okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, october 26th. to enable public participation sf govtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for discussion and action items on today's agenda. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. we will take public comment from persons in city hall first and then open up the remote access lines for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. you need to call area code. (415)!a655-0001 and enter access code. 26636769933. and press

pound twice. you then need to wait for the item you are interested in speaking to and for public comment to be announced to comment, you must enter star three to raise your hand and once you've raised your hand you will hear the prompt that you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. when you hear you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. for those joining via webex, you need to log in on the via the link found on today's agenda and enter password cpc 2023 and then you'll need to use the raised hand icon to raise your hand. best practices are to call from a quiet location and please mute the volume on your television or computer for those persons attending in person, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. finally, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off

during these proceedings. and at this time i'll take roll commission president tanner here , commission vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner dimond here, commissioner imperial here, and commissioner copple here. we expect commissioner ruiz to be absent today. first, on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2022 hyphen 006831 drm for the property at 619 marina boulevard discretionary review is proposed for continuance to november 30th, 2023. item two case number 2022 hyphen 010007. see you at 345 speer street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to december 14th, 2023. further commissioners the last item on your agenda today under the discretionary review calendar. item number 20. case number 2023 . hyphen 002229 sp at 2007 17 union street discretionary review review has been withdrawn

an i have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed to be continued only on the matter of continuance. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak commissioners public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. thank you. is there a motion on the continuance calendar for commissioner imperial move to continue all items as to continue all items as proposed? second, thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner braun i. commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore high commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places us under your consent calendar. the matter listed here under consent under the consent

calendar is considered to be routine by the commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. item three case number 2022 hyphen 010583 coa at 201 second street conditional use authorization members of the public this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioner public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioner koppell move to approve item three a second. thank you, commissioners on that motion to approve item three on your consent calendar. commissioner braun i. commissioner diamond i. commissioner imperial high commissioner koppell i, commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0

and places us under commission matters. item four land acknowledgment. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone were the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ohlone have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibility 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 and we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush maloney community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item five commission comments and questions. i'll start out with a few comments. certainly want to just acknowledge the violence that happened just yesterday in maine and certainly thinking of the folks in that community and just hoping for more peace in our country as well as in the world.

i think at this time, just reminding all of us to perhaps just take whatever reflection time you need, because there's certainly a lot happening right now in the world on a somewhat maybe lighter note, but still somewhat serious, covid season is here, rsv and flu season. so i know for myself, i'm just wearing the mask out of an overabundance of caution for myself. feel like i've been pushing my luck a little bit lately and so just invite folks to do whatever feels comfortable for you here in the chamber and then lastly, i know the policy and practice review. maybe director hillis are going to talk about that a little bit. we were able to receive that, i believe, yesterday, encourage commissioners to read that. i believe we will schedule a time to discuss it formally and i would like to just say that i hope that we can, as a commission or as a city, perhaps in conjunction with the mayor, author, a response if needed, just to accompany the report. certainly it's great to hear what hcd says, but also to make sure either to hcd and then also accompany any public posting of the report. like what is our department's response to the

review? so those are my comments for now. any other commissioner comments or questions? commissioner moore i may be the only person feeling that way about having 3 or 4 pieces of legislation on one calendar is making it quite difficult to work through or give it the proper time because legislation is not our mainstay of what we personally or professionally do. and it requires significant amounts of attention. i think the department is giving us guidance, but the full understanding rests on us. so i would like to ask that whoever schedule holds what's on our calendar pays attention to not having too much legislative pieces all at once. i would personally appreciate that and i see some nods which perhaps reflects a broader consensus of what the commission is asking.

thank you. commissioner moore. i can appreciate that concern. and certainly acknowledge the impact to today's agenda. however our october 5th hearing, which was canceled due to senator feinstein's more service, the limited time frame that the legislation provides you to review it before it goes to the board, limit our ability to maneuver pieces of legislation unless it's the supervisor is willingly add extensions to them. so in this particular instance, especially today, our hands were a bit tied. i'm just asking for long. looking ahead to avoid logjams. too much fog on the freeway? absolutely any other comments or questions did you want to share, commissioner dimond? i want to second the request made by commissioner moore, especially because so many of these pieces of

legislation all relate to different aspects of the same subject. right. and are all it is challenging trying to figure out how they relate to each other, how they relate to the housing element, legislation which is coming this summer, and some guidance around sort of the big picture and all of these pieces of legislation would be very helpful, i think. and at least my review of the individual pieces certainly. any other comments or questions? all right. thank you, commissioners department matters. item six directors announcements just to follow up. i mean, we'll certainly yeah, we recognize too, it's an impacted calendar today, but i think it is a combination of kind of canceled meetings and the deadlines we have for certain legislation to be heard in. and i think we're going to see more legislation, especially as we're implementing. i mean, the overarching policy is the

housing element, which you know, was fairly specific on what we wanted to do as far as constraints, removal and rezoning and allowing for more housing. so we'll try to definitely tie things back to the housing element where they relate to the housing element and certainly i think the eight seeds policies and practices review keyed off the housing element. i mean, a lot of the recommendations they made were things we called out already in the housing element as things we were going to do. so they might have had a more aggressive timeline on on them. some we've already implemented, which is good news, but some are new and we'll have to implement. so we will have a hearing on this. i think it may be best to combine it with the hearing. we're planning on state legislation. so as you know, there was there was a host of state bills that passed that relate to housing. so i think our plan is to hopefully and we'll work with president tanner on this couple that hearing on a briefing on the hcd report with state

legislative, the kind of the summary of state legislation. so, so look for that as an upcoming item in the calendar in related to that work. you'll see today in one of your items 401 south van ness. we were here before when we talked about the housing element, about changes we were making to our work under under sequa. and, you know, one one goal was to kind of reduce time and process that. it takes us to prepare for evaluation, but still give you the information and perhaps even give it to you. we're hoping in a more, more concise fashion for you and the public. and so you'll see in today's calendar under under 401, if you haven't already, south van ness, that it was our first general plan evaluation. and so we were teeing off the housing element. eir and reformatted kind of how we do that evaluation. you're used to seeing those under kpis where we're keying off kind of the eastern neighborhoods plan or another plan that we've done. but again, i think it gets to

the core issues that are important to you in a clear and concise manner. but we want to hear feedback from you as you as you look at those reports and make your decisions. so let us know as time goes on. and that's all i have. thank you. thank you. actually, i wonder in the intervening time i thought of a question. jonas we talked a little bit about the hearing procedures staying the same. i just wanted to just say that publicly because i had a member of the public asked me if we were going to follow the board of supervisors and not have remote public comment and we are going to continue with this commission and unless and until the mayor directs us to do otherwise, we have the leeway to decide to do that. but certainly we can, you know, have a discussion, perhaps in a future gender just about this practice and any other procedures that may be myself and catherine as officers can talk with you about just to be prepared if there are a lot of public commenters or it's been fortunately very smooth for us. i think this last year, but just wanted to update that. i don't know if there's

any other report outs, jonas, on any other changes or anything. no, i mean, right. i mean the direction i've received so far is that the board of supervisors made that decision for their for hearings not impacting any others. but at some point the mayor and the board of supervisors may direct all policy bodies to adopt a uniform , remote public comment. policy but until such time, we can do as we wish and for now, at least, we will continue remote public comment. mr. do you have a question about that? yes, sir. and to be precise, people with particular reasons for having to call back in remote, even under the supervisors policy, we still would be able to call in correct? correct. members of the public who make advance requests for reasonable accommodation

will still be afforded the opportunity to submit their public comments remotely. as far as i understand, and to the board of supervisors that was my understanding and i think it's important for the public to know , okay, if there's nothing further from the commissioners. i'll just add, i think, you know , we've decided to move our november 16th hearing to 10 a.m. with a hard stop at 330. i just i mean, the apec conference is going to cause some significant disruption throughout san francisco that week. so i could expect potentially impacts to that hearing even with our time change. so just just a heads up department matters item six director's announcements. i already went. it's my turn. jonas. sorry okay, mr. star,

it's the star show for item seven review of past events at the board of supervisors. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday, and i have no report from the board of appeals. good afternoon , commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs at land use. this week, the committee considered the ordinance sponsored by supervisor mandelman that would allow night time entertainment in the on the second floor in the castro street in cd. this item was continued from last week because the added amendments were substantive. this week, representatives from the castro cbd spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. there were no opposition speakers. supervisor melgar made a motion to send as a committee report send a positive recommendation as a committee report. however supervisor peskin stated that he'd prefer to send it without a recommendation to be consistent with his past votes on the castro theater project supervisor melgar then rescinded her motion and made another to send it to the board without recommendation. as a committee report. that motion did pass unanimously this week at the

full board. the board had passed a resolution appointing amy campbell to the historic preservation commission as a mayoral appointment and the castro street cd changes for nighttime entertainment also passed their first read. i couldn't hear the last part of your sentence. could you please repeat that? i'm sorry. i could not acoustically hear the last part of your sentence. of what sentence? i can barely hear you the last. the last sentence you spoke. i couldn't hear the planning code. amendment that changed the nighttime entertainment controls for the castro street and passed its first read. okay thanks. thanks. all right. good afternoon, president tanner. commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night. the only item they considered that was of interest to the commission is for a case at 1228. funston this was a project that actually the commission saw

twice for two different discretion review cases. the most recent one, the planning commission took denied the project that permit denial was appealed as you may remember, there were some questions about the applicability of the housing accountability act in that case, and last night the board heard the case but continued it to december 2nd. basically get more information on the housing accountability accountability act, issues related to the project before making a final decision. but that was it. thank you. if there are no questions, commissioner, we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three

minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hi good afternoon, jorge. scottish last week i talked about discretionary review and i mentioned an email that i correspondence that i had with mr. joslin back in 2017 and it was really starting about the arditi versus the arditi, but he just mentioned to me that there were are only. 45 projects subject to dr. so i looked at the list and i did have a list and i sent that to you last night with some of draft approval motions. just to give you an idea of what they were about. and i'll just go over it again this was in fiscal 2015 to 2016, and there were over 10,000 permits dealt with by your staff . 45 of them were geared. and i

would say 45 is pretty minuscule if you think of it in the context of 10,000. that's i guess that's a subjective statement. only 34 were for were public dollars that involved housing and all of the dollars for housing were approved by the commission that were for mandatory dress for housing. one for a multi unit building of seven units that was never built . that's on the one on third street. and i guess what this says to me is there's a perception that the city is drowning in requests for dollars and i'd at least on that year and the other material that you saw last week from ozone and mrs. dratler showed something different. there's never been a doctor request claiming that an alteration was really a demolition. they deal with other issues, and that's one reason why i think the couch should be adjust. and some of the projects on the list that i sent last night for mr. jocelyn did apply as alterations and they were

likely demolitions and for many of them there were no published memo calcs on the pym, one of those that was approved as a under dr. was approved but was slightly changed. was as a de facto unit merger. and i put that draft approval motion, the approval motion in there. several of the spec projects were sold for 4.2 million, 4.4 million, 5.7 million. there was even one for 9.8 million. and i'll just conclude by saying that light and air and privacy and rear yard mid-block open space are often concerns that the commissioners report zoning officials elected by the voters need to rule on using their discretionary powers for. thank you very much. oh, and here's for the minutes. thank you. last

call for general public comment again. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak, commissioners general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar for item eight. case number 2023 hyphen 006326 pca and map for the family housing opportunity. a special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is a follow up to the family housing opportunity special use district. and we do have supervisor engardio who's here today to introduce the item and share a few remarks. good afternoon, president tanner and planning commissioners. i want to thank my west side colleague, supervisor melgar and her office, for bringing this legislation forward. she worked

tirelessly with city planning staff, city attorney and the land use and transportation committee on amendments so that the family housing opportunity special use district secured unanimous approval of the board. my colleagues and i wanted to incorporate a few substantive amendments, which i'm ready to discuss with you today. you might remember in early june, i presented a vision for west side neighborhoods that embraced the six story building. i wasn't ready then with the legislation for you to consider, so i shared a basic outline of my proposal, which was, let's increase building heights on corners. so think of it as anchors on residential blocks. we do not interrupt anything mid-block so the look remains consistent. the ground floor on the corner anchor buildings can provide amenities. the entire neighborhood can benefit from corner store cafe, community, space, child care or senior center. let's add a few more units to these lots. this will help projects requiring an

elevator to pencil out. and let's reduce restrictions on unit bedroom configuration requirements. and this will enable the construction of all one, 2 or 3 bedroom unit projects. and that's going to help lower construction costs. so the idea is one building is all one bedrooms, or it's all two. right? just keep it simple. so thank you to president tanner and commissioners moore and dimond for your early conceptual support for the six story density idea. and i recall you were positive about it back in june at the june 1st planning commission hearing and commissioners, you also asked about the legislation's approach to prevent what's called awkwardly shaped hockey stick through lots. my amendments help prevent those lot mergers from occurring, and they help clarify rear yard unit clearance requirements throughout the special use district. i also want to acknowledge the efforts of my friend eugene liu, a retired architect who has spent years developing the density concept demystify short for

domiciles in the city. he's the real brainchild of this effort and deserves credit. eugene has made presentations and talked about density with established west side neighborhood groups many times. his proposal is supported by george wooding, a longtime community leader and former president representing the west of twin peaks central council. i personally have promoted eugene's concept for six story buildings since 2015. when i wrote about it multiple times in the column that i wrote in the san francisco examiner, the city was prominently featured during my campaign for supervisor last year. it actually became a famous attack ad a mailer was sent to every voter about density with the headline don't let joel engardio destroy the sunset. and i still won because when residents truly see what diversity is, they like it. it solves a real problems. longtime residents have, like providing the option of an

elevator building to downsize to and age safely in place in their neighborhood. right now, there are no options for seniors in the sunset. it also helps solve the problem of adult kids and grandkids moving far away due to lack of housing in the sunset density keeps families together, keeps people in their neighborhood, do. mid-city is featured prominently on my website and my blog. it was reported on in the san francisco chronicle. i've also include it in my supervisor newsletter, which goes to more than 25,000 people, and residents write back through my website asking for diversity. seniors write to say they want this option. so today i want to explain why i'm proposing these amendments we face a daunting challenge. the city must meet the requirement to build 46,000 affordable homes for moderate and low income households over the next eight years. we need abundant, affordable housing so our teachers, muni operators, public safety professionals and all working class families can afford to live in san francisco.

