6 is fantastic. >> we have to be careful because if the overlay of state law we are not unintentionally moving in a direction that provides something we didn't think we were approving at the time. thank you. >> thank you very much. i don't see commissioner lights. i think veronica, it is your show and we'll turn it over back to you. thank you again. >> thank you supervisors melgar and engardio. can i request sfgovtv to share the slides for the presentation? while that is pulled up, i also

want to clarify that unfortunately we don't have the final language for the proposed amendments so we do need to come back, staff needs to analyze and it complete ceqa review for the proposed amendments, particularly with the increased height limit to 65, so we will be returning with that, but it was a good approach we had a preview and see how these two work collectively. i'll just jump right in and start off with sharing the proposed boundaries for the family housing opportunity special use district. these were generally following the well resourced neighborhoods outlined in the housing element update, and the primary goal of the sud include to increase housing density within these well resourced neighborhoods and increase is increase compared to

the base density and the results will be density limit exception similar to what we have currentsly in place under the 4 plex programs. the sud eliminate procedure barriers for qualifying housing projects. it will exempt projects from certain development controls such as, high limit exceptions and reduced required rear yards, and additionally, this will subject units above the base density to a rent control. so, looking at the eligibility criterion, this is a long list on the screen here, but i just want to also describe the type of projects we will be seeing under this sud. we will see single lot development projects between 2 to 4 units on a single lot and this includes any existing dwelling units on the site. for our projects proposing 4 units, the 4th unit would need to be required as a

separate detached unit in the rear yard but fewer then 4 units may have up to only one detached unit in the rear yard. we'll also be seeing lot merger development projects where applicant would be able to merge up to three lots within the rh1 districts. this include rh1d, rh1s and those projects the projects need to construct at least 6 but no more then 8 units on a 2 lot merger or at least 9 units but no more then 12 on 3 lot merger. also, we'll see group housing development projects which permit up to one group housing bedroom for every 415 square feet of lot area or whatever is currently permitted under planning code today, whichever is greater. again, there is a few or a list here the eligibility criterion and just highlight a few

projects we'll need to propose more dwelling units then which currently exists at the property. at least two of the dwelling units need 2 or more bedrooms and the projects also need to comply with the senate bill 330 unit replacement requirements for protected units. so, what will these projects get? what are the benefits? in terms of streamline the benefits they are not subject to any conditional use authorization. this includes 317, the demolition conditional use authorizations. they also will not be subject to neighborhood notification or any public initiated discretionary reviews per section 311. i just included here a few of the primary development control exempttions outside of the increased density so there is a few others but these

are the big ones. there will be an increased height limit up to 40 feet and this also eliminates the required sun plain at the front of the property. the back isn't being changed through this sud. we also have reduced rear yard requirement of 30 percent here and then lastly, there are open space reduction requirements pending on the number of and the configuration of units proposed in the project. the department supports the proposed ordinance as increases housing production, eliminates procedural barriers for applicants and we believe that the ordinance could meet the goals with a few modifications. i'll go through the list here for you today. the first

recommended modification is to also incorporate the rm1 zoning districts within the eligibility criterion for the proposed sud. rm1 zoning permit up to three units on the lot and they are adjacent to rh district so recommendation is include rm1 so the zoning is not less dense then what is allowed under this proposed density limit exception. number two is to amend the density exception limits. the recommended modification allow a greater density exception as of right in case of large parcels. so, i just included one example of a large single lot project that shows they are permitted density up

to 7 units under this recommended modification instead of just the 4. this is modeled after the current conditional use authorization requirements for rh3 zoning districts which allow up to one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area. moving to number three, the recommendation is to eliminate the reference to the residential design guidelines. they would be reviewed but really moving away from the subject design guidelines and if we are not removing the reference we at least want to replace it with adopted objective design standards. staff currently is working on the objective design standard in conjunction with the rezoning for the housing element implementation efforts so collect ivly that will expedite review of

houdsing projects as well. number four is to eliminate the one year ownership requirement. this ownership requirement was originally included in the 4 plex program to discourage speculative projects, however it is not clear this really stops speculative projects or developments or the city should discourage people from investing in the housing construction based how long someone actually owns the property. number five is related to the massing under the single lot density exception. curnltly the draft ordinance allows for a four unit development on a single lot if one of those is located in a rear yard unit. this was-my understanding this was included out of concern of triggering any elevator requirements and any

associated elevator pent-houses, however two units or three unit buildings could also include elevator pent-houses so that is not going to be a end-all we have this configuration listed as such. also, buildings would have to propose-accessible unit can have that located on the ground floor so that means they do not necessarily result in an elevator pent-house, it is just depending on the proposed project at hand and lastly on this recommendation, allowing 4 units at the front of the property for within the primary structure could also be in better keeping with the neighborhood's current development pattern. so, number six, requiring at least two units to have two or more bedrooms makes sense

for the single lot project context and the recommendation here is to expand this requirement in the lot merger scenarios, which these will onyield larger projects. you see the recommendation increases the requirements for the three lot merger projects and also provides an option to comply with this requirement by providing at least one or two three bedroom units depending on the number of lots merged. number seven is to expand the eligibility criterion for the su durks sud. no more then two rent controlled units are being demolished and the 2nd, unit to be demolished are not tenant occupied and have not had a no fault eviction within the past 5 years. currently the legislation prohibits

projects with no fault eviction on the property from going through the condo conversion process, so this recommendation also expands on these protections. and for the last recommended modification, this is really just looking at clerical changes outlined in the staff report starting on page 13 and these were meant to clarify or sometimes correct the language in the draft ordinance. it isn't to change intent of the ordinance at all. for example, all of the references or phrases stating group housing unit should be corrected to group housing bedroom. again, these are clerical changes for this recommended modification. and i understand supervisor melgar is in support of recommendations, 2, 5, 6 and 8.

not in support of recommendations 3 and 4 related to eliminating the reference to residential design guidelines or the one year ownership prior ownership requirement, and did not receive conformation on whether in support of recommendations 1 and 7 or not. she did share earlier some of the out-rage particularly on the west side of the committee and all the community efforts there, and i also just want to highlight after the packets were published you received one public comment regarding the ordinance. there was a question on preapplication. those would not be required for projects under this sud since there is no 311 under the proposed ordinance, but those projects would still be appealable or the opportunity to appeal those should the board of appeals once the building permit is issued. that public comment

also was looking for longer ownership requirements and also requested that the forthcoming ordinance relate to increasing density along the commercial corridor be heard prior to taking action on this ordinance today. and one last thing, again want to emphasize the action in front of you is to approve modification, the ordinance as introduced by supervisor melgar, and then unfortunately we have to come back at a later date to review, discuss and take action on the proposed amendments from supervisor engardio. this concludes staff presentation and available for any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment, correct? >> i don't know if commissioner moore-

>> did you have a question? >> i assume my questions will just follow what you presented and i'm delighted to see supervisor melgar here because i would like her directly to respond to some of the suggestions made. it is very hard to follow item 1, 2, 3, 45. i like to ask you in particular regarding eligibility criteria with projects in rm1 zoning. (indiscernible) has a lot to do with districts directly adjoining well resourced neighborhoods. where are the rm districts referenced here and do they follow your well resourced neighborhood boundary description? >> as i understand it would only apply to rm within the sud, not outside the sud, so i-that's how i

understood the modification. just let me clarify that i like what staff has proposed with the exception of recommendsations 3, 4 and 5, and you know, i understand-we had long conversations about it with staff, but i'll also a pull titian politician and i have to make sure this goes through the land use and transportation committee and the board and so it was deliberate of why we included the language about residential design guidelines, and the one year ownership, but we are making it different then what it was in supervisor mandelman's legislation. we are providing exceptions for properties vacant or on the blighted ordinance, the one year ownership requirement is waived for those. >> (indiscernible) focus your questions a little bit. i'm a little more

specific on some of them. recommendation to staff on the rm1 district contained within your district, please point them out with a extra tone. otherwise it is hard to understand the specifics of what you are trying to say and you don't have to answer the question, just asking for that to be done. when it comes to residential design guidelines, as supervisor-i would agree with you that generic residential standards don't quite cut it. in the-in line districts like district 3 and others there were actually neighborhood specific guidelines and there is already a big delta between neighborhood specific guidelines and generic residential guidelines because neighborhoods felt they were left out of having a say on specifics and are think if thiis going to fly i think it is helpful to give time for

neighbors how to reflect how residential guidelines meet the objectives of what you are trying to do. the third thing i like to ask, you are objecting to eliminate the one year length of ownership. i found the explanations of the staff logical, could you briefly comment why you agree with that not being eliminated? >> that provision was added to the 4 plex legislation, which took a year at the land use and transportation committee, because there was a feeling that not having it would invite speculation. i kept it because i was in those conversations and i think that my main goal is to have this pass. and so, we kept it in there, but with the change that

properties that are vacant right now or have been-vacant and on the blighted property we would not look at the year ownership requirement. that provides incentive for folks to buy those properties and do something else with them. >> one last question and big elephant in the room, have you done any kind of rough estimating of how many units would be generated to west side densification has been seen as a panacea for dealing with the great deficiencies in the housing element and i want to make sure that if we support this that we are not left hanging with too many unrealized units which need to be picked up somewhere and that that particular deficiency will not basically over-burden close in line districts? >> have done no such analysis, and i don't know that that would be a requirement, but what i would say to you is that, my goal in this

wasn't necessarily the production of units. my goal was to meet the needs, the housing needs of west side residents, because you know, units are not-don't meet the needs of human beings at every step in their life, so what a 21 year old single person needs is very different then a family of 5 or seniors who are a couple or single. what i was trying to do is address the needs as i heard them from my constituents given our particular housing stock in legacy on the west side. that was my goal. in terms of the quant fiication, a lot of richmond district has already been up-zoned. there is no streamlining attached to it, but there-just because you add density doesn't necessarily yield units. there has got to be other things as

well. and think we have no control over like financing for example, but what i'm trying to do is get as much as possible to provide the conditions for folks to meet their needs. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you for your very astute questions. >> thank you so much. >> i want to ask one question, which around the rear yard and fourth unit in the rear. makes sense with the elevator penthouse and thinking of dynamics when the building is built. if it doesn't need to be a elevator it is nice to have one. i would love to have a elevator but we don't have one. anyhow, just trying to understand how that jives with the rear yard. i understand the provisions around at least 30 percent and think 25 feet needs to be maintained between the primary structure and the rear unit. at the same time, one thing we talk a lot about here is open space and

making sure we have that as amenity. could you talk about either your perspective shared with you about that trade-off of eating into the rear yard and changing our development pattern or at least the generic development pattern to a less mid-block open space and one more interrupted with structure and the trade-off discussions you may have had. >> thank you president tanner. this was a judgment call. we had long conversations with the staff about this. the state building code requires an elevator once you have 4 units, and so-and then the state also allows for the rear yard adu. in between those two things, we wanted to have this legislation allow for streamlining that is easy for anybody that owns a single family home, have as few impediments as possible and be as cheap as possible. first of

all, having the possibility to denseify so we could get those rent controlled units was really important. if folks needed the rent control units to add to their income so they can age in place and on a limited income, that would be one option. or, if somebody want said to add a couple condo units and have that be inheritance to their kids to build family wealth and hopefully get around the capital gains tax that is a option as well, or somebody wanted to age in place and have disability upgrades for the bottom floor unit that is also a option so wanted to be as flexible as possible and also easy. the addition of elevator seemed like a complication and expense that want really necessary and because the state already allows the rear yard adu we thought that would be an opportunity to add that 4th unit and still be that gentle infill. it was a

judgment call. because i did a lot of work in talking to constituents about all the elements and this complicated legislation, i thought we should keep as we talked about it. >> thank you. i appreciate that. any other comments or questions for supervisor melgar? go ahead commissioner diamond. >> can we wait to hear public comment? >> you don't have to do it now, but while she is here. >> i can hang out. >> i do have a number of comment said and questions, but i rather hear public comment. >> if you can wait. just seeing if anybody else had some. if none other at this moment, we'll go to public comment. >> okay, thank you. >> very good. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. in the chambers, please come forward, remote, press star 3 on webex, raise your hand. >> i put a picture on. i have to find it like everybody else struggles. do i just click on that icon there?