we owe them the opportunity to stay here. and by creating a prototype that allows at least five homes on a single a standard single family lot, the city achieves scalability and a reduction in costs, in turn, dismissed city enhances the livability of established neighborhoods and promotes community throughout the west side. this means empty nesters can downsize while staying within their communities and owning their homes. seniors can relocate to another accessible unit in an elevator building on the same block they've lived on for decades. and our city workers can find an affordable place to live. so thank you for your consideration of this item today. i look forward to the discussion on and i'll turn it back to veronica and she'll present a summary of the legislation. thank you. so again, this is a follow up and additional amendments to the family housing opportunity special use district or sud,

which was effective beginning october 15th. so very recently. and while this path has overlapping eligibility criteria and there are a few minor differences, so i'll outline a few of those right now in terms of density, this path would allow up to 86 units on a corner lot or 12 units in the case of a two lot merger and up to 18 units in the case of a three lot merger, these projects would be allowed a height limit of up to 65ft and the minimum bedroom requirements of the standard sued would not apply under this path. the group housing would not be permitted under this path. however our corner lot projects could still all propose a group housing project complying with the standard sued, so that would be a group housing project act allowed up to 40ft on the corner. lots in terms of general sued changes.

supervisor engardio already shared a lot merger clarification that would amend the sued so as to not allow no new through lots resulting from a lot merger. the only exceptions would be if one of the lots to be merged is already in existing through lot in which case an additional lot could be merged with the through lot. this change is really to help to retain the existing block face existing pattern and also to minimize any encroachment or interference with the mid-block open space. there are also so some additional clarifications with respect to the separation between a rear yard unit and the primary building, specifically, the facades are now explicitly called out that the separation is meant for the facades facing onto each other and the legislation also clarifies that

the open space may only be obstruct, gutted by fire escapes , stairs, railings, among a few other things, all of which are consistent with the way that general permitted obstructions are allowed to obstruct the open space. today the department supports the proposed ordinance as it does increase housing production, while also simultaneously removing housing development constraints. however there are a few recommended modification options that we've shared in the staff report. the supervisor is in support of the first two recommended modifications related to the density per 1000ft!s and the shaping of the building. so i'll focus on the other two recommended modifications as they the this brings us to the third recommended modification, which is to allow lot mergers in all our age districts within this sued. currently the family

housing opportunity sued only allows lot mergers for the rh one, rh, one d and rh one s zoned parcels as the department is concerned that a property with an underlying zoning district of rh one would be able to build a higher density than that of the neighboring rh two or rh three properties. and that's just fundamentally inconsistent with the way that the different classes of the rh districts work. so that should be reconsidered. and i believe leave supervisor engardio is in support of this amendment. but in speaking with his colleagues, other committee members are not in support of this. so i don't believe this amendment will be carried through last lee the fourth recommended modification is to permit group housing for the corner lot projects pursuing this new path as drafted. this

corner lot provision would not permit group housing projects. it's up to the 65 foot height limit. however, such projects could still be proposed up to 40ft under the standard sued requirements. this this additional 25ft could yield greater numbers of group housing bedrooms if the ordinance incorporated this recommended modification at and because the corner lot provision does not include a minimum bedroom required payment, this could result in 100% studio buildings. and while we are not not in opposition to this type of project, it does provide more housing choices in our well-resourced neighborhoods. as so a group housing project could still provide the same amount of density. we still house the same number of people. it will be at a lower cost to tenants and it would still provide more communal amenities for more livable environs moment and make

it more of a usable space. i understand the supervisor is not in support of this last recommended modification. i did not receive any public comments regarding this ordinance today and this concludes the staff presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. thank you, veronica. we should take public comment. members of the public. this is our opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. on it. on gov, the speaker is going to be using the overhead projector. all right. so i've never done this before, so bear with me. just face up. just like

. all right. so i spent a little jake price on behalf of the housing action coalition and i spent a little time yesterday day perusing google maps and just looking at six story buildings on corner, lots next to low density projects. and i'll flip through this. the first one is on fillmore and washington street. pacific avenue in pacific heights, linden and buchanan. in my neighborhood. and grove and divisadero, also in my neighborhood. i took this on my walk home last night. it's not a corner lot, but i still think it's the essence of what this proposal is looking to do. on scott and hayes. and lastly, my favorite picture, the painted ladies with a seven story apartment building next to it,

the picture on the right is a different angle on hayes street. so i show this to underscore that six story apartment buildings in low density areas is not some radical new concept that san francisco is not accustomed to. it's density is an innovative proposal that supervisor engardio and eugene liu have led on. but it's not in any way, shape or form something that san francisco is uncomfortable with. and i urge this commission to return us back to a time when we could build these apart buildings for families and seniors and young people to live and be able to thrive in the city. i do ask that you give serious consideration to planning department's recommendation for reduced setback requirements in rh two and rh three to promote

feasibility and as that you move this to the land use committee. thank you very much for your support. good afternoon. commissioners. jane natoli, san francisco organizing director for action here in support and echoing a lot of what jake price just said before me, i think we've seen examples of this kind of density in our neighborhoods. it exists already there. i think this is an innovative idea. i know supervisor engardio has been pursuing it well before he was elected. this is something he's been working on for a while and, you know, we need in all of the above approach as we're facing what's in front of us with trying to build 82,000 units in the next eight years. so you know, i think this is another way, another tool that is more amenable. i'm a resident in the richmond. i know it's not always easy to sell that, but certainly you know, we have apartment buildings of that size

throughout the richmond and in locations in the sunset on corner lots already. so really we're just enabling what we historically used to do. again and i think that is a big component of getting us out of the hole that we've been in when it comes to this housing shortage. thank you. sorry. hi georgia shoots. i i'm bringing you an article that was in the wall street journal in april about the that raises the issue of how many homes are really needed in the us. and i know that that's a controversial issue the arena goals but it seems to be fundamental to all of these these discussions. i you know i can appreciate the six six story buildings on the corners. i mean that's in the that's kind of in the in the residential design guidelines. now already it's really nothing

new. but what what i'm always struck by when i read these reports and i'm really glad the staff puts them out because they, they they have a lot of information in them. and i go back to the october 21st executive summary on sb9, which talked about how people of color and low income homeowners may be forced to sell out and i think i don't think that's gotten enough attention. and there was a proposal that there be programs to help these people not lose their homes. and the same thing is true in this executive summary for this. it was in the one for supervisor melgar about because prices have gone up so much that the pressures may encourage these homeowners to sell now and then. now is in italics and i think that even though it says changing density limits is unlikely to make a significant difference in the choices these family makes, that's still out there that people there's economic pressures. and you know, we may

never know what they are. the individual stories or whatever. i've certainly seen some of them with the fact that the democrats were never adjusted. and that's why i still harp on the demo calcs being adjusted because i know you're going to build things on corners and they may be large and you may demolish things or they may be where the like say, where a bank is on a corner or a or a one story building. and you know, that's something that that people are going to have to deal with in their neighborhoods. but the century urban feasibility studies do say that it's very challenging to build multi unit buildings. so even if, you know, you build the same two bedroom units in the whole building, maybe it's feasible, maybe it's not. but there's no money right now to protect existing owner occupied homes for people who want to stay in their home and maybe don't want to move to a six unit, six story building and so i think one way to do that is

to think about just the demographics. it may seem very tenuous, but i think that it's something that the commission can do. and i don't think the state would get too mad at you, but who knows? thank you very much. okay. if there are no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's go to our remote callers. eileen burton with speak urging the commission to return this to the board without recommendation . currently, there are four pieces of legislation with this exact same title, along with the item before the commission on which is board file 230808. there are board. files 230026230423 and 230446. as well as historic, the board has worked collaboratively, collaboratively to co-sponsor a

single bill. however, a trend has emerged to emulate the state legislature in san benito for every two year session over 1000 bills come to the governor's desk for signature. as each legislator wants their own bill package on the merits of this legislation on a poster child could be 3701. noriega is a 12 unit building of market rate apartments with an on site fitness center and a large rooftop seating area on the ground floor is a high end grocery store. there is no on site parking for either. the grocery store or the residents. the surrounding area is dwarfed by its massing. is this actually the poster child for the gentrification of a working class neighborhood and colonization of the west side? regarding paris in the sunset, as previous stated that san francisco should be more like

paris with the narrative from decades ago, begun by a gauche, it has now been rebranded as paris in the sunset in paris itself, the montparnasse tower is 690ft in height. it is paris in the sunset. the montparnasse tower at 2700 slope. or is it something else? thank you. miss neetu. oh, hello, everyone. my name is felicia neetu and i'm a resident of san francisco, mom of two and also a business owner doing business in san francisco. i'm in favor for higher height limit in all our districts for at least two floors and i'd as

as of right now, i'm a renter and we cannot afford to purchase a unit in san francisco. so we are familiar for and we will need a three bedroom two bathroom unit to host my family. at least 1500 square feet as the founder of city structure, where we analyze what you can build on a property for anybody in san francisco, we got a lot of feedback that homeowners do not have enough room as of current bay zone to host not enough units or this kind of large size units on their property. and i'll give you a quick example. so if we take a typical lot of

2500ft!s in san francisco, the base lot, the base zone allows. for 5500 to 7000ft!s. you know, if we were to divide this number at six units, we would get 1100 square feet of gross area per unit. that would be short at least 400 square foot per unit to host a family of four. so. for six unit project for a six unit building, we need at least 2400ft!s. in addition to what te base zone is allowing today. so, yes, we need at least two more levels above the 4040 x height limit today. thank you so much. hi. my name is jessica. a real estate agent in san cisco. and i

would like you guys to pass this bill because you guys are in danger of losing your housing element. compliance and we need more housing on the west side like definitely, because there's so many people that want to live in san francisco and they want to live on the west side, but there's not a lot of housing choices for them to want to live out there. and so we need to increase that so that more people can live on the west side. thank you very much. so this is steve marzo. i'm a resident in ingleside in san francisco and the reason why i think i'm calling in support of this dome city, big supporter of joel's work in the sunset. he knows the neighborhood. he knows the west side, and he knows that this kind of project really fits in with the character of the

neighborhood and can help the neighborhoods thrive. housing is really important to me because i know that it's a fundamental to human dignity and living a safe and fulfilling life. and it pains me whenever i meet someone who is born and raised in san francisco but was forced to move because they can't afford the housing. and i think that the west side is the exact area where we need to build more. this can allow seniors to stay in their communities. this can allow families to have their kids live nearby. why this allows small businesses to thrive. this is a common sense proposal. i think it's very practical to add these projects at corner lots and we can take some meaningful steps to addressing our shortage on the west side. and this is an area that has for decades not built enough. so as a west side resident, i'm impressed with supervisor guardiola's vision. i

want to see the city become a reality and i'd love to see you all support this and move it forward. thank you. hi. my name is colby zinto. i am a homeowner in the sunset. i have been a sunset resident since 1999 and i've raised my three kids in the neighborhood and in the district . i am calling in support of the diversity plan. i think this is good, essential policy for the west side of san francisco. so i strongly support supervisor and guardians efforts to bring multifamily homes to the sunset. it is bold and innovative and inspired solution for multifamilies and i believe this legislation and multifamily housing is critical to the west side of san francisco. i want san francisco to be an accessible and affordable place to live for my children and for families everywhere. thanks very

much. hi, this is jeremy shaw of shaw architects. i'm calling to strongly support this legislation as a means to provide more housing across the western part of san francisco, emphasizing corner buildings and density is already part of the design guidelines. this will not affect mid-block open space and only gently affects nearby homes , allowing additional units and height is a great starting point for bringing more families into san francisco. it will also help seniors age in place and upgraded access able homes. please support this legislation. thank you. okay last call for public comment. if you're in the chambers, you need to come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners public comment on this item is closed and it is now before you. thank

you. thank you. supervisor for bringing this forward and for your enthusiasm for it. and thank you staff for your report. you know, i think having already kind of heard previewed this a few months ago, i don't have any significant questions. i would simply state in terms of the staff modification is while understanding miss flores, that there is not maybe support beyond this chamber for that project. i do see the point that if we are allowing these changes on rh one, that it would make sense even if a property's underlying zoning is rh two and we know there's a lot of rh two properties that are single family homes that don't have two units. it just seems to make sense. i understand if it doesn't carry weight beyond our support for it in the board, but hopefully the board members would get that consideration. supervisor do you want to address that comment in this aspect of the legislation? yes. thank you. um, so i also understand among my colleagues this may not fly, but we can try

. but one thing actually, i want to suggest that we actually add something to this is can we expand this to our m one zoning? and i know you had recommended this in the legislation that supervisor metzger put forth and nothing really came of it. but what i'm thinking is, you know, like on vicente and the sunset, it's not a full blown merchant corridor. it's like one block or a half a block where there's like housing above a restaurant or so. like, i don't want to miss out on that because that's like a perfect opportunity for density. so maybe if like we can't get rh th two and three, but if we can get our m one we actually might build some common sense densities, right? so maybe that's the compromise, but let's just put it all out on the table and we can always pare back through the ongoing process. so i want to just recommend adding our m one. yeah, absolutely. and maybe while you're here, i certainly would be supportive of that motion if my colleagues make that for the group housing. i am okay with keeping it at

40ft, but i don't know if you have any comments on why you want to keep it at 40 or 65 might be a challenge. yeah i mean in general, like the group housing, i mean, i'm basically talking dormitories. like if you're a senior and you've lived in your home for 40 years, you're you're not going to downsize to a dormitory. you're going to downsize to a nice little one bedroom. so i just want to not conflate that and cause more things to people to come and nitpick about. right? so the intention of density is not for group housing, but maybe there's other places where we could have it. absolutely. and i would say we've had a lot of discussions here about group housing. we even have a group housing project today. and so that's why i'm okay with keeping it at 40ft, notwithstanding the points that miss flores makes around that group. housing can be good, but i do think it's a little bit different than some of the other topics we're talking about. and that this legislation is aimed at. thank you again, supervisor. thank you . i want to call on commissioner moore. diamond and then commissioner braun, thank you

for being here and enthusiastically presenting your vision. if i may. i am in support of your ideas of relative to the sunset. however where i live in a neighborhood that already is full of the density ideas. it's an older neighborhood where literally every corner is at least one corner in every block has such a condition. and the reason is i live in a hilly neighborhood where that particular type of higher corner building actually does everything that we want in the overall city form, but also how you accentuate the presence of a store or of a community space on those corners. my question to you is, is your legislation confined to a district for is it confined to district for? i think it's in

the well-resourced neighborhoods. so i don't know what neighborhood you're in specifically, but but if you look at that map, you can see a lot of the eastern part of the city, kind of the older, quote unquote, part of the city is not part of this. so but it's certainly like the west side district for district one. i don't know. i don't know if we have a look at the map, but or if someone wants to. i love to see a little bit more specificity, if i may. i live at the edge of chinatown and not only as perhaps one building. we sourced the next one is not at all. and it is indeed truly san francisco, because you don't know what is resourced or not in including in my own building there is a great, great variant of resourced or not resourced at all. i believe chinatown is not in this area. if you look in the package at the towards the end, there's the map of the i'm not i'm not trying to make a case for chinatown or edge of

chinatown. i'm trying to make a case for buildings in topock where the overall layout does not need these types of corner emphasis anymore because it's one existing. it already mostly has accumulated a lot around the corner or around the corner on a more flatter portion of a side street. and i would love to see for this particular idea and it's a really good idea. practiced in the sunset in prototypes by which we gain confidence that this has stay in the future rather than being a speculative tool as i could come . mentors who called in already express as i like to remind you, there was a time prior to your being supervisor, not in your district, but where it then supervisor wiener brought forward the idea of adus. that is quite a while back. i was on the commission already at that time and ultimately we told him

that we would like to see him prototype in practice, that in his district in particular blocks and it took off from there and i would love for you with the follow up you have the influence you have in having really support for the idea and you have my support. if you would prototype this, legislate in a new district and show how it can work rather than becoming too quickly like a quick fire where everybody wants to jump on it and it causes more harm than good? the principle idea is what you're suggesting is wonderful. and while i don't necessarily believe it has to be perish, we have all of our own ideas of what it needs to be. i am support, but specifically with restricting it to your district. well, thank you. yeah, thank you for that. and i've always talked about let's bring the spirit of paris will always be uniquely san francisco. but the idea is like just the experience and

spirit of i think everyone can agree that that's a good thing. and i would love to build a diversity pilot, and i'd love to build it in the sunset because i believe i truly believe like once people see it, once they walk through it, they're going to say, i need this. not just want i need this in my neighborhood too. so yes, let's build the first diversity in the sunset and then let it take off from there. but i do want to allow for the potential well, you know, so we don't have to keep coming back like, you know, this legislation is allowing for the potential for it to be in all the appropriate places in this well-resourced map area, because we want you know, we just had a scathing report from the state that just came in this week. you know, so i'm trying to play my part, too, to put up the type of housing that that people really want in san francisco that could help meet our goals and create the potential for the

corner lots that make the most sense. and again, i fully support, except i would like to limit my support for this being at this moment only be applied to district four. it is a flat site with a predictable pattern where that is very, very highly imaginable and almost any other district. while research is on the map or not, i do not easily see it as a one size fits all in addition to that, and that is a personal comment, please convey my regards to eugene liu. he is an old colleague of mine and i haven't seen him for years and thank you for telling that he helped with this. i appreciate that. absolutely. he's a he is a legend and a gem of san francisco. and once we build density, he'll be even more so. that's wonderful. thank you, commissioner moore. commissioner diamond, first i want to thank you, supervisor engardio for coming personally to sell your legislation to us. i really appreciate it when supervisors, when they're promoting their legislation, show up in person

and express their enthusiasm and are available to answer our questions. so i'll start out with the big thank you for that. i was enthusiastic when you brought this concept to our attention a number of months ago , and i remain enthusiastic about the concept in theory. but as i read through the legislation and the staff report , several issues arose for me that i would like the opportunity to talk with you and staff about on both a process level and a substantive level. i asked staff for pictures of where in the city we have 65 foot buildings is not just next to 40 foot buildings, which is what the height limit is, but next to what we have in practice, which is in many places, including the sunset and particularly the outer richmond houses that are one story over a garage which are, you know,

25ft, maybe, so that we're talking about 65ft next to 25ft. and while as director hillis has pointed out to me on multiple conversations about this, that over time, we would hope that, you know, maybe people would add on and their houses would all eventually be at 40ft. the reality is, if this happens, we could have 65 foot structures next to 20 to 25 foot structures on many corners. and so i have anxiety about how we make those structures fit in beside each other and to that end, i want to start with a process question and then get to the substantive questions. so we are engaged in a massive effort to rezone the city to meet our rina goals, particularly on the west side. and we have several zoning scenarios that have been presented to us in the eir and through work that's been done by

the department staff and we have requested and the staff is in the process of holding numerous neighborhood meetings and the well-resourced neighborhoods to present these scenarios and get input from these people. those scenarios are various ways of adding height on commercial corridors and we are getting feedback from people on that. we are, if i understand correctly from my conversations with staff , those concepts that we are presenting to the neighborhoods do not have this notion of 65ft on the corners of residential side streets. they have 65, 85, 120ft on the commercial corridors, but we haven't presented them with this notion of, yeah, every side street could have at the corner for a bookend that goes up to 65ft. it might be well received, it might not be well received. we just don't know. and i am

uncomfortable with this notion that that we're engaged in this thorough, comprehensive process. you know, to obtain neighborhood input on how we accomplish the addition of the 82,000 units and in the process of doing that, we'd say, oh, and by the way, we have this really good idea. and even though we didn't present it to you, we're going to adopt it in the interim. and it's something that's quite different than what we presented to you. so i have been a lot more comfortable with this. if this had been included as part of the presentations to the neighbors and that we included it as part of the rezoning adoption that we do, which i think is scheduled for january or february, because cause i mean, this builds on commissioner moore's comment, which is i know you've had many conversations with people in the sunset about this in your district, but this also affects district two or district one. supervisor mandelman district. it's basically it's multiple districts and i don't have any

sense of confidence that those supervisors about an opportunity to hear from the neighborhood groups about this the impact of this legislation and how they feel about it. we have also not yet heard back from staff about the feedback they're getting from these neighborhood meetings that they've been holding on the rezoning, although informally, what i've been hearing from people is that people's really don't have much objection to the density increases on the neighborhood side. streets don't have much objection to the height increases on the commercial corridors, but are pretty uncomfortable with height increases on the residential side streets. and i'm worried that the city is somewhat at odds with that, especially if we're planting 65 foot buildings next to one story over garage existing residences, which are, you know, 25ft. so i i'm

uncomfortable with the process. i really love the idea. you know , i would be so enthusiastic about this if this had been presented as part of the neighborhood. you know, community input process and people come back to us. but i'm very hesitant to be enthusiastic about it when it feels like we haven't really ruled this out and received broad neighborhood input. the way we are with the rest of the rezoning. so before i go on to the substantive questions about this, i wonder if you could respond to that. sure does. is a planning i can't speak to the outreach of the planning department. did i can only speak to my own outreach. and just to and i know what your concerns about not everyone has built that extra story on their home out on the west side. many have, but a lot also have not. one thing to note, however, though, is if you look along a typical block in the sunset, there are people who have built

their extra story up to 40ft mid-block so sometimes you see that juts out like a sore thumb sometimes, but we're not proposing to do any more sore thumbs in the middle of the block. it's just the anchor on the corner, right? so and i know you still have the concern about what? about the house next door to the anchor. right so i understand that. but you know, already there are mixed match within the 40 foot limit that's already happening. and we're only saying 25 more feet. and a lot of the intention behind that is to those buildings really need to have an elevator, especially since i want to focus it on senior housing, need to have the extra height for the mixed use of the elevator and all that. so so, so that's the intent behind it. to me, the issue and i don't really see any problem with 40ft next to 60 or 65ft. i am concerned about the, you know, predominant pattern where we may have 20ft next to

65ft. that's the concern i have. so that gets me to my substantive issues, which is i understand from my conversations with staff that it in our age districts, we are not we don't put commercial uses at the ground floor and that we could actually do six stories with 60ft, not 65ft. is that an accurate. that's a question. maybe for staff. yeah. in our age districts, you aren't allowed to do commercial on the ground floor. one reason we didn't really bring that up is because another ordinance that you had also heard of to allow llcs limited corner commercial uses in rh districts was before you and hasn't heard from the board yet. whether that amendment makes it in or not, i don't know. so you may be able to do a commercial on the ground floor in corner buildings if that ordinance passes as it was presented to you or you may not. so i guess i, i mean, one

modification i'd like to consider is whether or not if we're going to do this, that in rh districts, we limit the height to 60ft, not 65ft. the 60 the extra five feet, i think, is only necessary if we're putting in commercial uses on the ground floor. is that correct. well the 65 was just trying to be consistent with the existing, you know, the existing heights that we already have versus trying to create something entirely new category and also so my intention was if there needed mechanics on the roof for the elevator, so we didn't like realize, oh no, now we can't put elevator in because we needed to go up another x number of feet. that was my intention. but i don't think we need that for all of it. we i, i didn't think so. anyway, i don't think we need that. the extra height for the elevator, it can go in. i can opine a little bit. i do know

that after you hit above four stories, the amount of equipment that you need, you can't use a pit elevator like you normally would once you go to high within the building. so additional height to accommodate for mechanical equipment may be needed depending on the type of elevator that's needed in a certain location. okay. that that's different than what i heard from staff yesterday. so i'm trying to understand where they're actually landing on this. yeah, sorry. apologies commissioners. yeah, you are actually allowed to do mechanical equipment above the height limit anyway, so. but it's limited based on the height limit. so it's only ten feet if it's under 65ft and then above above 65, it's 16ft above the height limit. so we could do six stories at 60ft and have an elevator. is that accurate? correct okay. and then the other thing is and i'm sorry to be occupying so much time here, but i want to get this all out there