sorry, i'm computer-- (indiscernible) how do i make the next picture go? okay. so, alright. can i have the computer, please sfgov? this is typical sunset. this is 22 avenue, and when i read the legislation-i want to say, i understand where supervisor melgar is coming from, especially after seeing her here on the commission. i was troubled by the lot merger because i remember people were very upset with sb50 and lot merger issue there. when i heard about that i thought about this and this is 22 avenue and i thought what will it be like with three lots go away? next picture. that is that awful god awful

thing that happened where the explosion was. those houses will all be torn down. the two on either side. those were sound housing with tradesman entrance, i think one was a renter. the barrel front-that is not what i think people want to see gone. i know that is extreme and little sensationalized but couldn't visualize any other way. the other concern is what came up during the sb9 analysis by staff. cashing out. there are low income people who live in these neighborhoods. will they be cash out? the city doesn't seem to have anything in place to protect those people. that was in my comments that i sent in that mrs. flores referred to. glad to hear that there will be appeal because i think people's foundations need to be protected and the only way people can do that is to go to

the board of appeals. and just hope they are aware of that. if that is a issue if demolition or extreme alteration. i think the ownership of the year is not enough and certainly don't think that you should be able to do it right away. i say that based on everything i have seen for the last decade with section 317. yes, i'm looking through that window and demo calcs and how things have gone wrong with section 317. unintended consequences, bad outcomes. when you talk about $1.5 million for a house, i got to think that relates to the $9 million houses that happened in noe valley that were alterations. housing on the avenue is vulnerable but the high end housing and high end neighborhoods like saint francis wood, (indiscernible) ingleside and terrace are not vulnerable. no one will tear those houses down, ever. maybe they will make a room or unit but never going to

tear them down and i don't think they will turn into 9 plexes. finally, i do think the legislation proposed by the mayor and supervisor melgar should come before you first. everyone expects development on the main boulevards corridors, they aret not expected on the block. here is the minutes for everybody and the article i refer to. thank you very much and thank the supervisor. >> good afternoon again supervisors. corey smith on behalf of housing action coalition. want to take a moment and bask in the glory of two west side supervisors pushing for more housing. that in and of itself was something unfathomable when supervisor tang was having conversations with eugene about domisty and says a lot about our

leaders. i realize supervisor engardio is gone but supervisor melgar is a strong housing advocate. it is leadership and leading on a difficult conversation. i want to recognize that, but it is a conversation that not just san francisco is having, but having it all over the bay area. earlier this morning i met with council member kevin jenkins who represents parts of east oakland and talking about this idea and he was enthusiastic and couldn't wait to learn more and asking planning commission today, send me the tape, i want to say what they say and we might consider doing something similar in oakland as well. because the entire concept that domisty was built around, it can be built on a standard lot not just specific to west side of san francisco, consistent with lots and urban planning across most major metro cities and the conversation had many many many iterations. i was sitting back there are supervisor tang and got e-mails from 2018

about this. i know at the time commissioner rich hillis had conversations about domisty and so the iteration of it and supervisor melgar has taken a idea and going great it a idea, let's implement it and do this and make it real and create homes for people, is that next step we are very very excited about. on the conversation of feasibility, so, we ran the numbers with developers and general contractors 2019 and the margins did work at that time. construction cost have gone up and rents softened, so there is a conversation of fees and cost, the idea of the elevator and single stair reform moving through the state legislator that we are able to look at the pro forma and make sure this works because legislation that doesn't result in more homes for people doesn't help folks. the process improvements that the

legislation proposes are time savers and are those are therefore money savers. the pro forma was built and designs with hundred percent union labor. one key piece iteration reduces costs over time. think how we build automobiles. it is the first one is always the most expensive. by the time you build the hundredth one it is less expensive. that same concept is going to apply here. the end of the day this is supposed to be a scalable housing solution as the supervisor said to meet the needs of residents. seniors, families, all of the above. thank you. >> thank you. any other member in the chambers please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. >> good afternoon commissioners. good afternoon supervisor melgar. (indiscernible) san francisco land use

coalition. first of all, i would like to praise supervisor melgar for requiring these units to be under rent control. while the rent control status won't make any of these new units affordable today, but it may work to the benefit of tenants decades later. having said that, we are concerned with the fate of rent controlled multi-unit buildings who demolitions are not protected by this legislation. we understand that for such units as my general public comment referred to, we are going to be relying on sb330 to figure out what the replacement units are supposed to look like. so, as most everybody knows, there are tons of single family homes in these so called well resourced neighborhoods that come with adu and udu and that will put them

under the rent control status and require sb330 to kick in to help planning to address the issue of tenants displacement and whether or not the units are going to be up for sale or rent and if they are going to be up for rent, if there are tenants low income tenants living in the units then the new replacement units should be offered at the same income level. so, the problem with relying on sb330 is this, we two problems. for one, sb330 i guess most people probably don't know because we don't think too much about the future, sb330 is supposed to be sunseted in 2030, and in the absence of demolition control for rent controlled

multi-family dwelling units the demolition of such units will be legalized when sb330 is sunseted in 7 years from now. we are sure this is not the outcome supervisor melgar intended and that's why we strongly urge the supervisor to amend the legislation to provide demolition protection for rent controlled multi-family units. also, sb330 has the provisions for right of return and setting the rent for the replacement units. my question is, who is supposed to notify tenants when the replacement unit is ready to move back in, and who is supposed to enforce which agency in the city is supposed to enforce this? i know the planning has issued directive in terms of the time of filing the application, the developers also provide this information, but that is not clear to me, so please do elaborate on that.

thank you very much. >> seeing no additional members of the public coming forward in the chambers, let's go to the remote callers. >> good afternoon. my name is george wooding. i wanted to say first eugene (indiscernible) i think moore hit the nail on the head when she asked the question why go to 6 instead of 5? if you are around (indiscernible) you realize if you build 6 stories you have to go to steel and the cost can go up over 20 percent so this substantially increases the cost of the building. this legislation

melgar's is better then mayor breed's housing legislation. both of these legislations are based on horrible housing-a horrible housing element that caters to developers over residents. right now san francisco is broke and is now in the process of removing residential planning rights in the hopes that developers will continue to build housing. pretty much the housing stock we need we turned it over to the developers to deliver. unfortunately developers cannot get financing to build the homes that the city is hoping they will build, so developers now control the city, they may choose to build

nothing under the current financial conditions. this legislation is also proposed upon the false premise that building density will lead to affordable housing. developers make high profit when they build market rate housing, not affordable housing. this one of the biggest problems we need to always make sure that this housing goes mostly high percentage wise to people who need affordable housing. lastly, the best housing is housing that is already built. i want to say though, thank you again to eugene wu for all his good work and think it is a well thought out plan and pretty good legislation as

well. i look forward to seeing what the amendments are and working with district 7 staff. thank you. >> hi, my name is pria (indiscernible) represent the all planning coalition. this legislation as proposed needs to be rejected [audio cutting in and out] puts the drive for profit over the every day people that make up (indiscernible) it is predicated on not just speculation (indiscernible) the city has no plan for affordable housing and what we need is deeply

affordable housing. (indiscernible) displaced tenants and while that sound (indiscernible) the legislation puts the right to return completely in the hands of developers and are there (indiscernible) encouraging developers to tear down units and the permanent displacement of tenants. strongly urge the rejection of this legislation. thank you. >> hello. good afternoon commissioners. (indiscernible) race and equity planning coalition as well as west side residents. we remain strongly concerned about this legislation as proposed as others have been saying. planning equity team is starting the process to gather community input into the rezoning and upzoning process, especially for our western neighborhoods. but this proposed legislation grants that process by establishing

new rules and incentives market rate houdsing without community process or input. what communities want and need is affordable housing, which is not what this legislation seeks to provide. the city continues to have no plan for affordable housing. the staff report says that this ordinance supports the housing element goal of housing for all. even though this ordinance does nothing to provide affordable housing. this housing element is supposed to provide 57 percent of the new housing as affordable to houses with incomes very low to moderate and this ordinance moves further from that goal. planning acknowledged in housing action 2.14 and (indiscernible) rezoning prausds will cause increased displacement rolling out the red carpet (indiscernible) planning must focus on affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies and despite planning recommendation to increase funding for tenant legal

defense and counseling resources, these increased funding allocations have not been made. however the mayor directive has accelerated the timeline for rezoning moving up from 3 years to 1 year. this makes our concern even more urgent. in order for us to prevent widespread displacement the minimum is prioritize putting strong eviction protections in place and insuringing support capacity funding to support tenants at risk of displacement (indiscernible) rezoning efforts and put the (indiscernible) even if they delay the rezoning process to ininitial three year timeline. the coalition urges you to insure the implementation of the housing element truly focus on racial social equity and must adopt the solutions laid out in the city wide people plan including prioritizing truly deeply affordable housing first, allowing the communities to define what is affordable, prioritize solutions lead by community expertise

and protecting communities from displacement and reject this legislation. thank you. >> this is lorraine petty. affordable housing and (indiscernible) i'm very much opposed to this legislation. i believe the legislation is not ready for prime time, especially if the amendments are being introduced with which the public and commission have not had adequate time to study or completely understand. particularly the questions about state density bonuses. that might be added later. the legislation does not- (indiscernible) many provisions lack

specificity and will result in potential abuse. my main objection to the laej legislation is these units will not be affordable to most seniors or people with disabilities (indiscernible) also, any plan that (indiscernible) public review will (indiscernible) mistakes of the redevelopment past. this legislation is lacking [difficulty understanding speaker due to audio quality] any new units requiring (indiscernible) where they are now. it is all

about having elevators. overall, please reject the legislation. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners: cathy howard, sunset. i like to echo the concerns about this legislation. (indiscernible) but it is not clear how that will be done. san francisco has a poor record of enforcing legislation that requires accountability and also concerned about the loss of open space labeled (indiscernible) where will the children play and (indiscernible) loss of open space also means lost habitat. wildlife and plants need open space to survive and thrive. the lots of open space result in a loss of opportunity to experience nature directly for

people (indiscernible) lastly, despite claims this legislation reflects the wishes of neighborhoods, i bet most of my neighbors have never heard of the legislation. there is all most no public correspondence in the file and few at the meeting today (indiscernible) this is very complex legislation. the planning department needs to provide drawings that show the impact of each of the proposals. the illustrations should show existing conditions that propose changes, plans and elevations so everyone can understand the impact on homes in the neighborhoods. this would be more inclusive of the better conversation about the (indiscernible) thank you. >> hi. my name is erica. long-term affordable housing activist in the outer

sunset. what we need is tenant protections focused on affordable first and deeply affordable and only first and only. and retaining community input. streamlining the-more streamlining (indiscernible) equity and democracy for the real estate industry wish list. this plan is (indiscernible) steamlining by removing residents conditional use processes ceqa is not what holds up projects, it is the market. it is the permitting processes and the financial (indiscernible) lexry housing developers (indiscernible) no incentives to build in san francisco. (indiscernible) with the people's plan to do the right thing and address the real needs of the

citizens workers and children who need to have affordable housing in san francisco that makes this a livable city. thank you. >> okay, last call for public comment. again, if in the chambers, please come forward, remotely, press star 3. on webex, raise your hand. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> thank you, thank you who called in, thank you for the supervisor for being here. a lot to digest. robust legislation and heard amendments that will come back to maybe streamline that process. thank you for letting us know that. perhaps we'll start with comments and questions and turn it over to rest of the commission to hear what folks are

thinking. i'll start with comments made in the public comment around developer give away and i think want to make folks understand that as proposed this legislation would be for home owners and so to the extent a home owner decides to become a developer and redevelop the property or merging with other neighboring property owners, it really is trying to focus on those folks already hire in the city or perhaps recently bought property. i don't mrs. flores or supervisor melgar you want to speak how the home ownership provisions work because we already have that for sb9 and have projects applied for in the city so just talk through what happens to see i owned for one year or how the ownership provisions is envisioned to be enacted. >> thank you president tanner. that is in fact why i was reluctant to include the recommendation of doing away with one year provision, because there was this

robust discussion at the land use and transportation committee we wanted to make this primarily a tool for home owners. once you start dealing with multi-family housing, it is just going into a bunch of stuff that rch not the goals of the legislation. that being said, there are lots of single family homes on the side because people pass away or got into assisted living and don't know what to do with the housing so we added the provision if vacant or blighted to do that. but how it would work is that there is already a vacant property list, the dbi has a blighted property list already and just simple deed search with assessor office would show somebody owned the property for at least a year. >> thank you very

much. just want to make sure that is clear for everybody because i heard confusion in public comment. certainly can appreciate the desire to open this up more but part how i think about this piece of legislation in concert with the 4 plex and mayor breed's legislation and forthcoming designed upzoning we are doing is thinking about testing things. to the degree we learn from the 4 plex legislation and sb9 and adu legislation state and local as we approach the rezoning and so one hand it is great to have a (indiscernible) at the same time i thinking downtown we are trying little of everything to see how to kick start redevelopment and downtown future. complex the legislation is one more piece in trying to think what we can do to (indiscernible) see if it work jz if it doesn't work and there is no biting at the apple how do we incorporate that into the rezoning and if

doesn't take a year to get through the board maybe we will have test cases whether folk s want to see this go forward. the only other questions-i don't think i have other questions so thank you very much. i think just looking at the staff recommendations, certainly okay with the rm zoning that seemed to make sense. would be interesting perhaps through as it goes back to the board or comes back to us if it needs to and as more public outreach happens to be able to show and map that so folks get a sense where that is and how the rm zoning differs from the other districts. i know we have a beautiful color coded zoning map and maybe incorporating that into outreach so folks get a sense where they are talking about and understand how those zoning districts interact with the neighborhood could be very helpful. i think the staff recommendation two, that makes sense to me. number three which is about design guidelines, i would say as you all heard me talk

extensively about supporting objective design standards, the one hesitancy is we don'ts have them so i wonder about referencing something that doesn't exist seems a little premature and so when those are in place i hope to see those referenced but if they don't exist not sure how to reference them. it seems like we have are the residential design guidelines and neighborhood design guidelines really well used and thought out over the years. totally supportive of objective design standards and want to keep the train moving but still at the station i guess at this point. the owner requirement i think we spoke to that so supportive of continuing to keep the ownership requirement. recommendation number five, i do really struggle with this. i do really understand the logic of not having the elevator penthouse but keeping to the projects not having that level of complexity.