for us to consider is in the staff report. it indicates that we have drafted objective design standards that are going to include a stepping down requirement to respond to shorter adjacent buildings. and it says this is important where proposed corner lots under this provision could potentially be over 20ft taller than the directly adjacent neighbors. i'm actually much more worried about the scenario where the these buildings could be 40ft taller than the directly adjacent neighbors. and how are we maybe this is a question for staff. how do the where are we in drafting objective design standards that would allow for stepping down or tapering some way to deal with this issue of adjacency that i've been keep referring to in my comments? it's just on that one. those are part of what we're going to bring to you in january as part of the rezoning and certainly, you know, some of those or we can look at we can look at this situation specifically. i think the standards would be applicable to this situation as

well, because it's taller on a commercial corridor and then stepping down to a to a residential neighborhood that's lower. so we can bring those and make sure we add this as part of that work plan. i i just put it out there because i believe this is going to be a scenario that's going to crop up frequently on the west side with well-resourced neighborhoods because of the predominance of the small scale of housing. and i am trying to find a way to have people enthusiastically support what i think is a fantastic idea. but, you know, if it was at five stories instead of six, i'd be a lot more comfortable with just right now saying, i'm all in, let's do it at six stories that contrast between the standard one, one story over garage adjacent to a 65 building is really troubling me. so i just put those comments out for the rest of the commissioners to consider so we

can see if we can land in a place that we can support this. the last thing as i just want reassure that from staff that if we approve something like this, the height could not then be increased by another 50% under state density bonus. okay. and then i wouldn't support group housing and i feel like we're mixing too many concepts and that let's get this one right first and maybe one day we can amend it for group housing. but i would take that off the table for now, so i don't know where i land yet. i just wanted to express my concern and see how other commissioners feel and see if we can get someplace we can all support it. great. thank you. before i call on commissioner brown, i'll just say certainly open to thinking about the height and also agree with the group housing point. again i do think overall, you know, we are kind of trying to look towards the next 50 or 100 years of san francisco development and certainly we'll have some, you know, maybe

mismatching, which we already do have and so especially since this is so focused on a unique situation which is the corner lot, which typically does have the higher heights in building pattern, i don't know if there's a big difference between 60 and 65. i mean, it's five foot difference or 50. and then just thinking about balancing that with consistency. but if that's where we get 50, i think that's better than where we are now. and then certainly the other changes to what can be built there, i think provide a lot more clarity and a lot more flexibility. so open to hearing what others others think. commissioner brown, thank you. and i'll echo the thanks for the supervisor being here today. i really appreciate it. i, as always, have been given a lot of food for thought by my fellow commissioners, and i really appreciate the comments that have been made. i think i'll start kind of simply and just talk about the staff recommendations for a moment. first. so on recommendation three by staff about incorporating the two and three zoning into this as well, i

actually am in favor of that recommendation as well as the supervisor suggestion of the one zoning. i agree with with president tanner's take on the fact that there are many circumstances in which two and three in which it's essentially a similar situation with single family homes and, you know, it sort of and also corner lots that can accommodate this kind of height and density. and it sort of echoes what happens in a lot of the r1 districts. just thinking about my own two district and so i am in favor of expanding the application of this and recommendation three. we'll see where it goes with the actual legislative process. on recommendation four about group housing. i appreciate the explanation that was provided about why it was not incorporated in this. and although i was initially be in favor of it, i'm in favor of expanding housing options and choice in the city in general. in this instance, i agree. we're probably mixing maybe too many things in with the legislation and raising too many potential.

i'll call them yellow flags for people and so then so i just would like to talk about some of the things that have come up, you know, vice president moore mentioned the idea of doing a pilot program in the supervisor's district. you know, it might take on this is that if i would like to see this applied beyond just those geographies, i like the, you know, the well-resourced neighborhoods application of this because we can go back and take a look. the supervisors can take a look if there are issues that emerge as part of this pilot. and of course, you know, again, with the legislative process, the other supervisors will have the opportunity to weigh in on this. i think i especially do take to heart the idea that, you know, maybe this isn't being reflected in some of the outreach happening for the housing element right now. so much i am hoping that the other supervisors who have to review this legislation will also think about how this works is playing out in their districts. but i'm

not especially concerned about having a broader geographic application of the concept. so i'm still in favor of the existing boundaries. then lastly, on the comment raised, being just kind of reactionary here on the comment raised about the height. but i, i actually am in favor of even up to the 65 foot height. i really do appreciate the possibilities, the concerns about, you know, having much shorter buildings adjacent to the much taller ones. if we can have the step downs. i think it's a way to help address that issue. um, but , you know, it's a little tough to weigh on in some ways because i haven't seen the full plans that are sort of driving some of this with the ones created by eugene liu. and you know how this looks relative to the building heights that have been sort of envisioned and how this works in terms of the feasibility and the design of those buildings. but regardless, you know, broadly speaking, i do i do like the idea of the 65 foot height limit. and if that

means that's also the height limit that accommodates ground floor retail on the corner, retail, if that legislation is adopted, i think it's actually a good thing. it can provide a walkable destination option for day to day retail needs in neighborhoods that historically may not have had it as much. and do you have some feedback? yes, thank you. commissioner brown. i just wanted to clarify my two aspects of this legislation that i think were combining into one. so the first is just where for like which properties are eligible for the standard suds. so that is currently we all our age districts. during the june 1st hearing as part of your recommendation, you did include an allowing the one zoning district. so that's just where projects can be proposed under this sod, the staff recommendation, the third staff recommendation is related to the lot mergers aspect. so lot mergers are currently only allowed for, for the rh ones. rh

one s. rh one d zoning districts. the recommendation is to expand this lot. merger opportunity to rh two and rh three. so there they're separate but related and i just wanted to make sure that later in your deliberations it's clear what you want to include or what you want to support or include in the recommended action. okay. and so the expansion to the r one district, that's also i mean, that's essentially the similar idea. it's about the lot mergers. so if that is included in your recommendation, it then recommendation could also include expanding lot mergers to one districts as well. currently, we only have the recommendation listing expanding to the rdr2's and rh threes because that is what's currently eligible for this. okay. did i just complicate things or is

that i think what you're saying is that the current basic, you know, this is specific to the lot merger provision and the current sued r one is not included but to the supervisor's point, we could add that and then the board can discuss m one along, which would be for the entire study as an addition to the lot merger provision that we're discussing today, which would also recommend for, we could recommend for rh two, three and r one. yes thank you. that was great. thank you very much. those are actually all my comments on this. i appreciate it. great thank you. commissioner imperial. yeah. thank you. supervisor for coming to the commission hearing and explaining and also the enthusiasm behind this legislation. i echo what commissioner moore and commissioner diamonds in terms of the questions and also the concerns around expanding it because this is more than just district four. and i know that

you represent the district, of course, and you know, i used to live close to that area and so, yes, in in that way i do recognize or the necessity that you would like to pursue for the district to for the district, for i think again, for me, it's the process in itself in terms of other. and i guess that will be part of the deliberation in the board of supervisors and how other supervisors sees it in itself. but i also one thing that i would like to critique our department, the planning department about, because, you know, every the housing element, you know, as as legislations are being guided by the housing element in itself that's putting to the commission, we centered it in the racial and social equity. however, i don't think, you know, as the department and

i think it's a fair critique that this is our first time doing it. and so we don't have yet the best practices on how to put findings and centering it around racial and social equity. and i think we're still kind of like practicing and trying to find what's the best way to create a racial, social equity analysis. when i see this like discussion, the first thing that i think that i thought that, yes, this is a lot merger legislation, but how is this effect in terms of the current data that we have, the mapping and the demographics and what are the critical questions as the department we need to ask when we're trying to tie this into the racial and social equity analysis? and i think we haven't found that formula yet. and again, this is like an exercise for us and for the legislators to as a whole. when i see this, i also do not it doesn't really also talk skal. the question when it comes to

affordability, how do we tackle that questions as well. you know, when we're talking when we're describing home ownership, you know the wealth, the distribution in itself as well, how is that being also translated here? like that's something that i always tried to , you know, connect and connect the dots. and i don't think we have found that yet in terms of the recommendation portions of the planning department point, in terms the recommendation three allow mergers in all zonings and then potential in them. i would i think i would be supportive if there is an equitable kind of analysis that we have that kind of kind of practice equipped already. that doesn't give me, you know, confidence in that allowing all mergers and then trying to tie

it or center this legislation in the racial social equity manner permit group housing for corner lots. i think the commission have lot discussions about the housing as well. and i understand and that, you know, we need to provide different different types of housing for different scenarios as well. again, for me it's the how do we center this in the racial social equity as we all trying to boast that the housing element will be moving forward in this. so there's this is where i land as of now and i appreciate that the city model supervisor. i really do. and i think piloting it first i think will give us better analysis of how is this really affecting the seniors and . because like a one year data perhaps we can analyze it.

that's how i'm thinking right now. you know, thinking like a consultant. but at the same time, you know, when we're trying to tighten legislations and centering the racial social equity, i'm trying to understand who is benefiting it. so that's those are my comments. thank you. director hillis, do you want to respond just i just want to clarify, because this is getting a little i think because this is building off supervisor melgar's study that already exists. there's a little bit of confusion as to where this applies. so for one, it only applies in her study, which is well resourced neighborhoods, which is kind of consistent with where we were going with with the housing element. right. it's not in priority equity geographies. it's limited to our districts in melgar's study. so i think that's one one kind of component of the answer as to why we're supportive in these areas. and that was an overarching goal in the housing element is to densify on the

west side of the city, which has had hasn't seen much development and has kind of, i think, you know, zoning that doesn't allow for density. second at 317, like, you know, if you're going to merge units generally you're going to have to or you're going to merge lots. generally, there's going to be some you know, there would have to be some demolition of existing buildings. 317 would still apply unless you meet melgar's criteria. it's not historic. there isn't a tenant. it's a single family home. um, you know, you couldn't demo a two unit building the way that the, the mayor's ordinance is being amended to. so we're protecting rent controlled units, which also was a, a tenant of the housing element that you couldn't demo these units without approval from this commission, which we rarely, if ever, approve. demo of rent controlled units. so i think it gets at some of the aspects you're concerned about. i think one of the one of the confusing

parts is we're kind of building off melgar's legislation. so it gets a little we're taking everything that's in that legislation and allowing for denser corner corner properties, which is also, even though we didn't call this out specifically in our work we're doing in the community, this is in the housing element. that corner lots, you know, should allow for additional for additional density. it didn't get into some of the specifics. i think we're getting into today. thank you, director, for clarifying that. and i again, the i think the findings and also the kind of like like what you said of the analysis that probably should have been part of the packet that would better really because right now i'm seeing it as a legislation in itself not, you know, in relation with other ordinances as well. so i think that's for us, the commissioners probably have should have a better understanding on that. so certainly there's been a lot of legislation that has been literally overlapping and building on each other. so it's

it is hard to keep it all straight. but before i go to commissioner moore and brian, i do want to just inject two other staff recommendations into the discussion. so to make sure that we are clear on them. they seem to be fairly straightforward. i think the first one was maybe really just correcting perhaps an error in the duplication of the file. so i just want to make sure that that is i agree with that. i think it was just something that was erroneously not included when the file was duplicated, and that's around permitting density exception limits up to one dwelling unit per 1000ft!s of lot area. i am supportive of that staff recommendation. and then the second one is around revising the rear yard requirements to allow for corner lot provision to shift the rear yard to the interior court interior corner of the lot and require projects to step down. i do want to note that part of that is kind of pending objective design standards that would further refine or give direction on what stepping down actually means. i do wonder if that would address, again in a future scenario of these yet to be adopted design

standards. some of the comments that you've made, commissioner dimond, around the 65 next to the 25 foot building, i don't know staff if you want to speak to that provision in or if the supervisor had any concerns with that, that staff recommendation number two. yes. so with respect to the shifting of the massing, we really want to allow for the prominent corner building that's something we are looking for currently just to make sure that both facades are interacting and continuing that pattern and then moving on to the stepping down. as we all know, the objective design standards are still in draft form. so i don't know what the final outcome will be, but that is, i believe, part of the discussions and could potentially respond to a lot of. commissioner dimond, your concerns regarding potentially 60, 65 foot building next to a 20 foot building. so it's it is

potentially going to respond, but still in progress? yeah. and i'll just say i'm supportive of shifting the massing. i think that is probably in line with architecturally what we're thinking of when we're thinking of a corner building that it really is prominently at that corner. and then that could give some more breathing room on the side. so it seems reasonable for buildings to do that and then again, noting that the stepping down is really an idea here. not really part of the legislation versus the, you know, the shifting of the massing. so i do want to just encourage if commissioners did have comments on those, i know we kind of mostly have spoken to recommendation three and four in our discussion. and then before i call on commissioner moore, i would just say i do support this being in the area that is in the geography, which is the last page of our packet. if folks are looking for the map that was just displayed of where this would apply, i would say this idea of strong prominent corner lots has been piloted for many years, many centuries, even in the ways we've built cities as humans and certainly was part of our city's typography until we down zoned the west side in the