maybe reference to a caller, how do we have graphics and visuals, real projects that are achieving this and give a sense what this could look like and thinking how the block pattern could change or maybe the block pattern isn't changing. so many times we look at the rear yard block (indiscernible) whether a shed, gazebo, studio, something from a hundred years ago in the rear yard. it isn't all just midblock open space and trees and soft scape so there is a sense wanting to protect the rear yard and have open space and make it easy simple keep the cost low and maybe avoid some of the 4 story houses with elevators that are just one house that we see sometimes at the commission. this isn't what that is for. but i do struggle with. i think the one thing that makes me okay with allowing

it is folks can already do a rear yard adu. how do we make our pathways. if we say everything is in the front building could someone take advantage and do a rear yard adu? i say why fight it and having the rules of having at least 30 percent and having theen 25 foot. it is a struggle for me to go with that, but i think in realty folks can already get there so why make it harder to get to the same outcome? number six, lot merger, that seems fine to me and i think supervisor supportive. number seven, rent control, overall with the rent control maybe you can illuminate the recommendation around the implementation of sb330 and other parts of the rent ordinance. i do really

agree with (indiscernible) we really have to make sure we have our implementation of productions dialed in and i think it may be ripe for conversation here or at the commission around the ways we are doing that and different agencies responsibility for what. part of the nature of the rent protections, who enforces, when and how and sometimes we are guilty of sayic it is rent board and planning and other agency. at the end of the day i want it to get done properly and consistently and effective. mrs. flores if you want to take it, how do we do sb330 now, what would change here and other parts of the rent ordinance making sure rent control is protected both for existing rent control units that are being proposed for redevelopment, or for the future rent controlled units that would be possibly created. who wants to take this one? everyone is looking at each other. >> you want to start? >> sure. thank you. to reiterate we do have that incorporateds a a recommended modification. we have

support from the supervisor on that, so we are looking at protecting rent controlled units and not allowing more then 2 rent controlled units demolished through this sud. in terms of the implementation, i know that is is a big question that we comes up. part of this i believe is still in the works. all this is still new and so i would differ to-i don't know if director hillis have more specifics as all that is still coming together and we may revisiting the process as you said trial and error butp want to make sure we do this right. >> as you know from sitting on the commission, we talked-rarely see demolition of 2 or 3 units, rarely if ever approve those, so i think brings up the case where there is a udu and that is where it

gets most complicated where we dont have record of the unit that is in place. the rental registry will help in the future but if there is a illegal tenant it makes things complicated but those are subject to rent control and subject to replacement under sb330. we have done a lot better in our screening process over the years and identifying those units doing site visits where we have questions looking at rent board records and history voting records and history to identify where there is a udu, but it is complicated because it is a illegal unit that is in that space. so, and we do have sb330 provisions that kick in and require they are affordable rates or rent controlled and where we cant find rent control there are provisions (indiscernible) often times we can't

find tenants so that is where it becomes most complicated where we have a single family home on the record but there is a udu. >> let me ask a question, someone comes forward and i have single family home with a adu and want to renovate it, who is responsible for contacting the tenant that says your right of return, you are return it is done and who makes sure it happens? is the city involved in the process or hope the owner takes care of it? >> we would identify what their requirement is and liz can fill in more on who contacts the tenant but as condition of approval we put in either if they got a offer that right to return or at affordable level or rent control, so we would put that in the conditions of approval. >> conditions of

approval are on every project that outline the requirements for every project. we are on the entitlement side we are not necessarily reaching out the tenant once construction is done. we are not usually in the loop come construction is done, but going through the process again tenants very rarely are we dealing with projects where units are actually occupied. that is a very unusual situation. it doesn't never happen but rarely happens so we are usually already dealing with the situation of the unit but not a person. that is the most frequent situation we have. the bigger struggle is usually around who was the tenant, what was the tenant's income and trying to work through do we have income to verify or need to differ back to inclusionary deed restricted unit and once the unit is finalized where they are restricted are in the bucket of rent control or inclusionary unit and

-mohcd is responsible if inclusionary and if not it is under purview of the rent board so a lot of variabilities whether it was rented or have evidence so there is a lot of decision tabs. we closely with the rent board. i was go toog highlight we are midstream and about to implement a new protocol with the rent board doing more up front earlier screenings of higher volumes of projects. we will just at the outset request screenings when projects take advantage of various certain housing type of projects. there is a lot going on, a lot of different variabilities and situations, but that is very rare for us to be in a project where tenant occupied unit is actually being demolished. >> good to hear. >> thank you for the question and all the very

robust conversation. i just wanted to add that i will be taking recommendation number 7 and working with our city attorney who is such a rock star. she has been here through this entire conversation and i agree and support the comments of (indiscernible) i think that i want to work on the language to go a step further, because staff has pointed out that when the rh1 designation was overlayed there were existing buildings so there may be multi-family buildings already in areas that are zoned for rh1 and we did not want to include those. we will make sure that those are not included in the legislation and also as i was going to say, at the end of the day it needs to pencil out if somebody has to have a deed restricted unit because there is existing tenant in a udu and owner occupied single family home, we will make sure that

that's the case. most of the time is unoccupied which is why we wanted to make rent controlled and to make sure they add units not just build, because right now what people have, the option of this only thing they can do is to (indiscernible) up the single family home, put in every bell and whistle i sell for twice as much as they bought it and that is not good for our neighborhood. i was going to say, this is not a answer to all of our housing issues, it was never meant to be. single family lots don't support hundred percent affordable very low income housing, that isn't what this is meant to be. doesn't mean we don't build it somewhere else but we are going to take this recommendation. >> thank you very much. i'll speak to the amendments supervisor engardio discussed earlier. definitely supportive of more density on corner lots and it is interest to

see how you define corner. is it 3 lots in 2 lots either side merged? it is interesting to thinks about the different combinations and how that could look on a typical block. i think it makes sense and 65 feet also interesting to have be 1 bedrooms. interested to see what the median rate and rent for a 1 bedroom on the west side currently or different locations is to understand is that really providing what we hope for which is a way for seniors to age in place who may want to downsize and don't know they all have to be 1 bedroom. that is something i look forward learning-built and understanding. as a general idea certainly open to it. my last question to staff and then turn it over to commissioner

imperial and diamond, understanding how what is proposed compares with what is already allowed under state law. my understanding would be a single family home could add a adu and a gadu on the current property under state law so that gets to three units. some cases depending what is happening folks are getting more density and some folks getting the same, just depends perhaps on the lot and what project they proposing. could you illuminate that a bit? >> yes, thank you president tanner. in that example that is correct. under state law they center have the opportunity to add a adu and potentially a junior adu if they like. we see other potential configurations maybe detached or in the primary structure. that would also- there is still the opportunity for that moving forward and then it would just take a look

at what the existing number of units are there or what the property is zoned for determine the number of potential adu. if they pursue strictly adu, 1adu period. if considering local adu, then there is a little more variables depending what configurations we see. >> certainly the state adu there are restrictions in terms of form and location and side setbacks. some is new and some different. thank you very much. commissioner imperial. >> thank you commissioner tanner and also commissioner moore for earlier questions. thank you again to supervisor melgar for being here and also having this legislation proposed. i do find this legislation in general balanced and think well thought out as well. i like the idea there are some design guidelines put

forward in here. as i'm reading this legislation and i believe commissioner tanner you have touched on in terms of the rent control and the rent control and compliance of sb330, i still want to have a clarification on the-because of the nature this is rh1 districts. bear with my thought process on this. single family homes are rent controlled are actually under rent control. they have eviction controls. i want to clarify or confirm that because that is something that when single family homes-when there is a tenant in a single family home like what we are saying, udu, they have eviction control but not price control? >> correct.

>> just want to clarify that. and then, as i read this-there are some sentences that if there are three units, if there are proposed three units, there are not subject-three units are not subject to rent control. i want to clarify that? >> thank you commissioner imperial. the answer to that question depends on what the zoning district is. we could see a project proposing three units within rh3 zoning district. in that case that base density. there is no rent control units through the sud. if on the other hand we see a project proposing three units within a rh2 lot for example, one of those units would be

subject to rent control as it is above the base density of two. >> okay. and then, when-again, there are also in terms of the single lot mergers, so i also want to--if constructing at least two no more then four units, are they all rent controlled? i just want to clarify that as well. i don't see this in the graph. >> sure. in the example of rh1 lot or rh1s, rh1d, if there are two units total on the project, one of those-so the extra above the base density of one, those would be subject to rent control. again, it depends on the zoning and total number of proposed units. >> for three lot merger, how many would be rent control? >> so, on three lot

merger the range is minimum of at least 9 to 12 units, so the lot mergers are only allowed within rh1, rh1s, rh1d so base density one of example of 10 unit project, then i'll say typically 9 of those are subject to rent control, however, we also have the inclusionary kicking in, so it would be as another complication, all of the units above there base density not required as inclusionary would be subject to rent control and that really only comes into play when we look at three lot merger going to towards the maximum of what is allowed under three lot merger. >> thank you for the clarification because as i was reading the packet i

was confused of affordable and rent control units. rent control units there is eviction control and price control at the same time too, so i think i would suggest though have this in the graph at least for me. that's how my mind works, have a visual of it so it has a better understanding of how many capture-how many are captured for rent controlled units and again, i'm also-and also need clarification on this, those rent controlled units are protected and also going to have both eviction control and price control? okay. i should be in the classroom right now. [laughter] thank you for that. i would make that suggestion when (indiscernible) or in the board of supervisors, because it gives us a good

range of how many rent control units are going to capture and how many affordable units are going to capture from this legislation itself. and one thing that i think really is the in terms of the compliance of sb330 in terms of the (indiscernible) and this is my opinion, because i know planning and rent board is-we are like throwing the ball to one another and constant implementation but i think because we are kind of in the purview of making sure the rent compliance of sb330, perhaps the planning department should make the initiation of tracking in terms of the tracking that there are notifications sent out and also lay it out in the legislation of modification, language access, those are

really important. yes, they are simple, but very important when it comes to tenants so i would also add that suggestion when it comes to perhaps under the recommendation number 7, because those kind of communications tracking system i think at this point perhaps the planning department if we-i understand that there is no tracking system still in terms of the income how we track income, but i think like what mentioned, trying to do the best we can and as of now there is no tracking system so it really requires a lot of investigation at this point, which is can be problematic in compliance to sb330 so i recognize that problem. yes, in terms of-that was actually my in depth look into this legislation is about

the capturing of the rent control in affordable units. other things else too, i think just going to make quick amount comments about the recommendations the planning department could-recommendation number 1 i think that is fine with me. recommendation number 2, also that is fine with me. the recommendation number 3, i agree with commissioner tanner and commissioner moore, so i will-i do not agree with recommendation 3. recommendation 4, i also agree with the recommendation 4. recommendation 5, i also do not agree with the recommendation 5. i think supervisor melgar has-i appreciate the kind of community engagement you put into this legislation as well, so because of that, i

think-recommendation number 6, i agree with that. recommendation number 7, yes. and everything else i agree with the recommendations by there planning department so those are my comments. thank you. >> thank you commissioner imperial. commissioner diamond. >> thank you. i want to start by saying that i appreciate and applaud the direction of this proposed legislation. i think the intent of it is spot on, and that some version of it will be extremely useful when adopted. i also really appreciate the context you provided for how you arrived at this legislation. i think that was really important in assisting my understanding about why you structured it the way you did and what you were responding to. so, i'll start with that. now i want to sort of move to a few concerns. some are process oriented and some are more

substantive. let me start with the process ones first. i noted with interest virtually none of the people who called in were west side residents,b and i don't take that as a sign of consent or approval. i take that as a sign of total lack of knowledge as to what's going on. my understanding with legislation like this you don't have to send notice to property owners and that staff in fact did not send out notice to community groups about the proposed legislation and assuming supervisor melgar you office didn't send notice to all the community groups on the west side, correct? about this legislation? >> thank you commissioner. so, the-unlike soma and mission and other neighborhoods in san francisco, the west

side doesn't have community groups that are active around land use issues like the race and equity and planning coalition for example. we do have a west side tenant association and we is the west of twin peaks home owner association, which is a coalition of neighborhood organizations. that is who we have been working with. george wooding is a member of the land use commission-land use committee of the west of twen peaks central council and they were aware. we did send the legislation and the different iterations and all the amendments we did to those folks. >> okay. my understanding is that there actually are a lot of west side neighborhood groups. not all that active these days. i know in district 2 there is laurel heights improvement association, jordan parks, fan, marina group, they all show up here for various projects, and it is my

strong belief that as we engage in all of these actions that are going to have set a dramatic impact on the west side that we should be not only notifying all of these neighborhood groups and we have addresses and names for all of their chairs, but that we should reach out to them to explain what is going on and i say that because as commissioners, we-this is really complicated stuff and even for those of who deal with this on a weekly basis, trying to understand the on-slot of state legislation that deals with some of these housing issues, plus the various pieces of local legislation that are intended to implement the housing element, it is really hard to wrap their head around what actually change on the ground will look like, the process changes and process will look like as we go forward. i know i spent the last three days in

non-stop conversation with the city attorney office and various members of staff trying to understand how all the provisions of these various ordinances relate to each other and by that i mean, supervisor mandelman's 4 plex legislation, your legislation, the upcoming legislation proposed by the mayor, plus the major rezoning effort that is in front of us to implement the housing element. there is a lot of overlap, there are gaps, some deem deal with the same subject and some different subjects and if we provide notice to the neighborhood groups about this legislation, i'm not sure that is efficient for them to really understand that train barreling towards the west side that is intentionally designed to increase density and i feel like it is important that that reach out happened. obviously it didn't happen in

conjunction with this hearing, but this isn't legislation adopted yet so wondering what the opportunity is for that outreach to happen before this legislation is adopted and whether or not between your office supervisor melgar and staff, it is possible to reach out to these neighborhood groups in advance of land use committee hearings or board hearings. i don't know enough about the processes that happen after this hearing where there really is a opportunity for neighbors who live not only on the west side but everyone but particularly focus on the west side neighbors. when they have the next opportunity to show up either virtually or in person and participate. i'm onot saying any of us actually follow what they have to say, but i feel pretty strongly that that at least need notice and have the opportunity to be heard. >> i hear you commissioner diamond and agree with

your sentiments. i totally agree people should know what is going on. i did not reach out to those folks that you listed because they are not my constituents and that is a function of our district supervisor structure that we have. this will go to the land use and transportation committee and that is in our structure on the board of supervisor, the opportunity for the public to weigh in and for it to be amended, supervisor mandelman 4 plex legislation (indiscernible) to get through because there was robust engagement and community input, so i think this will probably be the case for this one as well. i don't know what the planning department outreach and information looks like, i would guess that you have more

capacity to do that then my district office would. i am working with my colleagues supervisor engardio mostly on this, but there are other supervisors who are interested as well. and i will add that, i know there will be a article written about it in sunday's people where people know we are doing this and they can get in the weeds well in advance of the land use and transportation committee. >> can you send notification to heads of all the neighborhood groups on the west side and let them know this is happening and provide a opportunity working with the various district supervisors who are covered by this sud which is not just supervisor engardio and melgar, but for sure supervisor stefani and supervisor chang for sure?

can you work their office to create a opportunity for q & a. >> one, we can certainly send out a notice to everyone on our housing element list, which i think is robust and captured a lot of the groups you are talking about. we are doing that to summarize and asked the mayor office to summarize the legislation coming before us on process improvements, we can do a similar undertaking with this legislation. we also have coming up two open houses on broadly the housing element in the rezoning implementing the housing element and what we-process changes that-the first is on june 22 and the second 11 of july. these may happen before the legislation is adopted at the board of supervisors, especially if supervisor engardio will amend it to include the corner lots so we'll talk about the changes that are underway as well as the changes we anticipate implementing the

housing element at the open houses which imagine the first one predates the adoption of this legislation. we can do all the above. >> and will the notice to the neighborhood groups indicate this forum will address not just the rezoning but all of these pieces of legislation? >> it broadly talks about housing element implementation, which i think this all falls under and all consistent with what we all adopted and what the board adopted in the housing element. >> okay, it would make me feel a lot better about this legislation if i had comfort all these people will be notified. supervisor melgar, is it your understanding that at least that first forum would precede the land use committee hearing on this? >> well, commissioner, i am the chair of the committee so i get to schedule when it is

ready and i assure you will not schedule until- >> that's great. i very much appreciate that. okay. now i'll get to my substantive questions. so, like commissioner tanner, i'm concerned about the decision making around whether or not the 4th unit should go in the front building or in the rear yard. i believe that there is a lot of importance attached to midblock open space on the west side. i think our yards don't need to be as big as they are, fine with 30 percent but midblock open space has always been important and believe taking on more importance the denser we get and access for kids to play is super

important while we add more families to the west side. i understand the sentiment not wanting to make it costly by having to do the elevator, i am also very concerned about encouraging the development of rear yard units because i could envision a scenario at least creating a possibility of a scenario where you could have double muse lining the rear property line where both back to back property owners share the rear property line, each build a build, 4 feet from the edge of the rear property line so separated by 8 feet and numerous neighbors up and down the block decide to do that so we end up with a strip of double housing inside the midst of what was once midblock open space and instead what we are left with are 25 foot strips between the front building and the back building. and i can't say that that scenario

appeals to me very much. i recognize you are allowed to do adu in the rear yard, but i don't know that i want to encourage that and this legislation appears to encourage that. not only that, the state adu legislation has a overall size cap and your legislation does not have a size cap. it has a 20 foot height limit, it has the 25 foot space separator, the 4 foot set backs on the side and rear but not a overall size cap on the unit in the back. i am very much in favor of recommendation 5,b which allows for the 4 units to be in the front. it isn't-what recommendation 5 says is, you can choose. you can do one or the other and i think we ought to allow that flexibility and not be insistent that they all have to go in the back. so, that's how i feel about that particular issue, and i really think-can't remember

which commissioner said it already, but the visuals would be really helpful in understanding for the public and for the commissioners and maybe the supervisors what this will look like when we are done. because related to that is, i don't think i'm too happy about the elimination of the angle, exposure, the angle exposure requirement on the 4th floor at the front, so at the moment the angle requirement or the sun exposure requirement would essentially require a step back on the 4th floor and because we have eliminated that, you end up with a solid-you could have the 4th floor come all the way out to the front of the building, and i believe it fits in better with the neighborhood if we got this step back on the 4th floor. i recognize that we have four story units all around the west side that don't have the step back on it, but i don't think we should do no step back on the 4th

floor and filling in the rear yards. it feels to me you ought to pick one or the other. i would like to make that suggestion to you. i also want to make sure i understand how many units could actually be on one of these midblock lots? if it is 4 units plus 2adu, is that correct? you could end up with 6 units on each lot? >> again, it depends. so, it a project were to maximize the single lot density exception, so they include 4 units whether it's all primary structure or one is detached in the rear yard, at that point they could add one additional adu. they could also under state law add a junior adu which there may be shared sanitation and maybe separate. again, the entirety

of the sud does not allow the combination with state density bonus, so- >> right, but you could end up with 6 units on each lot? >> yes. >> okay. that is a lot of density on the side streempts streets. some of the streets are narrow. i just question whether or not some of our side streets whether that really does make sense. i don't have a feeling about that. i just feel like there is investigation that it is not really 4, it could be 6. it doesn't mean they will all be 6 but create the possibility of it. i are would not be in favor of eliminating the reference to the residential design guidelines. if we had adopted objective design

standards that would be fine but we don't so think we need the reference to the rdg and as i said, i definitely am in strong agreement with recommendation 5, which is for the single lot density exception to allow the 4 units to be proposed in the primary structure. wondering supervisor melgar if you have objection-it is not saying they have to be in the front structure, but it is allowing the flexibility depending on the lot for the the owner to choose which they want to do. >> as i said, we went back and forth about this one with staff so ult mltly i wanted it to be a easy project. i understand having the flexibility to do either or, but the intent, the goal was to make it as easy and

as inexpensive as possible so not totally opposed to it, just slightly opposed to it. >> well, i- >> i really-your comments are always really targeted and well thought through, so i do appreciate your thinking and i will think about it more. >> i just really stuck on this notion of the damage done to midblock open space, and that it feels important to me to try to find a balance and allowing each property owner to decide for themselves which one makes better sense for them is better then insisting that they all have to go in the back. >> i understand and i also heard cathy howard who is d7 resident in her comments for trying to keep the midblock open space and habitat for critters. i get it and i understand it and support the intent cht let me just

say also that, this is a work in progress and i will be continuing to work on it with our city attorney. >> great. that's one reason i feel so strongly about getting input of the neighborhood groups on the west side is the-you may get a lot of input one way or the other that might influence you in how you proceed and not just based upon what the district 7 constituents have provided to you today. lot size difference, topography is different, the housing type differs. in the event, i feel that balance is important. and then the last thing i would say is, i am-i am supportive as i said earlier of the domisty concept, like the idea and while it is wonderful that they would be useful for seniors it isn't just seniors living there. we know that. this is called the family special use district and by definition under the code, family units have to have at least

two bedrooms and so i am not supportive of these being-i understand the need to have stacked units that reduce the cost, but i don't see why we wouldn't want only 1 bedroom units in these buildings. certainly one bedrooms makes a lot of sense but just as sensible to have for sure two bedroom units so i'll leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you commissioner diamond. commissioner braun. >> thank you. so, thank you supervisor melgar for being here and sticking out as well as supervisor engardio being here and the great work on the legislation. appreciate it. it is very complex. i really appreciate the intent of bringing the legislation forward in a effort to allow for greater flexibility and

what is happening on the west side and provide different options for property owners and opportunity to add housing to the stock. i do want to echo the general sentiment that as president tanner put it, where testing lots of approaches here. it is kind of interesting with our effort and state effort to encourage housing production we have now create a lot of complex and pathways a property owner can follow especially if the legislation passes and modifications, additional legislation that comes in the future, all the options. i think we as commissioners who listen to this on a regular basis are a little-there is is a lot of complications to and nuance for us and so getting back to that neighborhood notification question. even after legislation passes just somebody trying to pursue a project might find

this a little bewildering. i do appreciate the intent and like we are trying to a lot of different options going for ward. i have just a couple of follow-ups on items discussed already. on recommendation number 3, it seems like there is a lot of agreement among the commissioners to not support recommendation 3 to eliminate the reference to residential design guidelines. i have one question about that, if we leave in the language and shift towards adopting objective design standards, does that create a issue or-there was a note we could include language that says residential design guidelines or adopted objective design standards? >> so, without the reference to the residential design

guidelines, the projects will still go through that process so if there is no explicit statement of rdg we would still have that. and then the secondary segment of the recommended modification is really about additional safeguard for down the road when we have adopted objective design standards, there's no gap what you are talking about, but once those are in place we would still use them as well. we had this recommended modification in place for the goal that we are working towards so super clean, super crisk but these are going through design review for what is in place at the time. >> okay, so if we do eliminate-if we leave in the language referring to residential design guidelines and replace with design standsards the design standards apply because what is on the book snz