70s. so i think we're kind of making what is old new again in this in this instance. so the pilot, i think, has been has been done. and i think we know what we will get with this legislation with that, i'll call on commissioner moore and then i see commissioner brown. i'd like to i'd like to express my appreciation for a robust discussion among commissioners and particularly nuanced comments of commissioner dimond, followed up by commissioner imperial. i think many of the things that commissioner diamond spelled out in detail are generally addressed or touched on in what i was saying and i would like to actually make a statement that after the thoughtful discussion we had and i am uncomfortable that there is so much additional competing legislation out there that it makes that impossible to fully support it. one or the other, even in the absence of

guidelines, if we discuss stepping on the corner where we have had no effect on the ultimate outcome of what the guidelines are normally ideas are discussed among a group. people come together in that particular case, i would look at the board of supervisors coming together and come forward with something by which neutral parties like ourselves reflects on it. but we're basically being thrown around, like being in some wrestling match every week because there is no collective ability to look at all things equally. we are reacting in the moment a very strong presentation, an well illustrated, well presented, lots of enthusiasm and we jump on the bandwagon of enthusiasm chasm. this thing can basically be toppled. in one other meeting. so i'm sorry i don't want to make anybody laugh. i want to be laughed at either. but i am expressing my frustration. perhaps i'm tossing

the ball to the supervisor to try to get more advance consensus about anything as you're moving forward with any legislation. the things from sacramento coming in every day, every morning, i'm kind of hesitant to open the newspaper to see some other cannonball coming in. and in the end, when it comes to even objective guideline lines, i have to assume that sacramento will have an idea of what objective objective means or not. so saying that i won't express support for the main idea with a limitation that i already mentioned and on the other hand, i want to put out support and challenge to all other supervisors who will be working on their particular part of another semi-related piece of legislation to come together to all of us and give us something that we really can understand as

one and act on this one. thank you. i certainly support that sentiment. commissioner moore, thank you for stating it so well. commissioner braun. i support that sentiment too. i mean, it's certainly mind boggling to hear all the legislation coming forward to us and then i also sort of envision what it's going to be like if half of it passes and the number of pathways that then any given individual with the property will have to build between our legislation and the state legislation. so at some point it feels like there's going to be kind of a not a reckoning, a cleanup that will have to happen with trying to figure all this out. but in the meantime, as far as this piece of legislation before us goes, i, i will make a motion to approve with modifications, taking staff recommendation one staff recommendation to staff recommendation three, but also including one zoning districts within the seward and not taking staff recommendation for and i'm

curious if there are any comments on that motion or seconds so second. okay. there's a second. commissioner dimond. i'm not comfortable all in the current format that it's in. i could see if you would consider either limiting it to district four as proposed. i could vote for that or if we reduce the height from 65 to 55, i could support that. but i in the absence of a law that requires tapering, i am uncomfortable adopting an ordinance or recommending adopting an ordinance that could have a scenario where we've got 65ft next to 20ft with no requirements for setbacks. i i'm also comfortable deferring this and making the whole ordinance,

you know, considered as part of the rezoning legislation where we consider it all comprehensively, because i am in full agreement with commissioner moore that it is very hard to deal with these as one offs instead of as a comprehensive package. and i'm very concerned about how the public deals with all of these as one offs. and in fact isn't dealing with them because they think that the neighborhood meetings are presenting the total to them and have no idea that all of these one offs are happening ahead of time? yeah, i certainly would support the 55 foot height i could get behind that. so if you would consider a modification from 65 to 55, which is basically five feet plus whatever you're doing on the ground floor, i could support that. but otherwise, as i couldn't support what you're proposing. okay. are there any final reactions from supervisor engardio to the 55 foot height limit change or. so? i have a

question with the 55ft, we can still have the ground floor because the whole point is we need an amenity that the rest of the neighborhood can can benefit from the grocery. the senior center. so it would be a matter of five stories with the ground floor activated for commercial or and the elevator will will fit right. it would be a 15 foot ground floor. and then four stories above that, right? well, i mean, yeah, you know, this these are recommendations from the commission. obviously, you know, the board will take this up as well. could you speak a little louder? yeah, sorry, i'm not i mean, i was saying, too, we're making recommendations that you can you and your colleagues will consider when this comes before you. i mean, it'd be nice to have the more more support and less support from the planning commission. and is 55 is better than nothing . so i'm okay with it. thank you. supervisor okay. i will. thank you very much for that.

i'll modify the motion to also state that the 65 foot height limit be reduced to 55ft. is the seconder amenable to that? yes. ms. flores, did you want to make a further comment? yes. thank you so two things. i i believe the intent of the recommendation is to allow one within the sued. so that's a separate modification will write into the record and then we will amend or expand staff recommendation number three to allow the one i believe that's intent. can i just clarify that? it's like 2 or 1 and a half? yes. yes okay. that's right. okay, great. thank you. and then just with respect to the change from 65ft to 55ft, i do want to note there is the minimum current minimums for the projects under this path. so it

would be a minimum of five units, maximum of six for the corner lots, minimum of ten and max of 12 for two lot mergers and minimum of 15 to 18 for the three lot mergers. just want to refresh ourselves of the densities with the change in the or potential change for the height limits here. i think this could still fit within the envelope. i mean i don't see that being a challenge. it just have different sizes of units within the building envelope. i would think. it's not the density that i'm worried about. it's the height. absolutely okay. all right. um, any other comments, commissioner? do you have any comments? i would appreciate if in this particular case, other commissioners comments, aside from how we vote , are transcribed and communicate to the rest of the supervisors? this is a much slightly broader discussion on and i think it would be helpful to see the nuances of what was expressed here. yeah, absolutely. thank you, commissioner koppel. yeah, just

one thing. just put on everyone's radar before we move on this height differences. i'm okay with. but what we're going to probably end up seeing is a lot of homeowners that may have solar panels on their roof that are on the north side of a say, a height increased building could start chiming in or i don't know if there's going to be doctors possible with any of this, but that's just something i can see down the road in the future. coming up as an issue. yeah, more things for our objective design standards, which we anxiously await, are being brought to us. all right. with that, i think we are all done with our deliberation. and just for clarity, we're not limiting this to district four. that's correct. yes. very good. okay, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed legislation with modifications as amended to include one districts within the sued strike staff. recommendation number four, and reducing the height limits. from 65 to 55ft. on that motion,

commissioner braun i, commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial i commissioner copple high commissioner more no. commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against commission secretary. can we just make it explicitly clear in the record that the staff modification number three is also incorporating m one, since that is related to the new amendment we read into the record? i believe that's how i stated it, right? that we're including m one in the district. and then secondly, the merger aspect would also show the intent was also to allow that for the m one merger aspect. yes thank you. thank you. very good commissioners. that will place us on items nine a and b for case numbers 2023 hyphen 00611 for a and 2023 hyphen 0061 1:07

a.m. a p removing residential numerical density limits in neighborhood commercial districts planning code amendment density calculation in rc, r2 and c and certain named ncds planning code and zoning map amendments respectively. thank you. commission secretary. good afternoon, commissioners. audrey maloney, planning department staff. there are two ordinances for you to consider today. one sponsored by supervisor safai and the other sponsored by the mayor. both would propose to change the way that residential density is calculated in certain zoning districts because the ordinances are so similar in nature. we'll have one presentation, however, you will act on each ordinance separately before i give the department's staff report, we'll hear from jeff buckley from supervisor safire's office to present on their ordinance, followed by lisa gluckstein from the mayor's office to present on their ordinance. so with that, mr. buckley. hi, commissioners.

commissioner air is and president present. excuse me. sorry, just i didn't expect that item to go as long as it did. good morning. good afternoon. jeff buckley, supervisor, cafe's office here to discuss briefly our legislation, but also to highlight, i think, the desire upon our end, as you will hear also from the mayor's office, the desire to kind of put these two items together here into one that ultimately go before the board as one item. so the reason we put forward this item is that we really believe that we should be eliminating density limits citywide and all neighborhood commercial districts for two primary reasons. the first is density limits are an outdated tool for defining livable space, form based zoning allows for more creativity and flexibility. also, we have unit mix requirements as well. so the

initial intent of density limits feels archaic and out of step with modern times. uh, the other part though, is that it's become clear through our legislative research that there's racism at the heart of the density limits. so density limits that first were created initially within the city in the 1870 cubic air ordinance as an ordinance that essentially it's a virulent anti-chinese ordinance designed as a pretext to clear chinatown of all of its low income residents during a time of very defined racism towards immigrants, and in particular, our chinese residents. so tools like density limits should be highlighted, i think, for what they are and where they came from. and i think we should decide as a city whether they should continue to exist. and so the purpose of putting forward the ordinance was really to display our values as an office. we believe that we advocating for their removal and so, you

know, where our opinion is on the issue. however during the course of our our discussions with community, we realized that for certain vulnerable communities, the removal of these density limits, no matter how racist they were in their intention, really has is seen as a force that could gentrify communities, add to displacement . and so we're sensitive to those concerns. and so therefore , we're offering a path forward that will allow these conversations to continue and not end. and so after discussions with the mayor's office and supervisor melgar's office, as well as with director hillis and audrey maloney and staff, we intend to go to the land use committee after this meeting and provide an amendment to their ordinance. so for commissioner moore, hopefully we're meeting her intent to come together, create less work product. one legislative idea instead of two competing ones.

so i hope that she's okay with that. but our goal in doing this is really to highlight, i think, the extensive planning work that's been done in the excelsior outer mission area and the outer mission excelsior ncaa . so we intend to remove the density calculations within the outer mission. excelsior ncaa and add it to the mayor and supervisor. melgar's legislation . and even though the outer mission corridor is identified as a priority, equity geography, we feel like it is different from others in many ways, including the fact that it was subject to an extensive and exhaustive community planning process that is retained within the excelsior outer mission neighborhood strategy for those who may not be familiar with that document, it was originally published in 2018 and updated in 2020, and it takes kind of a holistic look at the corridor. so it looks at both business and service provider support, public realm land use and housing and

mobility, and specifically within the land use section includes language change that states that it is designed to maintain and build housing stock that can serve current residents and welcome diverse new residents. in addition to that, it highlights as an action item that they need to appropriately and responsibly develop a corridor wide housing plan for a range of income levels for both renters and homeowners. so while you're getting this item specifically before you, it is part of a much larger whole that many of our community members provided input to. just a little bit about the excelsior and outer mission, as well as to why we think this is important. it is one of the lowest density neighborhoods in the city, with. between 16.4 and 21.5 units per acre. so the excelsior in the outer mission has also so it has lower density because it's primarily a single family home district where 82.3% of the housing units are single family

homes. in addition to that, the excelsior and outer mission is somewhat different than the rest of the city because the majority of those rental units, 62, are single family homes and not subject to rent control. so the whole idea that if we don't do anything here, that somehow we're able to preserve the neighborhood, i believe is a fallacy largely because there are there are not as many restrictions on single family homes as there are, whether it's affordable housing, covenant or whether it's a rent control covenant. and so we feel like this community is certainly subject to change regardless of whether we build anything. and so we think it's important that we do. and so part of supervisor strategy has been to advance affordable housing within the district just to highlight some of the projects, as many of you know, that have been built, 1830 alameda is 116 units, 5,050% of which are affordable to low and moderate income households. the kapuso at the upper yard a

related mission housing project is 130 units of affordable housing at all income levels from 30 to 80% state ami 4840 mission street, which is currently under construction and hopefully will be open to residents within been by the end of the calendar year has 137 units of affordable housing, with at least 35 units that are set aside for deeply affordable housing and then also we have 99 ocean, the ventana, which is the city's largest project, 193 units with 25% of the units affordable to low and moderate income households. and we also have on site child care provided by wuyi on the ground floor. so we think of these things holistically. lastly, meta was able to preserve a rent control apartment at 300 ocean through the small sites program, and that's something that we fought for and advocated for as an office. so we i say all of this

so that you understand that the action before you is not just simply one action kind of a drift it from a larger context. and that context is, is our office has put a lot of time into planning for this community and sees the addition of the removal of density limits as an additional component to a larger holistic effort that's been going on. lastly, i just want to thank lisa gluckstein in the mayor's office for their partnership in this effort, and i do want to do a tip of the cap to audrey maloney and director hillis, who i think worked together to kind of make sure that these these two legislations, which are not competing, they are slightly different from each other. i think we'll come together in a way that i think is good, good policy and good planning. and so with that, i'm going to step aside, go back to for staff, but if you need me, i'll be here to answer any questions. thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners. i'm lisa gluckstein. i work in the mayor's office as an advisor on land use and housing policy. it's great to be here with you today. i know you have a lot of proposals before you and i appreciate your diligence and patience in reviewing all of them. i know it's a lot and we're appreciative, appreciative of it at the staff level. so i also wanted to thank mr. buckley and supervisor safire's office for working together with the mayor's office to try and reconcile these two proposals. and i think we're in a good place. and i second everything he said about us working together to resolve the two proposals at land use. and so the mayor's proposal will be amended to incorporate the excelsior outer mission and cdd into her proposal. so there will be one single proposal moving forward out of commission today. so i will speak briefly, since