>> that is what we have available but we are moving towards the more objectivity and away from subjectivity especially with the rdg. >> realistically when we move forered with and adopt objective design standards we need to bring forward legislation. (indiscernible) multiple times in the code so we need to undo the reference in the code. any future time when we get to that milestone we can do a find replace and swap guidelines with standards so not too concerned. i think if the commission is debating the issue it is very easy fix for us down the line to do a control f final reference to guidelines and replace with standsards so dont think that is too challenging a issue to resolve down the road. >> thank you. i just wanted to clarify that. with that guidance and comfort

i'm also-i don't support including recommendation number 3 simply because i don't think ultimately it is necessary, but by leaving in reference to residential design guidelines they still must be fallowed. so then, on item recommendation number 5, i actually-i do support recommendation number 5. i think i is a slightly different take on this from commissioner diamond, but as somebody who lives in the rear yard unit, i can say-not overly concerned about the impact on the open space midblock open space, but at the same time i support recommendation 5 because i think it is important to include that flexibility. i'm hearing it was a

baseline call. i do support recommendation 5. just to provide a different pathway that might leave the rear yard open and also allow somebody who wants the design with 4 units in the front building to pursue that design. as recommendation number 7, i have a question about recommendation 7. or it is related to recommendation 7. so, for the-there was a comment raised about the fact sb330 has a sunset date, and so i'm wondering if the protections included through the reference to sb330, are those-is that simply a reference to sb330 that happens in the legislation or is that kind of a copy of the same language from sb330? i was trying to find it and struggling a bit so need some

help. >> thank you. the legislation references the california code section. it was originally copy and paste, however just with concerns as the language changes we dont want to have go back and change as well and make it always consistent so it does reference the section that governs where sb330 is governed. >> is it accurate sb330 has a sunset date and what is the impact on the legislation if that happens? or do you know? complex question. >> let me pause and consult with the team. >> i think it is accurate because think that is was anti-rent gouging and just cause. there is conversation about extending it but don't know if that's-when

that will happen. or if it will happen. it is up to the legislature. >> 20s -2030. >> if it unsets without extended what might happen? >> part of sb330 is folks can file preliminary application to lock in the rules of the day so we haven't crossed that bridge yet but there is a fair argument if there was a application in place when the rules are in place they can finish out the projects but not accept new applications after that expiration date would be my presumption. >> so, i would just say-not sure what the path is in terms of the legislation but think it is something to consider. i know it is 7 years

away but if it is a codified reference to state law that might change, then i don't know how you deal with that, but seems like a valid point that was raised. but otherwise, for recommendation 7, i do support recommendation 7 for the reasons expressed by the commissioners here. i think it does address some issues with rent control buildings. and then besides that, i am supportive of all the recommendations accept for recommendation 4, which is the elimination of the 1 year ownership requirement. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i want to reiterate

my support for carefully examining residential guidelines. at this moment i do not believe they are fully cover the west side and specific problems or issues opportunities that come with denseifying the neighborhood. i think it is fair for all residents to have a certain amount of understanding of what is happening and including certain amount of push-back of how to exactly use these guidelines and ultimately do become objective standards that would be objective to this particular part of town. generic reference to objective standards is troubling to me because one side does not fit all and think in the use of language here, we are starting to shift a little bit in too much generic standards and losing a lot of what the city has to offer, particularly they are given a few pictures out of that, there is a lot of to be

lost in all this exercise so i want to see that (indiscernible) have a weighted question for supervisor melgar. staff has been kind enough to look at the potential complementary and contradictory between your legislation and mayor legislation. if the mayor legislation goes through and spend thoughtful time to discussing yours, some of your intent would be overridden by the legislation. will you make attempts between now and then that that particular will not occur? >> commissioner moore. attempts i think that the goals of those two pieces of legislation are different. i think my goal was to

meet the needs of folks that i represent. i think the mayor's legislation was to comply with the housing element as we have it and get rid of impediments. there is a overlap in some of those, but they have different goals. i did try to incorporate, because they were open and transparent with me, which i appreciate, i did incorporate what i could into this legislation, so you will see there is lots of elements, for example the group housing and some sof the things that i thought were good ideas in the mayor's legislation i incorporated into this, because i don't want to have competing pieces of legislation. there is some of the staff that i think just based on the knowledge that i have-had these conversations with constituents on the west side that i think are going to be much

harder pills to swallow so did not incorporate them into the legislation because i wanted it to pass at the board of supervisors, but the mayor will take the same process i did with you guys and also with the board and so i do think there's lots of room for negotiation, compromise, listening to the public and doing all of that, which we have a democratic process for. >> thank you for the answer. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner braun, did you have another comment? >> first of all, just a quick comment. i meant to say i support all the recommendations accept for 3 and 4. yes, actually not seeing any other request to speak, i'll put

forward a motion-see if i get this one right. so, a motion to approve the legislation or support the legislation with a positive recommendation on recommendations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. incorporations of staff recommendsations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. >> second the motion. >> very good commissioners. seeing no further deliberation, there is motion seconded to approve the planning code zoning map amendments with staff modifications for 1, 2,

5, 6, 7 and 8. not pushing forward recommendations 3 and 4. did i get that correction commissioner braun? [roll call] so moved, commissioners, motion passes 6-0. >> thank you supervisor melgar and we'll take a break and come back in 5 minutes. >> very good. thank you. [5 minute recess] [meeting reconvened] >> okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday june 1, 2023. commissioner, we left on item 9

for case 2023-0037. bilgd planning co existing awning amnesty program. a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon. aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. before i give my presentation, katie (indiscernible) is here to talk to you about the ordinance for the sponsor. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. good afternoon commissioners and director hilliss and staff. katie tang office of small business here on behalf of mayor breed, supervisor peskin. both couldn't make it today but we collaborated with both their offices and dbi and planning department, so just wanted to give you broad strokes of the legislation the proposal before you today. so, by way of background, this past winter we had learned of individual going around the

city making complaints against businesses for awnings installed and signs stalled without permits to the tune of approximately 200 of these, and so as you imagine many businesses they are dealing with really challenging times right now and so this additional cost and stress for them we really wanted to address this through a awning amnesty program. what is before you is collaboration between planning department and dbi so appreciative of the program that create easier pathway for businesses to comply. in high level it does 5 things. one is create a temporary program for existing unpermitted awnings, so it allows even those without complains or notice of violation to participate in the program. it waves permit inspection fees and as long as the applications are submitted before june 1 of 2024,

this permit and fees will be waived. third, it requires dbi to create a streamlined process for expedited review of permits during the amnessty program and again want to acknowledge dbi and planning staff. we developed a template and easier way for people to comply without having to go and get professional drawings done as part of the permit application. again, these are existing awnings. fourth, it allows the planning department to sign off on the building permits for existing awnings or signs even if they are on compliant structure or non conforming use. and lastly, wave dbi and planning department enforcement fines and penalties which were the cause of a lot of concern for these small business owners. so, that is in a nut shell a summary of the proposal before you. sponsors mayor breed and president peskin have reviewed the recommendations and are in agreement

with these recommendations of staff, however i will let dbi representative speak to some of those. the small business commission also heard this proposal and voted to support this ordinance and also i just want to lastly give the opportunity to share in 2022 our office added two small business permit specialist to the team to assist small business owners with all sorts of permitting challenges and been a great addition to this office. they will be guiding small business owners through the program in addition advising businesses coming in new about all the different requirements they have to meet. thank you for your time and just maybe turn it back to mr. star. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you commissioners, aaron star. i will make my presentation-ileler

i'll just do the whole thingism the proposed ordinance create a temporary program that streamline the application process and wave some fees for unpermitted awnings and certain unpermitted signs. the program would run until june 1, 2024. only awnings and signs installed without a permit that meet the following criteria would qualify. awning must have xested as of the active date of the ordinance and generally in the same shape size material and location and there at least 5 years. signs must have exist ed as the act day of the ordinance and generally the same shape size material. however signs that do not comply with the building code standards would not qualify. professional drawings are not required in some cases. planning fees will be waived for both awning and sign permits and dbi fees waived for awning permits. however, they will charge their

standard permit inspection fees for signs. the proposed ordinance also establish that no enforcement fees will be charged for awnings that qualify for the program including fees from notice of violations issued by dbi and planning. no planning enforcement fees will be charged for signs that qualify for the amnesty program. the small business commission and the bic heard the ordinance and voted unanimously to support the proposed ordinance. the department recommend the commission approve with modifications. the proposed ordinance. as we recognize the stress the small businesses are under the past few years and many of the none conforming signs and awnings existed decades. we believe some signage requirements should be maintained for esthetic and quality of life reasons. the department proposes recommendation-followin g recommendations: to limit the program to business signs. there are several different types of signs in the planning code. remove the 5

year look-back required. instead allow all business signs or awnings that existed as the introduction of the ordinance to qualify. require any sign to comply with ilumination provisions so whether indirectly illuminated, directly illuminated or not and expand the type of permits that qualify for planning fee waver to include any permit who scope of work is exclusively related to non residential awning or business sign accept for buildings subject to article 11 or awnings sign permit subject to neighborhood notification. so, that would allow people who are good actors and getting permits to receive the same benefits as these non complying signs. there are several technical-including recommendation dbi wave signs -wave fees for signs

and awnings. here for any questions. >> thank you. seeing no immediate questions for staff, we should open public comment. memberoffs the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. in the chambers, please come forward. calling in remotely, press star 3 and if you are on webex, you need to raise your hand. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. this is item is now before you. >> thank you. thank you. good to see you. i didn't know if anybody from dbi wanted to address. if you want today share you can share it. don't want to overlook you but happy to hear anything. >> patrick with department of building inspection. we support the-appreciate you considering this program. we think it is a great collaboration, great solution to what was a unfortunate situation this year. we do have concerns with recommendation e and f. we do not believe we are able to approve signs without seeing plans, signs are significantly different then

awnings. awnings are a frame covered by canvas. signs can be elumeinated and large and heavier and don't believe we could implement that recommendation. we also have concerns about recommendation f, to wave the fees as well, because the evaluation of signs is more comprehensive and does take more staff time to wave those fees would be a substantial burden to the department. happy to answer any questions but thank you for the consideration. >> great. thank you very much. any questions comments or motions by commissioners? commissioner moore. >> would you be able to--would you be able to speak about the approximate cost that would be added if you would be charging a fee? >> what i can tell you is that over the course of the year we take in about $250 thousand due to these signs. i can't speak the individual sign because it depends on the sign whether it is illuminateded and size of it so there is is a great variance in there, but what i can say is we look at the overall

cost and be about $250 thousand. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> great. i guess the only question i had was around the date of the expiration of the amnesty, june 1. i think hopefully it goes through quickly. does it matter 1 year? i don't know if there is a strong sentiment that being important. >> we actually encountered many small businesses that wanted to quickly come into compliance and just waiting for the ordinance to get through the board process, hence the june 1 date which is when we anticipated perhaps legislation will make its way through and give people about a year. >> okay, that sounds great to me. any other comments, questions, motions from commissioners? >> i think we need to have public comment. >> we did have public comment. >> we opened public comment and no takers. >> there was no takers. i think we hear mostly support for everything support

from two commissions, small business and buildings inspection. concerns about not having drawings and waiving the fees. certainly hopefully something the mayor and board can work to resolve in the budget. the $250 thousand. a portion of which would not be collected due to this program. commissioner koppel. >> motion to approve- >> staff recommendation. >> exactly, yes. >> second. >> nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve with staff modifications on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners, motion passes 6-0. will place on item 10, case 2020-004398env for san francisco international airport's shoreline protection

program. this is for your consideration to certify the final environmental impact report. please note the public hearing on the draft is closed. the public comment period for the draft eir ended october 17, 2022. public comment will be received, however comments submitted today may not be included in the final eir. sfgovtv, can we have the computer? >> good afternoon president tanner, vice president moore and members of the planning commission. tonia sheyner, planning department staff. the item before you today is the certification of the final environmental impact report or final eir for the san francisco airport or sfo shoreline protection program. as adequate accurate and objective and having been prepared in accordance with the california environmental quality act or

ceqa, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. i will now provide a brief overview of the environmental review process and eir conclusions. the stp is infrastructure project designed to protect san francisco international airport against flooding and sea level rise. the project site consist of 7 and a half miles of bay shoreline, divided into 15 reaches or segments. consist of removing the existing shoreline protection features and constructing a new shoreline protection system that is a combination of reinforced concrete and steel pile walls. depending on the specific location along the shoreline, the height of the wall range from 4 to 14 feet. reach 16 represented by the yellow dashed line adjacent to highway 101 is the western land side boundary. it is

unknown whether sfo need to construct a wall along route 16 as this depends upon whether the stp can connect to shoreline protection system constructed by adjacent cities to the north and south of the airport. given the uncertainty 16 analyzed at a programic level and 1 through 9 at project specific level. the draft eir concluded the project construction related air quality impacts would be significant and avoidable with mitigation but impacts for all other environmental resource topics would be less then significant or less then significant with mitigation. the eir identified mitigation related to noise, air quality, biological resources hydrology and air quality and cultural resources. should you certify this eir today approval of this project will occur at the airport commission which will be asked to adopt ceqa

findings that include these mitigation measures as conditions of approval. the draft eir studied 6 alternatives. the alternatives focused on reducing the project significant air quality impact as well as less then significant and less then significant with mitigation impacts related to biological resources as well as hydrology and water quality. this slide identifies key dates of the project ceqa review process and summary the department solicited and incorporated public comment on the scope of the environmental analysis and we had a draft on the-a sharing oen the draft eir october 6, 2022. we received a number of comments the draft eir hearing and in writing during the comment period. among were comments stating the noise analysis were insufficient with respect to studying potential

future noise reverberation in mel bray and comments requesting specific locations be considered for the compensatory mitigation program. concerning the former, the department has conducted a thorough noise analysis for both construction and operational phases using methodology considered industry standards and consistent with faa and fta methodology. we found noise reverberation would be localized and not effect residents. concerning the latter, sfo is in the process (indiscernible) wetlands and waters and will consider all feasible options. it is our view that all public comments received on the draft eir have been sufficiently addressed and the rtc document in a way that we believe is accurate and complete. the department published the response to comments on the draft eir document on

may 17, 2023. these documents are been provided to the commission as part of the project hearing packet and the response to comments document in combination with the draft eir consitute the final eir before you today for certification. the final eir is adequate and provides decision makers and public with (indiscernible) understand the potential impact of the project alternatives and mitigation measures. planning staff request the planning commission adopt the eir certification motion before you. this motion does not approve the project but certifies the eir contents and procedures comply with ceqa. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions as well my colleagues chelsy fortum from san francisco planning and david kim and audrey park the manager of environmental affairs is also in attendance today. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. that concludes staff presentation. we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if in the chambers come forward. remotely press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. >> hi. my name is ann snyder the mayor of millbray a member of the sfo round table for 7 years and chair of ground basin noise committee here to ask you to delay the approval of this eir and instend require staff to meet with mill bray staff to mitigate for noise and vibration now off 9 foot and taller walls and acers of asphalt and 5 acres on (indiscernible) doesn't matter where you mitigate somewhere else when it impacts my community. millbrae is celebrating our 75 anniversary this year. we had to go the state

supreme court to become is a city and we had to fight sfo and expansion then. they tour down to create that airport and here we are back againen fighting for our safety. at 2459 that time was running trucks 24/7 and now air planes and the site (indiscernible) which is located right at the gateway and love to bring you all down and show you millbrae and show how much sfo impacts my community with zero mitigation, with zero property tax paid accept for the outdoor hardware store. zero support and (indiscernible) back uch traffic on millbrae and we are a cut through area for everyone to get to

the airport. i do believe we can work together. i think we can have that. i was on san mateo county vulnerable assessment list. i work in the environmental field. i think we can get what sfo needs but not at the cost of mine. previous eir moved the runway 450 feet closer to millbrae. they don't consider the type of noise impacts which is low frequency not included in the faa noise measurements. i have been to dc and lobbying my city hired lobbyist and serve on california transportation public works commission and we will be working with faa to change the measurements to reflect. your airport worked with us to look at low frequency noise and didn't like the result jz came to the round table and said we didn't like the results. we know the noise

is bad. to say faa doesn't count it and doesn't count the frequency or doesn't count those amazon flights leaving between midnight and 3 a.m., the heaviest flights so greatest noise is insult to my community. with that, i ask you to ask your staff to meet with us. let's work through this collaboratively and not do what you are doing right now. it shouldn't be- >> thank you. >> i'm begging you, i'm a 4th generation san francisco >> thank you, that is your time. >> ashamed of san francisco. >> thank you ma'am. >> seeing no other members in the chambers coming forward, let's go to remote callers. >> my name is nathan (indiscernible) i also live in the city of millbrae and have to say reviewing the eir, the

discussion of route 16 to me was pretty alarming. san mateo county put together a shoreline task force to plan for sea level rise and flood mitigation and i really do think that the-all of the cities want the wurk with sfo to protect our common shoreline and insure that all our communities are protected from sea level rise, so it is really uncomfortable to see that the route 16 is in the eir. sort of as a backup plan if the airport feels like it can't secure cooperation from the surrounding cities. i think the commission-i would appreciate it and sure those in san mateo county would appreciate if the commission could make clear that the airport should be working with the community to build a common

sea level protection barrier rather then trying to entertaining the thought of walling themselves off from the rest of the community. that's my request to the planning commission. i think we do want to work with the airport to do the right thing on this issue. thank you so much for your time. >> last call for public comment. we have another one. >> commissioners, all i ask you is, pay attention to quality of life issues. pay attention to quality of life issues. this is impacting a wider

area. not only millbrae, but south san francisco too. thank you very much. >> okay, last call for public comment. in the chambers please come forward. remotely, press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> thank you. those who called in, thank mrs. snyder for joining today. want to ask director hillis, if you can reach out to mayor of millbrae and those who worked on the eir as it goes from possible certification today on to the airport commission. that might be something we can understand the concerns and see what 80 can do. >> sure. >> with that, comments or questions or motions from the commission? commissioner koppel.

>> move to society the eir. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. >> commissioner diamond. >> i'm prepared to certify. i believe the eir is adequate but want to second commissioner tanner suggestion. just because the eir is adequate, doesn't mean planning department shouldn't meet with millbrae with the concerns they raised independent of the eir. >> there is is a motion seconded to certify the environmental impact report. [roll call] so moved commissioners, motion passes 6-0 that places on 11a-c, 2018-011655. cua and var for the property at 420 sutter street. you will consider request for

downtown project authorization. conditional use authorization, and zoning administrator consider request for variance. good afternoon. the project under consideration is 420 sutter street demolition of 2 story non residential building in construction of 12 story hotel. the hotel includes 149 guest rooms, ground floor bar and restaurant, roof top privately owned public open space. the project is located in downtown retail or c3r zoning district and (indiscernible) the project requires authorization pursuant to planning code section 309 to construct building exceeding 50 thousand gross square feet and 75 feet in height. as part of this authorization, the project is requesting exceptions to 1 the wind current reduction requirement of the

planning code and construct a 128 building in the height and bulk district. request conditional use authorization for hotel use and modify the ground floor requirement. variance from the bike parking location standsards also applied for and before the zoning administrator today. request 3 foot access (indiscernible) instead of the required 5 feet. the subject property is located within the kearney market mason sutter conversation district of article 11 and received permit to alter entitlement from historic preservation commission who found the existing building was a non contributor to the district and proposed building compatible with the district. the department received one comment in support of the project from unit to a hospitality employee union. the project sponsor held outreach meeting

with the union square alliance on may 9. the alliance submitted letter of support for the project yesterday. two changes to the section 3 o9 to the commission yesterday. these changes were both related to class 2 bike parking requirements. the original draft stated the applicant opting to pay in lieu fee for the entire requirement. the changes to the motion clarify that to pay in lieu fee the sponsor has to be grant #d a waver or variance. the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan support union square as focal point of tourist and necessary desirable and compatible with the neighborhood. the department recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes staff presentation. project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> president tanner, vice president moore,

director hillis, michael stanton my office designed the project. the project is sponsored by snitser property who own 450 sutter street building so one of the largest property owners in union square and deeply invested seeing union square vibrant and active in the future. my wife says architects can't talk without props so i'll put up drawings. the first one is to show you the context we are dealing with. the two story building that is not viewed as contribute tore to the sutter kmss historic district is highlighted in red with the newer structure between it. you can see the site is sandwiched between the cuporo building at 400 sutter the corner of sutter and stockton and the landmark for 450 building a great deal taller. the plan is 149 room

hotel. the first level of which will have a bar retail space on the west side, the recessed lobby of the hotel entry in the center and then the portion of the hotel seating area on the right, so do a knrait deal to animate the street along sutter street. typical level of the hotel is guestrooms, size to the san francisco market. you notice that the scheme sets back from the west. the west is where 450 sutter is, 450 owner as mentioned is sponsoring this project and has some lower level windows that we are working with to protect. that is the reason for the setback on the west side page down of this. the plan is reputative up until the top floor till we introduce a slight recess at the top that i'll go over as part of the-the

project includes roof deck, which is accessed by a dedicated elevator going from lobby level directly up to the top, so there is no innermixing of hotel clients with the public who will be using this. the roof deck will also be the location of the public art and i'll explain in more detail the public art program for the building later. the materials for the building are combination of manufactured striated stone panels, which will pick up the rhythm of lifestone and precast con create and smaller pilasters. the beys will be clad in combination of metal and windows. go

ahead-here is a view of the property looking over the koporo building. here is larger view of the material building. you see the bey buildings and metal surround of the typical hotel guest room, the horizontal spandrels and are then the ab, ab rhythm of the pilasters which with the wider pilasters being the striated vertical stone and then the smaller ones being the smooth finish stone. you also notice there is a recessed two story space proposed at the entry. this is a combination of things. first, it is a reference to 450 which has a very nice large recessed entry and second of all, the project is sponsored by snitser properties. snitser is a very distinguished art collector and viewing this recess as a opportunity for public art in the recessed vestibule on the

street and potentially in the two story lobby behind it. the top of there building as mentioned earlier consistent with kms and gives the building a base, middle and termination at the top. you can see the recessed suites we are proposing at the top there. here is a view of the building at night. we will indirectly light the recess at the top and so that the building will have a nice gentle glow to it. this is a view of the roof terrace at night. that is a recessed metal panel with illuminated letters glass panel you can walk over you can see there. in the question period i'm glad to address the reason for the request of the variance, questions on the market demand for the project, and whatever questions you may have. thanks again commissioners

for your consideration and look forward to the discussion. >> thank you. weed should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. please come forward. if calling in remotely, press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is chris french and i'm the director of advocacy with san francisco heritage. in 2019 san francisco heritage reviewed plans for the hotel at 420 sutter street. we did not oppose the demolition of the ist xing structure focus how the new building fit with the historic kearney market mason sutter district, specifically the impact on 450 sutter street a significant city landmark. the feedback focused on the (indiscernible) consist went the district the consideration of west facing sight line and thoughtful approach to the eastern

elevation regarding color and material. the project sponsor did not include feedback in the updated design presented today and did not seek further opinions. we find the new design incompatible with the conversation district character. we support the planning department staff recent comments refining design and compatible of angle bey window color materials and detailing within the district context. we believe the proposed design should not be approvaled as is. thank you for your consideration. >> seeing no other members in the chambers coming forward, let's take our remote callers. >> hi. i'm calling on behalf of teamsters 665 in support of 420 sutter. there is a (indiscernible) hotel workers and construction of the hotel will be 100

percent union labor. they have agreement with the hospitality employees union and should the owner of the building has history of being a union employer as currently owns several union garages and teamsters local 665 had a very good multiple decades relationship with this (indiscernible) thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. this is (indiscernible) from the hospitality (indiscernible) we are supportive of this project. our union as the previous caller mentioned our union has reached agreement that the workers of the hotel will have a fair process to join the union and these are agreements that we think should be modeled for anyone who would like to bring a hotel to san

francisco. we support your approval-your granting of approval for the projected to and let me know if you have any questions. thank you. >> my name is melanie and speak in support of the proposed project on 420 sutter. we reviewed the [difficulty hearing speaker] strategic plan we identified a primary need for more restaurants and bars in the district and particularly appreciative of the plans for restaurant with ground floor of the project. (indiscernible) visitor activity in san francisco and we view this proposal as a important (indiscernible) thanks for your attention for this important project and everything you have done to date to contribute to the recovery of san francisco and

all downtown. they -thank you so much. >> okay, last call for public comment? or is that one more that we have? nope. okay. final last call for public comment? seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> thank you for bringing this matter before us. exciting to see some projects and investment in the city . thank sf heritage for their letter and for coming out today. i am not historic preservationest by training trade or casually, but i do want to note hpc did approve it so that gives me comfort and knowing that they did review this project and found complies with article 11 and secretary of standard for rehab and approved the project so where i'm on that topic. i did want to ask the project sponsor around the market-certainly been watching the tourism market, one of the

biggest interest if not the biggest pre-pandemic in san francisco. seeing good reports in terms of rebounding of tourist visits, but curious how you are feeling about wanting a hotel in a city with a lot of empty hotel rooms hopefully to be filled but what gives you confidence to bring the project forward? >> well, the snitsy family is making long-term investment and they have a hundred of millions of dollars invested in the building next door and see this as being very contribute tore. the temporary post-covid hang over we are going through isn't likely to dissuade them. the hotel at the earliest won't open until the summer of 2026. there is everything indication the market is bounding back. most of the national hotel conferences like the

alice hotel in conference by (indiscernible) union square is dependent on group business. need to fill the convention center also dependent on international tourism and tourism in general. drive through tourism is coming through in california robustly i must say. international less so, but that is why it is great to hear cafe pacific is bringing new flights in (indiscernible) the client is committed to the project and i think we can all be comfortable that we'll be out of covid hangover, 25, 26. >> few more years to get over that. thanks for the positive prognosis. commissioner moore. >> couple questions. have you identified a operator?