mr. buckley already mentioned a lot of what i would have said and to let staff speak a little bit more in depth about the proposal. but i do want to say that, you know, as mr. buckley said, density decontrol is already the standard in many neighborhoods across the city, especially eastern neighborhoods that have seen the most development over the past decades. and the goal of the mayor's proposal to expand density decontrol. to two rc r.t.o. and neighborhood commercial corridors across the city is just to kind of equalize the zoning logic across the city in order to incentivize more housing development. we think that focusing this proposal outside of the priority equity geographies is a core piece of this and aligned with the housing element in encouraging housing growth in areas of the city that have historically seen less development due to some of the exclusionary patterns that mr. buckley mentioned. and i also want to acknowledge that i

know that you are anxiously awaiting the full housing element, rezoning and may be wondering why this proposal is coming forward to you as an interim step. but what i would like to suggest here is that this is an important step forward to do what i just mentioned, just to equalize zoning opportunities across the city. it's something that's contemplated under the housing element and we think makes a great deal of sense. it's something that's been socialized with community already and that's the base upon which the housing element rezoning will be predicated. so we think that this makes for makes sense to move forward sooner rather than later, especially since, as we know the rezoning will go through too much process before it is actually adopted and we think it's important that we're able to create housing opportunities sooner rather than later. so thank you for your time and i'm available to answer any questions. thank you to both

offices for being here to present today. so to summarize again, we have supervisor jaffe's ordinance that would amend the planning code to replace the numerical residential density limits with form based controls in all of our neighborhood commercial districts citywide and then we have the mayor's ordinance, which would amend the planning code and the zoning map to replace the numerical residential density limits with form based controls in our ncds, artyom and rc districts that fall outside of that study that would be created. and that is that priority equity geographies study that you've seen not only proposed in this legislation, but in other legislation that you have already seen before you , unlike supervisor safire's ordinance, the mayor's ordinance would additionally remove numerical density limits for group housing and senior housing within the study, in addition to in all rc three and rc four districts. so the amendments just described by the supervisor

and the mayor's offices were obviously proposed after your packets were published and after our analysis of the two ordinance issues. however i think we're very encouraged and supportive of the fact that they are working on one piece of compromise legislation to take forward. that being said, what's before you today is to ordinances with two resolutions. and i think the department's originally proposed recommended modifications to each ordinance. also still apply, even if there will be one ordinance moving forward. so for supervisor saffy's ordinance, those recommended modify actions are number one, to modify the ordinance to exclude areas that fall within the priority equity geographies sued, which is what is proposed in the mayor's ordinance. s so that would also include we've made some slight modifications to help with implementation of this outside side of the study. we would recommend retaining the numerical density in the entirety of the north beach nccd , not just in the areas that

fall within the priority equity geographies, said. that's because there is a very small piece of the middle of that zoning district that is falling outside of the study, which would make it very complicated to kind of bifurcate. the second is to rezone all the parcels zoned rc four along van ness avenue as form based, even if they fall within the priority equity geographies. same concept, but in reverse. and the last would be to rezone all the parcels within the polk street ncd as foreign based, even if they fall within the priority equity geographies sued again same concept. there's just a very small portion of that zoning district that falls inside the sued, which makes it less consistent for implementation. our last amendment would be a technical amendment just to alter the language proposed in some of the zoning tables that would switch this to form based density to make the language comply with

what already exists in our other form based zoning district. zoning tables. so for the mayor's ordinance, we would recommend approval with modifications as well. the first two modification zones are exactly the same as what i just described for supervisor safire's ordinance. and then in addition to those two recommended modifications, we would also recommend that the mayor's ordinance retain their existing r2 district density controls. that's because that district is already form based and the change would make it a little bit duplicate and complicated and then also just to make technical amendments to the description of the boundary of the sued. so not changing the boundary, but just making technical amendments. so with that, obviously we have many staff here who are available for your questions today. thank you. okay. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on both of these pieces of legislation. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're

calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex and through the chair each member of the public will have two minutes. jake price housing action coalition and i share the sentiments in the previous item about all of the housing legislation going forward and how complicated that is, which is why i want to thank supervisor sophie's office and the mayor's office for consolidating it a little bit. when i first saw each piece of legislation, i said, i wish that we just combined these two into one. and fortunately, that appears to be where we are. density decontrol is fantastic policy. part of our housing element, and i look forward to seeing what ever version of this combination passes. thank you very much. jane natoli, san

francisco organizing director, action also in support. glad to see that supervisor safai and mayor breed are working together to bring this vision together into one piece. but this is something we need. it's something that's in our housing element that we have to move forward with. it's another one of those creative ideas that lets us do a little bit more and is kind of as i mentioned before, a part of our all of above strategy when we really look at the housing element and how we're going to unlock all of those homes, especially in places like the excelsior, in places like the west side, this is a great opportunity to keep you know, the homes more in line with what we expect while also creating more opportunity. so look forward to supporting what comes out of this. and thank you for your attention on this today . i i wasn't going to testify, but i just something struck me

the contrast between what mr. buckley said and what mr. supervisor engardio said. supervisor engardio said that he needs to have the same unit size in the buildings to make them financially feasible. and i think mr. buckley said that he wanted a mix of unit sizes because that would be more fair. so i just i just want to understand what that means. thanks. okay. if there are no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's go to our remote. caller. hi, my name is jessica pola. i'm a real estate agent. i support this. so that we could, like, build more in areas that have like retail and shopping so that we could have more people, more activity in the neighborhood that is all. thank you very much

. for the introduction to this ordinance. i've said many times before that i believe that planning code tools have been dwelling. density limits have long been outdated and way too low. however, i disagree with the excluding the priority equity geographies from the ordinance because for most of my life i lived in illegal adus where the landlord had ignored the single family dwelling density limits or exactly in those priority equity geographies of visitacion valley and excelsior and the ingleside. and we were able to live there because as the landlord gave us a more affordable housing because they were smaller and in those more affordable neighborhoods. so i believe that affirmatively furthering fair housing in the housing element means that we should be allowing increased density throughout the city and wealthier neighborhoods will naturally receive more density by virtue of the wealth in those neighborhoods. we don't

have to restrict the density in the priority equity geographies. we have to allow density in all the neighborhoods and more density will naturally occur in the wealthier ones and also i think much of the hemming and hawing about group housing that we saw last year was actually disguised opposition to density itself. so i think increasing the density limits would naturally have fixed much of the group housing problems that we had last year because they weren't actually group housing, they weren't actually kitchen problems. people were opposed to density itself. and we should raise the density limit and allow smaller units that are were previously applied as group housing. as for the unit size mix, i think versus unit size equity, i think unit size equity is sort of a you know, it's not necessary. we should have more diversity in units so that more different kinds of families can live in san francisco. so thank you for the ordinance and please support it. okay. last call for

public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and these items are now before you. great i want to thank the mayor's staff and mr. buckley for joining from the supervisor's office. glad to see you again. the mayor and the supervisor working collaboratively together, kind of hearkening to some of your comments, catherine, around just wanting things to come a little comprehensively to us. so i'm glad even though they didn't arrive comprehensive, they are headed perhaps towards some comprehensive integration going on from here. i'll just say i want to just pick up on the last caller's comments that we did see a flurry of group housing a couple maybe two years ago. and in part that was related to the density limits. and so this not necessarily just solving that issue, but i think will unlock more housing potential as folks were interested in building. but couldn't fit the number of units into the space just with the limits that were there. so i'm very supportive of this. i'm very supportive of staff recommendations. i understand

that the mayor and the supervisor also supported those recommendations. they seem much more geared towards making it easy to implement and consistent for folks to understand kind of what applies to their property so that we don't have too much of a patchwork, although of course we still have quite the patchwork of zoning for our city. so i would look forward to a recommendation to approve with. i think we still need to approve both pieces of legislation with staff recommendations and then it would be after after here that they would be integrated together. are there any other comments, questions or motions from commissioners? commissioner dimond, move to approve both ordinances with all of the recommendations proposed by staff? second do we need to i'm sorry, do we need to take any action on the idea of including the excelsior outer mission and cdd, while also otherwise applying this outside of the priority? equity sued mr. star.

i think to make it easier. no, you don't. you can just do your recommendation. and that's been discussed. they can do it at the board. okay. thank you. thank you. i think we're all supportive of that concept, commissioner. more i would i would like to restate my concerns that i expressed in the previous piece of legislation, and i think this is a fast moving train and we are overburdening and complicating the process. so we approved a significantly complicated and well thought full piece by supervisor melgar in june and i cannot clearly see where or where not there is conflicting ideas together with the fact not all ncds are equal. so i made my point before for the sake of saving time, i will not restate it. but what i do like to say is that we are overburdened and

complicating process. thank you. i don't see other commissioner comments or questions. seeing none commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve both pieces of legislation with staff modifications on that motion. commissioner braun, high commissioner diamond high. commissioner, imperial no. commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore no. and commissioner. president tanner, i. so move commissioners. that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against it. commissioners that will place us on item ten for case number 2023 hyphen 007676 pca exceptions from limits on conversion of production distribution and repair, institutional community and arts activity uses in eastern neighborhood plan areas. that's a mouthful planning code amendment great. before you begin, miss maloney, he's going to let folks know. i did ask to reduce the speaking time for two minutes for public comment for items going forward just so we

can try to hear everyone today because we have a number of items on our agenda and we're only on our second one. so just for those who are making public comment, you'll have two minutes to share. thank you. thank you. president tanner, miss. sorry, miss tam, madison tam from supervisor dorsey's office is here to speak on their ordinance. before i give the staff presentation. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm excited to be before you today to discuss legislation that the district six office has been working on for a few months now. the legislation before you makes modest adjustments to modernize section 202.8 of the code, which was created by supervisor kim's 2016 proposition x existing code requires a conditional use authorization and replacement space for any conversion of arts activities or institutional community uses in select zoning districts in west soma. this legislation exempts any change of use from arts activities and institutional community uses to

one of those uses and all institutional uses from the siu and replacement requirements. current 202 2.8 language does not allow for any flexibility between these uses, which adds constraints for uses that are widely agreed to be desirable. even a change of use from pdr to an arts activity is currently subject to a conditional use and replacement requirement at the time the staff report was drafted, the legislation only applied to pdr arts and institutional community uses but has since been amended to accept the first staff recommendation to include all institutional uses and we've also included the second staff recommendation on the technical correction. to 202.8, subsection six s. unfortunately prop x has put soma at a disadvantage for attracting new pdr arts and institute tenants. it's even a barrier for keeping soma organizations in soma. i would also like to clarify that this legislation does not propose any changes that would make it easier for office or market rate housing to displace these protected uses. rather, this legislation will open up sites for these very necessary and

protected uses. as noted in the staff report, surge to plowshares, a nonprofit organization serving veterans in west soma, is an immediate beneficiary. beneficiary of this legislation and was a driving factor in the district six office pursuing this. supervisor dorsey applauds the author and advocates of 2016 proposition x for this well-intentioned legislation that met the moment of 2016. but as our city faces a vastly different economic climate, we believe it is now time to make these modest changes. as the district six office has been in collaboration with many partners on this legislation, the soma west community benefits district will be submitting a letter of support for this legislation in and we've had incredibly positive conversation with soma arts united players and west bay. you've received a letter from todd co expressing concerns and i'm happy to report we've had positive and productive conversations with them as well. and will consider an amendment to cap the ground floor square footage at which the prop x exemption kicks in. we are in receipt of communications from soma, filipinas and have expressed our desire to meet with them, to discuss their perspectives and we look forward

to continuing the community engagement on this piece of legislation. i'm eager to take your questions when the time comes, but now i'd like to pass it back to audrey. thank you, madison. so i'll be brief as ms. tam gave us a very good overview of the legislature action. i do want to just note that the ordinance that you all received a packet for has since been substituted. so the previous recommendation of recommendation of approval with modifications, has those modifications have been made to version two of the ordinance. so our recommendation to you today would be to make a recommendation of approval of the new ordinance. and i do have a copy of that new ordinance for your records and for anybody who would like to see it, we'll hand that off to the commission. secretary so again, the ordinance i want to just make sure it's very clear would not change the replacement requirements for youmu within the eastern neighborhoods. it would also not change any current land use controls in any

of the districts. so if a use is currently not permitted, it would continue to be not permitted in any of these various zoning districts. we are talking about the replacement requirement. it's for these protected uses, plus institutional uses. as ms. tam also stated, you did receive two letters from the public after the publishing of your packets. one from todd ko and one from soma, filipinas. our office has been working with supervisor dorsey's office to respond to both those letters, and we are happy to answer any of the questions that they brought up in those letters. if you would like us to. so with that i will conclude staff's presentation. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this piece of legislation. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioner public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. all right. well i