>> no. right now the tentative-the hotel complies in the layout and room configuration and back of house and support space to the requirements of a number of the chains, so if an operator is needed- >> it is interesting because 70 feet away that is a large hotel, we have the marriott at the other end of the block and what i'm observing is this area is exceptionally rich in hotel offerings stretching to nob hill where we have the farmont, (indiscernible) so i am wondering, why hotel here? we all

participated in the panel last week and the big challenge to san francisco is to think about daring to diversify. this project does not diversify. it builds on a reputation which has been shattered due to covid, we know that and not as confident or optimistic as you are, but that is matter of opinion. the one thing i want to point out if there this hotel moves forward without a operator, i observe incredible disruptive quality of a building a few yards away from your side and are that is the corner of grant and sutter, where about 5 or 6 years ago retail building was torn down with great promise for elaborate design which today stand empty. while i regret the building standing empty, the construction on

that particular corner put as much impact on the functioning of sutter street and closing adjoining businesses because of the disruption of construction on the rest of the street. i'm concerned that construction of a still speculative project on the site will be extremely detrimental with covid like effects if this moves forward not having a operator. i just like to say that and further say, i regret that the recommendations by staff is to work with the recommendation with staff for not being considered by our own hbc. the fact hbc supports this project at the expense of extremely thorough and thoughtful work done by our own department is very painful to me. we have a lot to lose. (indiscernible)

is one of the major attraction points of downtown in that location. we often go into that building for more painful procedures like dental et cetera, when we go in the building it is a joy to have the building in our city, and i have to be honest mr. stanton, i am not totally happy with your response to the quality of that building. it seems to me as if you are trying to complete or replicate-i find the bey window questionable. i find the choice of materials, particularly the (indiscernible) somewhat missing the point and somewhat feeling i resonate with historic preservation's observations also echoed by heritage today. why replicate the two story entry bey, when it is the (indiscernible) building we want to celebrate. a elegant more modest

building in my esthetic reference is better response and find more comfortbly seated in the historic district. i have questions about this building and while we could debate not having an operator, it is the owner who makes the decisions, takes the risk and you response to a challenge which i consider significantly larger then what is in front of me today. but thank you. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> i have to admit bit of disappointment seeing a hotel project rather then residential project because we are trying so hard to diversify union square. my understanding the schmitzer family does do downtown resident at least have done it in portland.

what would it have taken for you to look at this site and say, this is is a good residential opportunity? one reason i'm expressing a little disappointment is because this wouldn't have involved expensive conversion. it is a tear down of non historic building so seems it would have been a great opportunity as a residential site. i don't want you to get me wrong, hotels are allowed, so it is your choice, but curious about the thinking, especially in light of the number of hotels in the area. why residential wasn't a possibility? >> excellent question, and i can only-the hotel proposal for the site has been around since 2019. there was a commitment made fairly early on to do this as a hotel rather then another medical office building or

other things. before-by the way, everybody in the city is committed to housing and supporting housing. this isn't a particularly good housing site. all of the expense that you have with the hotel the generator, the elevators and like mean you are not go toog ing to get many housing units. putting that aside rkts hotel said do a lot of really really good things for communities like union square. there is nothing we can build on this site that will generate more permanent jobs then a hotel. the statistics pre-covid were hotels generate more then one full time job per guest room. staff and deliveries and service and the like so this is a job generator and also a energizer. pre-covid because the stats haven't been

updated. pre-covid hotel guest spend average $140 per night. this is a really positive economic stimulus for union square. >> i am not disagreeing with the notion that hotels might be a positive economic generator if they are built. i am just trying to understand the analysis about choosing hotel-in a market where there is a lot of empty hotel rooms, versus residential. i know you are the architect and not project sponsor and know it started in 2019, but ads we are as city are grappling what we need to do to encourage more residential, curious to the thought process behind not choosing to do residential here.

>> the client was committed to doing a hotel. he thinks it is the best thing to do next to his 450 sutter building and as i say, thinks it will be a fine investment and great contributor to union square. >> thank you. commissioner koppel. >> thank you mr. stanton for being here today and thank you to the snitser family for attempting to revitalize something downtown. we hear a lot of talk about downtown revitalization, but what's actually happening? not much. kudos to someone who is trying to revitalizing some sort of downtown. happy to see local 2 on board. there are hundreds and hundreds and thousands of people out of work right now. there is city build graduates out of work, apprentices lower wage workers who are out of work, there are

journeyman any type of worker just leaving the city because there is absolutely no work here. there is nothing going on and people are leaving. this is just like a shining star in this darkness of downtown that we are not seeing move very quickly and you said it best where it isn't only go toog create a lot of temporary jobs for the construction of the building and don't forget those construction workers will get their cough a eand take their break jz eat their lunches at the coffee shops and restaurants and maybe the bars after work and then how many people are going to be employed in this building permanently, which are historically very lower wage workers with lesser protections and very very many of them non english speaker and so this is a win win and in a environment where i don't see anything happening, so i'm in full support. i actually still

think the building does step down well and look appropriate between the two buildings, so in support. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> i think for me and the project before us is a hotel project. however, again, i as there are comments by the heritage and also by the staff, by the planning staff, i looked into the historic preservation packets and also the historic preservation approved it but the comments by staff is overwhelming in terms of the massing, in terms of the staff analysis on the upper floor, on the bey windows and glazing the ground floor and i just feel like as a commission,

we bring-we would like to bring integrity on the work of our own planning staff and analysis and recommendation that have put forward. so, i guess me question to the architect, with all the recommendations that put forward by the staff recommendations, are those something that do you consider to modify? i would like to hear- >> we paid great deal of attention to staff recommendation and we had two presentations public hearings at the heritage, one with their-landmark, one with their architectual review subcommittee and one with the full commission and comments from heritage from 2019 haven't been brought up to difficult to respond to heritage comment when they didn't participate in october's public hearing with

landmark and architectual advisory group and were not around in may when we talked to them. as far as staff comments are concerned, i think we organized the building well to respond to kmms and staff comments. we varied the rhythm of the pilasters to repeat the traditional ab, ab rhythm of the facade. we got what we think is a good solution to the organization. the materials are i think are good materials. we have stone on the exterior of the base, we have precast stone pilaster, we have stone spandrels on the building. metal panels. i think we addressed the lighting solutions and think the public open space is a excellent solution and think the fact the client was willing to commit to a dedicated elevator so that the roof top access will work

for the public was a fine feature as well. so, i feel as though we have responded to a lot of staff comments. we haven't responded to them all. there are a lot of comments on what the hotel should be like. the client, the landmark board citizens and the like and i think it is a good hotel. >> thank you. >> good design and think it will work just fine in the city. >> thank you for your response. and i realize of course you will take into consideration however in front of us or in front of-it is still comments were still not incorporated by the planning department staff in terms of esthetic or neighborhood characteristics around the area. i am in a way support of having hotel, it is just i think i will would like to see a staff

incorporation in this. historic preservation in this hotel. that is where i'm standing-where i'm coming from and as to commissioner diamond's comment as well, i would also like to see this more residential, however this is the project we have, but if this is the project we have i like to see historic preservation elements or comments in here. thank you. >> if i can jump in commissioner, imperial just to clarify too. as typical with this commission, staff often presents puts forward the best foot and recommendations of what we think should happen but the end of the day both the arc and hpc full body didn't agree with the recommend ation. the same way the commission didn't take all the staff recommendations on a item earlier today rkts we do rely ultimately on the commission final recommendation as they are seated with historic

preservation professionals so given the fact we took through two hearings at the hpc we are presenting the recommendation they made that they request you to take so that is the genesis how the recommendations evolved and very typical. we a lot of times make recommendations that a commission doesn't take so it isn't overly out of the norm so i wanted to add that clarity to the conversation. thanks. >> thank you. commissioner braun. >> yes. just continuing down the track of the design comments that have been shared. the hotel is-the design of it, and not a design expert, but the design of the hotel is fairly modest but i do appreciate about the design is the fact it is really i think going to let 450 sutter shine as a very important and very interest building rather then distract from 450

sutter, i think it allows the building to be very noticeable and noteworthy. as far as the recovery of the hotel market, i am a optimist. i work in my life professional career as land use economist and i do see hotel markets recovering a lot of places. we have been lagging a bit in san francisco, but i'm always-i think we have a wonderful city and i'm optimistic that hotel demand is going to return. now it is on track to return in a few years to similar to prior to pandemic but see what happens with conference based. i'm happy to see a project sponsor who is taking a positive perspective on the long-term prospects of san francisco, especially as a long-term property owner. and then also of course-i appreciate-i would rather probably see a housing

project to the comment said that were made. my one bit of optimism, if the hotel is successful we generate transient occupancy tax through the project and able to support a lot of city services and to continue to bolster the city budget. so, this project does have my support. >> thank you. zoning administrator. >> thank you. i appreciate you offering to discuss the variance during your presentation. it is a smaller more technical issue then larger issues discussed. but, as you mention in the application, essentially there is a structural sheer wall creating some challenges on the ground floor as proposed, and the code requirement for 5 feet corridor access to the bike parking you mentioned still meets egress requirements for building code and fire code and that's true. the intent is to allow adequate width for two

way access to the bike parking. if you can speak about that constraint and then what the impacts would be to shifting internally just that bit to meet the 5 foot requirement. >> absolutely zoning administrator. speaking through the chair, we recognize that this variance request may not rise to the standard of exceptional but we are making it because we are trying to balance good urban design against-there are a lot of factors dealing with the facade and organization of the first floor. i put the first floor plan back up. it is on your sheet a3. we got in no particular order trying to maximize the amount of active store front facing out on sutter street. either from the small seating area off the lobby or from the bar. so, to our thinking, the more glass we put on sutter street, the more activity we can

introduce there. the new california building code which came out in january of this last year-pardon december of last year, active in january, has very draconian requirements for sheer. this is great for public safety and withstanding earthquakes but means you see a lot of projects with sheer walls and kpff laid this out and think we need the sheer wall on the east side of the property. i'm a bike rider, i ride by bike to the office every day so i appreciate the logistics of getting bikes in and out of storage places. if there is a place where you feel that we can be less in the 5 feet in order to gain the benefit of more glass and more activity on the street and think it is this because it is straight shot in, no turns straight to the bike parking covered and the like. that was the reason. it also

works well with facade organization. if the commission or your decision is not grant the variance, we'll redesign that southeast corner of the lobby to give a 5 feet required. >> so that point, there seems to be a middle option of leaving as is at the facade level and making it wider at a more interior point to reduce the length of the corridor. that impacts the office space and the lobby. i don't know how those are-right now what the programming would be and how impactful that would be. >> it would just take a foot and 4 inches out of the lobby but that is possible. as i say, the reason we are making the request is we think it is a good balance for a lot of competing all designable zoning features bike parking, adequate width to get to the

bike parking, but at the same time activation of the store front and the street level. but we will change if needed, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner koppel. >> so, i wish this was a nice big housing project as well, but it's not and we often found up here wishing we could tell the project sponsor what we wanted to see, but that's not how it works. i want us to make a statement today. i haven't seen a lot of action with downtown being revitalized and us possibly approving this could be a big step in actually revitalizing part of downtown. i do really like the addition of a popoand i don't think the answer to our problems is not approving this, so i make a motion to approve. >> second.

>> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i feel obligated to make a point of rebuttal to (indiscernible) statement. i direct my comments respectfully to director hillis. this planning commission is comprised of people of varying professional backgrounds, contrary to what we have on the historic preservation commission and this commission solely relies on expertise of your staff to bring forward every aspect of what is necessary and what needs to be considered and that should be the guidance to how this commission studies and evaluates projects you bring forward. i do not believe there is a short cut to say because historic preservation commission in this particular case with little

judgment evaluated something-excuse me, i'm speaking-i would like for you to listen to me. i would like to not being told that there is a short cut to that consideration because historic preservation commission rendered a judgment i believe goes totally counter to what your staff is saying, and i believe it is your obligation to properly let that stand on the floor and not try to (indiscernible) i would appreciate if you (indiscernible) to all aspects of what your staff is telling us. they are the professionals and this group is not totally comprised of professionals who have all the background but they are obligated to have your staff by the guidance to what we do. thank you. >> if i can respond. you can override the historic

preservation commission recommendation. i think what mrs. waddy is saying and agree we make our best professional recommendation to you all. you are the arbiters to take those or not as the historic preservation commission is on item before them and we want to be transparent. we made recommendations, some were taken, some weren't, that is what happens in this process. the public may disagree, you may disagree, the board of supervisors may disagrooeand we get to the end. so, you're certainly-it is your decision to take the recommendation of the commission or override and go back to staff recommendation just like we are recommending the project move forward. we hear issues around that and whether it should be housing. that is a (indiscernible) we want to see investment and excited to see confidence in investment in downtown. this is a code compliant projlingect for a hotel use here

that union square counts on and needs. we share that we want to diversify the use in union square and hopefully see housing projects and why we worked to allow for that that i think you all opined on and agreed with this as well. it is ultimately your call on some of the recommendations we made to hpc and those that they took and those they didn't take. >> well taken. i still would appreciate if you sometimes would move over to also support your staff. thank you. >> thank you. don't see other commissioner comments or questions. >> there is a motion that is seconded to approve the matter with conditions. on the motion commissioner braun aye. diamond, aye. imperural, no. koppel, aye. moore, (indiscernible) commissioner president tanner, aye. the motion

passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. zoning administrator. >> close the public hearing for the variance. i think there is a lesser version we can work on and intend to grant with the variance. >> thank you. commissioners, item 2 was pulled off consent. 1550 mission street. conditional use 8 conditional use authorization. for those members who may not have heard the dr item number 12 for jersey street was withdrawn. >> good afternoon. the project under consideration as 1550 mission street propose to designate 40 dwelling units and 549 building as ilo. the project is located in

downtown general or c3g zoning district and aithd 5x. the project complies with criteria in the planning code. the designation of the subject property, the 49 units will allow the city to meet the needs of existing and future residents by offering varying length of occupancy, the flexibility appropriate for the subject property and helps further the city goal of providing housing choice to city residents and because the city has business and institutions that draw employees for intermediate and unknown periods of time. the department recommends approval with conditions and i am available for any questions. >> project sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation if you want

it. >> good afternoon commissioner. eric star, with related california we were the developer owner and operator of the property in question, 1550 located at 1550 mission street. as noted, we are requesting classification for 40 units, 9 percent of the allowable 20 percent short-term accommodations serve valuable purpose in virj search for permanent housing in san francisco. not only these are-not only are these apartments a great entry point for people relocated tosuch, they serve as viable option for individuals in transition or displaced from the primary residents. thank you for the consideration and welcome any questions you may have. >> very good. that concludes sponsor presentation.

we should public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you are in the chambers please come forward, calling remotely, press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. let's go to our remote callers. >> this is sue hester (indiscernible) this is a 40 unit ilo. that is a lot of units. it is right next to the planning department. say right next to it, it is the same lot and subdivided into 49 south van ness and 1540, 1550 mission street. one of the weird things about this project is if you go onto (indiscernible) thing you refer to to find history of the project, 1550 mission you find what you want to find out what was

built? entire (indiscernible) your department building. you can't get any information on the history of this building when you put it in. the staff report was released kind of 5 minutes before 5 o'clock on a holiday weekday on friday, and there was no availability and opportunity to get any information from the planning department because it was already-i want you to think carefully about the amount and pace of the ilo's coming. if you have events calendar, there is two coming at 555 fulton street on (indiscernible) [difficulty hearing

speaker] i can't read my own writing. i would ask you to think through this issue. what i couldn't find because i couldn't find the approval resolution, what thought process you went through when you approved 1550. what was the housing you were looking for? i doubt you were looking for a lot of ilo's because i didn't see it at all in what i found the other resolution. i ask you planning commissioners, what kind of housing are you going to get right next to your offices? you can't be any closer at all and right next to your

offices. i would basically want uto think through because you will get a lot of ilo on your next calendar. thank you very much. >> okay. last call for public comment? seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. this item is now before you. >> thank you. one question about ilo program overall. we are seeing more. my understanding is florida r there is caps and communication there is ilo established they also want to get registered so it is a new program so we'll see a lute of folks who want to get in the property until the cap is reached, is that accurate?

>> yes. refresher, we are about at 230 units applied for rks so in the event all those were approved, we are still under the cap and still under the subcaps that talk about downtown and sensitive communities. for the timebeing, those considerations are not actually considerations as we get closer to those numbers, they will be and we'll have to deal with that then but for the timebeing there is plenty available in the caps and we view these as relatively routine. >> that's why i'm okay with these properties on consent and support this project as well. also just location being near artistic uses near the civic center so space for artists more planners who need to crash before they figure how to live in san francisco. there are a lot quhoo can use the location and think the

legislation and policy and program is very well crafted, thoughtfully crafted and i think pretty effective so supportive of the use just as the other ilo use. commissioner moore. >> the only question i would have is, when you think about ilo, i see very important larger corner units of the building given to ilo and wondering as to whether or not that is intent of ilo or what is your response? >> the code of silence in terms how these should be separated throughout a building across unit typology in the building in this case there's a variety of units sizes, not located on one floor, it spreads throughout the building across different unit sizes so comfortable with that configuration. i think that is ideal for future applications. if we see some applications where they are clustered in a corner or certain high floors things like that, we would take that into consideration, especially if a conditional use

application, but in this case, it is actually a nice spread out set up. >> i think the only thing of concern i see for -40 unit is all most like a hotel. hotel in the residential building and with ilo comes a certain amount of constant moving in and out, which if i live in the building would find disruptive to my feeling of comfort. while i like the ilo legislation, and many aspects of it the one thing i would like to see finetuned is the percentage in one building or capping by numbers of units. 40ilo in one building however large the building is is a lot of movement of unknown in and out all the time and particularly if you live in a multi-unit building in this particular day and time you only have certainty that you know who is

going in and out and that would be my concern. also i find the concentration in this particular part of town little questionable but that (indiscernible) why the units have not been fully rented. at some point staff should turn back and talk with the legislator which i assume is supervisor peskin's office. i tried to reach out and ask to fill that gap or initiate conversation but haven't had luck to contacting anybody there. if you would follow up on that, if you have similar concerns i think that would be a very comfortable step for me. >> i agree with that. thinking about building maximum and things like that as we are waiting further and further into the program operating. any motions or other comments from commissioners? commissioner imperial. >> make a motion to approve. >> second. >> >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to approve with conditions, commissioner braun

aye. diamond, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. moore, aye. tanner, aye. so moved. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. concludes your hearing today rchlt >> we are scheduled for 10 a.m. next week? >> we are scheduled for 10 a.m. thursday hopefully assuming the board acts tuesday. >> we will eagerly await the boards action on tuesday. until then commissioners, we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manors. today's special guest is jeff tumlin. >> hi, i'm chris manors and you're watching san francisco rising. the show on starting, rebuilding, and reimagining our city. our guest is jeff tumlin and he's with us to talk about our transportation recovery plan and some exciting projects across the city. mr. tumlin welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. >> i know the pandemic was particularly challenging for the m.t.a. having to balance

between keeping central transportation routes open, but things have improved. how are we doing with our transportation recovery plan? >> so we just got good news this week. we're getting an extra $115 million from the american rescue plan and this is basically the exact amount of money we finally needed in order to close the gap between now and november of 2024 when we'll have to find some additional revenue sources in order to sustain the agency. in the meantime, i finally have the confidence to be able to rapidly hire, to restore services and to make sure muni is there for san francisco's larger economic recovery because downtown san francisco doesn't work without muni. >> quite right. i guess the other impact of the pandemic was that some projects like the valencia bike

improvements had to be put on hold. are we starting to gear up on those again? >> yes, so it's an interesting case study. of right before covid hit, we were about ready to invest in quick build bike lanes. arguably the most important bike order in san francisco. that got stopped with lockdown and then as you'll recall, during covid, we invented all kinds of other new programs like shared spaces in order to support our small businesses as well as sunday street light events for neighborhood commercial streets where streets were closed off to cars and turned over to commercial activity. those successes now that they've been made permanent actually interrupt the draft design we had put together. so we've gone back to the drawing board and we are looking forward to having some additional community conversations about other design ideas for valencia. we're committed to completing a

quick build project on this calendar year. >> that's such good news. valencia is a really great street for biking. so there are two huge and exciting projects that are about to be or have just been completed. let's talk about the bus rapid transit project on van ness avenue. how extensive have the improvements been? >> what's called the van ness transit rapid project is in fact more about complete reconstruction of the street and most importantly, the 100-year-old utilities underneath the street. so all of the water, sewer, telecommunications, gas lines under the street were basically rebuilt from market street all the way to lumbard. the part on the surface which provides dedicated bus lanes for golden gate transit and muni, that was relatively straight forward and we're so excited we're going to start

revenue service for muni on april 1st. >> that's fantastic. i understand there were some sidewalk improvements too. >> there were sidewalk improvements. we planted 374 trees. there is new storm water treatment including infiltration in the sidewalk, there's a bunch of art. there's all kinds of things. we put in new street lights for the entire corridor. >> finally, the other big news is about the central subway. can you briefly describe the project and give us an update. >> yes, so the central t-line project, another stop at union square that connects directly into powell station and a final stop in the heart of chinatown at stockton and washington. that project has also run into

challenges. it's 120' under muni, under bart, 120' down and out under chinatown in some unexpectedly challenging soils. but that project is nearly complete. it's at about 98% completion right now which means we're testing trains, we're testing the elevators and escalators and the final electronics and we're still on track to open that in october presuming all of the testing continues to go well. so fingers crossed on in a one. we're really looking forward to allowing people to have a subway ride from the heart of chinatown all the way to the convention center to the caltrans station and all the way down to bayview and visitation valley. >> it's great to see all these projects coming to completion. we're all grateful for your team's hard work and i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. tumlin.

thank you for the time you've given us today. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> and that's it for this episode. for sfgov tv i'm chris manors. thanks for watching.

>> i'm eric tanaka. fourth generation japanese american born and raised in san francisco i work for the san francisco fire department station 10, truck 10 as a firefighter. i think about my journey i think about my family. my grandfather came to san francisco in 1917 we have been here for over 100 years. married my grand mother they were in the japanese camps. prior he was a successful business owner in the city. when he started to start over he was murdered. and i never met my grandfather. my grand mother and my mother were left to raise me, brother

and sister my father was around but work. it was very challenging for me growing up as a young kid in the city. trying to find my identity. and so i got myself in a lot of trouble. trying to defend myself and my heritage. that i was -- raised to be proud of. and there was a time i was ashamed. you know, thinking about and understanding my family's strug and he will had my grand mother and grandfather went through i was ignited a fire to keep moving forward. i decided to dedicate my life to service. servicing my family and community and the city. one of my goal in life is to reach out to our community youth and support them so they mack myself the potential to finds careers they never thought they were capable of. when i want my family tong of me

i want to be proud. whenever career i chos is not about the money it is providing a life that is honorable and thoughtful. so that -- the generations behind us see how hard my family worked make sure we have been able to sustain and thrive in san francisco. community is huge to me. it helped me become the person i am today. and our department. we got one of the busiest stations in the in addition, station 3. we have a surf rescue program program cliff rescue program. we have so many things to be proud of as a department. i can't say this enough, there is honestly no words to say how proud i am to work for the department and serve the community that i grew up in. [music] good

morning, everybody.