think this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. thank you, miss tam. thank you, supervisor dorsey, for bringing it forward. i'm glad to hear the productive and ongoing conversations with stakeholders. i know this is a sensitive topic and certainly you legislation has been very thoughtfully designed and but i'm very supportive of the legislation. commissioner braun yes. you know, for this legislation i can get behind it, i can support it. but i just want to state in generally, you know, i really place a strong emphasis on the need to preserve pdr space in our districts that have historically contain large amounts of it. pdr space plays a really important role for allowing a diversification of uses economic diversification of the city workforce, opportunities that otherwise might not exist without those pdr spaces and the companies that are able to locate in them. so while i'm in support of this legislation, i just want to put that out there and hope that we can continue to find ways to preserve our pdr spaces in the city. yeah, absolutely. commissioner imperial yeah. i

just would like to address some of the questions that we received from the soma pilipinas . letter to the planning commissioner. so one of the questions that they did ask was what is the reason behind expanding the solution for this situation in terms of the adding the institutional uses as an exemption? and what are the frequent institutional uses that the planning department has seen in terms of the application instead of market? can someone provide that answer? ms. tam, did you want to take the first question? yeah so on expanding it to beyond just the institution community uses, which is what's in the current language is simply in line with the broader goal of this legislation to expand what uses can go into those spaces. so this would expand the opportunity for educational institutions, final uses, residential care facilities to also go into those spaces. so we want it to be broad in our

application of this change. broad but still narrow within the scope of institutional uses pdr uses that everyone can agree are desirable for the neighborhood and can the department comment on the application itself that the department has seen? yes absolutely. so, you know, we don't necessarily have a robust data set of all the different various use applications and obviously many uses have been operating for a long time before we might have required a use permit. but i can tell you, if i could have the overhead, please. gov, can we go to the overhead. well, while they're pulling that up, i wanted to show you the land use controls. there it is. in these various zoning districts, you can kind of understand what are the most likely uses to come in in terms of what's currently permitted

versus permitted only through conditional use authorization. so when we're looking at all institutional uses, as you can see that hospitals are not permitted in most of these zoning districts. and post-secondary educational uses are also so going to require additional scrutiny. now that's on top of the fact that even where they are permitted, they would likely require an institutional master plan. so then when we're looking at the rest of our institutional uses, when we look at the definition that is that second to the last definition, what you'll be seeing is things like child care facilities, community facilities and religious institutions, potentially residential care facilities, depending on the zoning controls and so these are all uses that we felt they are there to serve the community. and they also tend to be uses that are not able to afford to pay for replacing decent spaces. but has there been trends? i think what i'm trying to see,

has there been trends of the applications in terms of institutional uses in these prop x legislation by geography area? so has there been imperial? i can speak to that a little bit. so i was formerly the team leader for the southeast quadrant, which captures most of the soma area. so we rarely came across a lot of projects that actually triggered prop x or triggered the requirements that are under prop x, maybe 1 or 2. i think supervisor's office correctly noted source of plowshares as one of the main ones that i'm doing it. but it wasn't a very common common thing. so opening up the zoning to allow for more of these kind of better neighborhood serving uses is usually would be beneficial based on my work in in the community in this area. and i guess my follow up question to supervisor dorsey's office eight is the you mentioned earlier that you're

open in the conversation of capping. of 20 of capping the up to 20,000ft!s for the pdr or for the for square foot, you know, transfer. so how is that conversation with todd? is that with todd koh right now, the conversation going on or. yes, we're having ongoing conversations and in the range of 20,000, perhaps a little bit above, but in that general range . and then one other comment to add on to the trends and speaking with brokers that work primarily in soma, one thing that they mentioned is when they show spaces that are subject to prop x to tenants and explain prospective tenants and explain the requirements of the queue and the replacement, that's often a deterrent for them to even file any sort of permit. so there's a lot of uncaptured data around the interest that might under this turn into actual applications. okay. thank you very much. yeah thank you,

commissioner moore. i just have a few very simple questions on the sword to plowshare incident happened in 2004. that is 20 years ago. and i do not know how much square footage they are using, but does this particular color oversight or misinterpret irritation require legislation which is as far reaching as this one is? and i would agree with commissioner brown that the protection of pdr and appropriately sized neighborhood uses that supports the mission of the soma filipinos and protect that district that are the most important thing to consider. so for question, first question is could this particular sort of plowshare incident been resolved other than through a broader reaching piece of legislation? on the second part is i would like to hear more from soma filipinos or from hardcore to support the

20,000ft!s as a max base in ordr to prevent larger size institutional uses that somewhat overwhelm the small scale of soma, filipinas and other affected parties to be overwhelmed by that. those would be my two most important questions. so, commissioner moore, i'm happy to address the first part of your question, if you don't mind. sure. i would like to hear from the supervisor's office. yeah. did you want to share? maybe what for? the swords to plowshares solution. if there are other avenues that were explored, miss tam to help that particular organization. i think we understood that being part of the precipitation of the policy. so the swords to plowshares issue, perhaps could have been fixed with a more narrow amendment. but this was at the same time that the swords to plowshares issue came before us. there were ongoing conversations around the limitations of prop x as well. so i would say this

legislation has both a reactive and proactive piece to it with the proactive piece being reactive to non swords to plowshares conversations. and then sorry, commissioner moore, can you repeat the second question? the second question is , is the size of 20,000ft!s beig suggested by taku, which i think originally floated this legislation way back in 2016, before commissioner, a supervisor dorsey picked it up. there must be a reason for that size as it perhaps better expresses compatible uses in the use categories that you mentioned. potential expanded to the ones you added. but not exceeding 20,000ft!s because ths is a small community which struggles for relevance, which struggles for survival and has in the past been seriously crushed by major changes in adjacent soma super sized projects that always affected this community. so todd calling

out to us together with the support from soma pilipinas to say, hey, please listen to 20,000ft!s. that is what we feel comfortable with us is important. sam taneously with putting our very strong support in the primary protection of pdr in this area. so i think we share the concern and the policy goal of todd co that if we don't have a cap, this may lead to large pdr sites being vulnerable to displacement for things like market rate housing, because that would still be allowed if it under the existing zoning for that district. if the developer was willing to go through the requirement and provide the replacement pdr. so we share the concern that if we don't cap it at some number, we're opening the risk for further displacement and thank you for contextualizing the soma pilipinas history in the district. could you not? is a

supervisor not ready to commit to that number? should we continue this discussion? because while i think many parts of this legislation are important and basically speaking to today's issues, i am not comfortable, no offense meant to support something which is a vague innuendo that there are ongoing discussions. i would like to have something concrete in front of me in order to say, yes, i am comfortable that this has been vetted and has the proper application to the affected community. so we are willing to amend at the at the land use committee to put a cap, getting the exact numbers where we're still in discussions. 20 to 25,000 is where we're looking at right now. but i can say that the supervisor will definitive me amend this to put in a cap of a number in that ballpark. you cannot confirm that. i think she said that it would be within the ballpark of 20 to 25,000 is the current discussion with

stakeholders? that's correct. if this can be justified by looking at relevant properties and building types that would deliver that kind of a cap, again, 20,000 is a very kind of standard office reference for contemporary office building, but i would be interested that there is further discussion and the numeric number is not exceeded by by additional 30,000 or 35. i can stay with a range of 20 to 25. i would prefer 20, but that is again partially based on not seeing building types, which would be candidates for this type of an exchange. thank you. commissioner koppel. i wanted to make a motion to approve, so do not need to include the modifications since they're now already included. is that correct? that's correct, yeah. so move to approve commissioner. commissioner imperial. yeah, i will support

what commissioner moore mentioned. i think i will support this legislation if there is a condition that that the commission is recommending for the capping between the ballpark of. 20 to 25ft!s and since that's part of the conversation, but as as you know, as the motion rolled in already, i will not support it as put forward. but i just want to make that note to the supervisor as well that that that that can be the recommendation in the land use committee in terms of capping the square footage. thank you. is the maker of the motion interested in adding a recommendation to cap the size of the at 25,000ft!s. commissioner koppel, i just wanted to leave it as is. okay commissioner brown. i was actually going to make a similar request if i don't have it as i'm curious, the motion maker

will be interested in just having a recommendation that there be a cap included, but not a specified number. that's fine. okay. is the seconder amenable to that? no, it doesn't work for me. commissioner moore, did you have a further comment? no. okay so the cap is generic. it is not specific. i believe the recommendation is that the board would devise and include a cap in the legislation. the size cap . okay okay. okay. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed legislation motion with the amendment for the board to adopt a cap on square footage on that motion, commissioner brown, a commissioner dimond i commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell i. commissioner moore. no. and commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners. that

motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against commissioners. that will place us on item 11 for case number 2023 hyphen 008428 pca for the mission and ninth street special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. all all right, commissioners, moving right along. okay, sir, before you begin, commissioner moore has a question. i like to make a quick comment, a comment of disclosure. i talked with city attorney yang this morning. i am sitting on an international board for diversity in architecture and the architect, eva modo, who is the architect of the building behind this particular for special use district project, was is a person who i met and dealt with in that context. however there is no conflict of interest that keeps me from objectively looking at this particular at this particular project in which

she has been involved in. thank you, commissioner moore. okay, commissioners, next item again, we have ms. tam here to speak on behalf of her ordinance. good afternoon, commissioners. once again, this legislation before you today is a renewal of a recently sunset special use district bounded by mission street on the south laskey street on the east. assessor parcel block number 3701 lots, 22 2324 on the west and cesar parcels block 3701 lot 666 to the north. this legislation is a renewal of an that was originally established in 2017 by then supervisor jane kim for the purpose of increasing the height from 120 to 200ft, removing the far limits and raising the inclusionary rate at this site, the sunset earlier this year. and due to unforeseen factors, the project has not received its first construction document, as was a condition of the sod since this legislation was introduced. first supervisor peskin, along with sapphire

mandelman and dorsey, passed legislation allowing for a reduction of the inclusionary rate and eligible pipeline projects. we plan to amend this legislation to clarify that this project is eligible for the reduction and is a pipeline project. one of supervisor dorsey's top priorities is housing element compliance and our offices continue to work on solutions, both big and small, that move us closer to our ambitious obligation to build 82 000 units with this being one part of that, i'm happy to take your questions after the staff report, and we'll pass it back to audrey. thank you. madison so as madison already stated, the proposed ordinance would re-adopt the former planning code section and zoning map designation to recreate the mission and ninth street special use district at 1270 mission street, which is comprised of two parcels of land. as madison already stated, this sod was created in 2017 to allow for greater height and it removed floor area ratio limits on the condition of providing affordable rental housing on site beyond the minimum amount

required by code. and unfortunately that sunset after five years is the first construction document had not been received, citing covid 19 and other construction costs. delays so this legislation would simply renew the legislation or renew the sod for an additional five years. since the publishing of your packets as madison already stated, we've been working with the city attorney and supervisor dorsey's office to analyze how the temporary reduction of inclusionary requirements ordinance that you voted on several months ago and was recently passed at the board aid, which did not exist when the original sod was passed. how that could potentially affect the sod or the proposed project. now so based on those conversations, we would be supportive of either amending the sod language to clarify that the temporary reduction of inclusionary requirements ordinance, which will be section 415 a of the planning code, applies to this sod for projects

over 120ft as well as projects below 120ft, or at the very least having some kind of statement on the record today that this project and this sod does in fact qualify for that pipeline as a pipeline project. through that ordinance, i know there might be some questions on that and we're happy to answer those, but i will conclude my staff presentation. thank you. very good. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm jim abrams. i'm land use counsel to group i, who is the project sponsor of the project at 1270 mission. we're here to respectfully ask that you extend the life of this sod. this authorizes construction of a 300 unit apartment building with on site bmr units. we don't believe that there's any lack of clarity

about the application of the new inclusionary ordinance that reduces the rates for this sod. but we're supportive of clarification being added to the ordinance. again, we don't think it's necessary, but we're certainly not opposed to that clarification being added. so i'm here for questions and i appreciate your time and thanks. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed and this legislation is now before you. commissioner moore i'm in strong support of what is in front of us for those of you who did not participate in the original call, very eloquent and long and detailed approvals of this project. this is a very interesting project, i think distinguishes itself much from cookie cutter solutions that we often see when it comes to these

discussions. i think it was a neighborhood and context friendly mr. malone and mr. starr were kind enough to forward the drawings to all of you to see and i think that hopefully five years will be enough to not only in initiate the building of this project, but start tomorrow. well said, commissioner imperial, i have a question regarding the this extension of the sod. i would assume that this would qualify for a state density bonus application as well. and how will that the inclusionary housing amendment will that apply as well? yeah, that's a great question, commissioner imperial. i would ask our city attorney to weigh in on the question of state density bonus, but if the clarification is made today, especially through an amendment to the sod on the reduction of inclusionary housing ordinance, then of

course it would apply and be able to be used. whether that can be used in conjunction with other things, it depends on whether this is eligible for those other programs. so if the applicant applied for state density bonus in terms of the inclusionary housing requirement as part of the state density bonus, is the local reduction of the inclusionary would apply then or how would they would they would actually be higher because i think the under the under the inclusionary rate, the pipeline inclusionary rate is lower than the 15. they would be required to do under state density bonus. so they would actually have to do more. and then the fee on top of the density bonus, that's correct. and i don't know if city attorney yang wants to comment on the eligibility for state density bonus. um, so deputy city attorney austin yang, in terms of state density bonus, i think we'd have evaluate that at the time that the project application comes in. but if there's any ambiguity about what

this commission would like to recommend in terms of making it apply or not apply, i would recommend making that clear and i'd recommend that to the sponsors as well. um i guess that's my question is sponsor do you have any intent to apply it through the state density bonus or, or the applicant? i mean. oh, sorry. i'm sorry. thanks, mr. sponsor. mr. abrams, did you want to address that question. so right now the project is subject to an issued site permit, and that site permit has been on hold. the project has not been constructed because of economic situations and covid. i can't say for certain if the project applicant would not come back and file for a state density bonus application or a subsequent owner of the property. i do think it's very critical to know that the does not say that the state density bonus is prohibited. and i think that reading a pro hibition into

this, that is an implicit prohibition on it would be troubling and contrary to state law. and so i think it would be something to consider very, very carefully if the commission was going to consider the essentially down zoning, the property by including a prohibition on the use of the state density bonus. no, i'm just asking if there is an intent to apply for future state density. i'm not. no, not right now. no. thank you for that clarification. in in that sense, i would support it. we the extension of the mission ninth street sud great. thank you. is there is that a motion? commissioner imperial? yes. i'll second that motion in. there's no further deliberation, commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed extension of the study. on that motion, commissioner braun, i, commissioner diamond, i commissioner imperial high commissioner cable i,

commissioner moore and commission president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commissioners. it'll places on item 12 for case number 2023 hyphen 003753 cr v for design standards for security gates and gate mechanisms. this is for you to adopt a resolution till here, miss maloney. i'm just kidding. i'm still here. all right, commissioners, i have a very brief powerpoint presentation for you, and we have extra copies here for the public. you.

sfcv tv. thank you very much. of tv. thank you. commission secretary. okay so committee missioners myself in addition to green who is our senior architect and urban designer with our citywide division are here today to present proposed objective design standards for storefront security gates and gate mechanisms for you all to adopt at the ordinance that created the need for these controls was one that you heard back in december of last year. that ordinance passed, and it does among other things, allow security gates for non residential buildings in our c and mue districts to be less than 75% open to perpendicular review. it states that gates that are less than 75% open must

contain a transparent viewing window. they must be at least 20% open and they must comply with any adopted objective design standards. when you heard this item on december 8th of last year, you voted to approve it with several modifications as one of those modifications was to adopt these design standards. so that is what we are going to propose to you today before we get into the standards themselves. just to kind of go over a little bit of the colloquialisms surrounding these types of gates. so right now, many of the gates across the city are scissor gates, which are the hatch pattern that you'll see that are pulled from either side of a commercial storefront. those don't really require the same kind of storage or mechanisms that gates that will now be or are now permitted in the city, which are more opaque, will need to have in order to function. so that's what we're trying to do here today, is just make sure that the additional equipment is properly shielded and that these gates are done in a way that

doesn't dissuade people from using our neighborhood commercial districts. so the first term you might be hearing today is the coil hood, and that is the large rectangular box that sits at the top of these rolldown gates. it's used to store the gate when it's not being deployed. the second is a motor box, which most gates don't have. this but some gates do have motor operated gate mechanisms. and the last is a chain cord, which if you've ever watched a movie about new york city from like anytime from now, going back into the 1960s, you'll often see the storekeepers pulling these chain cords open and closed in the morning. so those are the three terms. and then i will turn it over to trent to take over from here. good afternoon, commissioners. trent greenan, staff architect. so to minimize the impact on on storefronts

from these roll up coils. we developed a few simple and hopefully straightforward standards that you'll see here. and these include the coils should be concealed with the sloped awning and this should be in both elevation views from the front and the side where a transom window exists above a storefront or has been covered up. the roll coils shall not cover trance and window as we know, most older buildings have this transom. so this we don't want to preclude uncovering that window in the future. if you place the coil there, the roll coils should not be visible, viewed again from the front and side elevation views a coil hood shall be used as audrey described. this is basically just a metal container for the coil itself. if gates may be hand-cranked or push operate and motors or chain operated gates shall not be used. the modern

gates are much more lightweight and much easier to operate, so they don't typically need all that mechanical motor and chains to operate. and then again, the awning shall not conceal architectural detail or ornament . so, for example, if you have pilasters on the storefront with ornamentation or capitals above them, they shall not conceal any of that ornament or detail on the architecture. so those are the standards themselves. and again, we're just asking to adopt the language that's shown in the presentation and not the handout itself, which will likely be updated in the future. and this is just an image of an existing storefront that would meet the standards. you can see the coil is hidden behind a sloped awning. that is our presentation and we're available for questions. thank you. thank you, trent. members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this these guidelines are now before you. great. i just had a couple of questions. do we allow for folks to have square awnings in general? can a business have a square awning or are all awnings required to be sloped? thank you, commissioner. so. section 138 136.1 does have standards for awnings. it does not state that they they cannot be square. so this would be specifically for storefronts that are trying to conceal these these boxed shapes. i would i would strike the first bullet point. i don't see why we would force someone to get a new type of awning there if they're taking the investment to get a security gate, which means that they are concerned around the thefts and security of their property, i don't see why we

would say, oh, sorry, you actually need to get a new type of awning in order to have a security gate, which is already an investment. so if we allow folks to have square awnings, i don't see why we would create this barrier to a business getting a security gate by requiring it to be sloped. in fact, if we look at the picture on the first page of this report , i believe the fresh seafood market has, it looks to me to be a square awning. and then i'm i guess i'd be curious how sloped do we have to have the slope? like would the mission produce with a rounded top? would that be considered sloped or would that be considered square? this is the discussion. this is the kind of discussion we end up getting into the applicants and it becomes confusing, right, for the business, right. a an arched or rounded column would be a sloped would be sloped. okay so i just commissioners, i don't see the need to if we do allow folks to have different shapes of awnings and any shape of awning that complies with what we allow for awnings should be

eligible to have a security gate. so i would strike the first bullet point and then the second bullet point. i think what we're trying i want to clarify because i think it might be better, is two sentences. i think what we're saying is if you have a transom window, you can't cover it up with this awning and with the roll up gate. and if you have already covered it up previously without a gate, you also need to not have it covered up, because i think it's actually too it's actually a twofer, right? like it's a little bit confusing the way it's written. it's like it just so it'd be one sentence would be where trends and window exist. the roll of coil shall not cover the transom window, period. if the transom window exists and has been covered. and you know, when you install this new thing, you have to, you know, have it not be covered. so i think we're trying to do two things with that. and i think it just makes it better if it's two sentences, a set of one sentence. other than that, i didn't really have any other comments or questions on this particular item. commissioner diamond um, initial question. this was supervisor safire's

legislation, is that correct? so i remember a discussion where concern was expressed that these roll down gates, while very useful for security, are susceptible to tagging and that there was a lot of conversation around, well, maybe we should require murals because that makes them less susceptible to tagging. and i thought that was going to be resolved through the design standards. so it's silent on that. so can you fill us in? no, actually, it's better than that. in some sense, the ordinance was actually amended and passed to state that that the security gates must have murals or artwork on them if they are less than 20% open, which is only allowed for cannabis retail uses. okay great. thank you for that clarification. and then with respect to commissioner moore's suggestions, just one question. why did you put in here the requirement that square shaped awnings shall not be allowed?

what was the thought process behind that. um, i think often. for one thing, the square shaped awnings are very often used for large signage and so forth, rather than just the function of an awning and open on the top. they're not typically consistent with a with a lot of historic architectural styles, which is sort of a discretionary opinion. but so those were some of the thoughts behind not allowing the square awning versus the others, which would more effectively conceal the coil. but it's permitted to have a square awning per code. yes well, as long as we're going to permit it by code, i guess i agree that we should be able to put the roll up gates behind it. if we don't want to permit it going forward, then we should preclude square awnings going for it. i'm

confused. yeah. commissioner moore, did you want to respond to that or is that topic? i think yes, i do. square awnings has has a deficit of when rain accumulates, many of them collapse, which is not a good idea. when you have an expensive mechanism underneath it. furthermore you actually diminishing the height of the awning by slanting it higher towards the building. but towards the street edge itself. it is more elegant. so there are two practical, practical thing and an esthetic thing. and so i believe that the way staff presented it is the right answer. okay? that that makes sense to me. commissioner tanner , what was your other suggestion? my other suggestion was just the rewriting. yeah. just to make it a little clearer . yeah. and i agree with that modification. yeah. so i think i'm with commissioner moore. i don't think we should. i'm fine with the language, the way it's written in the first bullet. okay i mean, i just. i just don't. i guess it just doesn't make sense to me to have a small

business coming forward. they have to get a new awning and get a security gate. i think that's fine. i just. i guess i just don't know why we would allow people to have things and then say, but if you want to do this particular aspect of it, like if it's more esthetically pleasing, then we should just say you can't have square awnings. but that's a whole different thing. and not before us today. so i get that. but i just i just don't really understand why we would create more barriers and less flexible city other than it being more esthetically pleasing . but i don't have the votes. then that's fine. i mean, yes, it could collapse in the rain, i suppose. but again, why do we allow it to exist if that's the concern? and we don't. i mean, we did have a rainy winter last winter, but we're not exactly seattle in terms of the amount of rain that we receive. commissioner brian, i think i know what the answer to this might be, but i'm curious if commissioners diamond and moore would be amenable to instead changing that first bullet point to say something along the lines of the roll up coil shall be concealed within an awning

meeting. planning code requirements. code requirements. the design guide design guideline. oh which is not objective. so that's fine. i mean, i don't i'm not going to belabor it if folks don't agree. it's okay. if i could maybe you could just toss in the word new new square shaped awnings shall not be allowed. so they could still use existing. just a thought. it's a great thought. thank you. anyhow, so that that is an option. do you have any other comments, commissioner brian, do you wanted to make note? all right. is there a motion. who would like to make a motion? i'll make a motion to approve the guidelines as proposed with a modification to the second bullet to turn it into two sentences to clarify what the requirements are, as

expressed by commissioner tanner. second very good. commissioner is there a motion? there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the standards with the amendment to the second bullet point split it into two distinct eight sentence edges on that motion. commissioner braun, a commissioner, commissioner diamond, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell , a commissioner moore and commissioner. president tanner. no so move commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner tanner voting against commissioner. i'm going to take a ten minute break this time. okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, october 26th, 2023. commissioners we left off under your regular calendar on item 13. case number 2019 hyphen 020640e for the

property at 401 south van ness. this is a large project authorization. ian. good afternoon commissioners. dakota spicer department staff. the item before you today is a large project authorization to permit a project greater than 25,000fts and over 75ft in height in the emu zoning district. the project would utilize the state density bonus program and request waivers, as well as incentives or concessions for the development standards. as the proposal includes the demolition of the existing surface parking lot on site and new construction of a ten story 120 foot 60,319 gross square foot mixed use building with approximately. 2211 square foot of ground floor commercial use. 149 residence special group housing bedrooms 48. class one and 14 class two bicycle parking spaces under the

individually requested state density bonus program. the project has requested two waivers from the planning code. one for rear yard section 134 and building height section 250 to achieve up to the 50% density bonus and one concession or incentive for open space section 135 to reduce housing costs and the additional floor area is obtained by increasing the total height of the building and reducing the rear yard requirement. the project will provide 26 affordable group housing bedrooms for the inclusionary housing fee will apply to the bonus portion of the project and the subterranean residential floors. the project sponsor began outreach in november of 2016 and has worked closely with usm media and other community organizations in the mission neighborhood. the project sponsors team has entered into a settlement agreement with usm that will provide a number of community benefits, as well as an mou with

the carpenters union in order to use union labor and working with the community. the design has been revised to include additional murals, street landscaping, public seating, etcetera. further, the project sponsor has held the required pre-application meeting on june 6th, 2023. according to the meeting notes, there was neither opposition to nor support of the project to date the department has not received any public comment in support of or opposition to the project. in summary, the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the mission area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will construct a new ten storey over basement mixed use building with ground floor commercial retail and is within close proximity to public transportation. commercial corridors and jobs. additionally the project will increase the city's housing stock by providing a total of 149 new group housing bedrooms, 26 of which will be designated as

affordable rooms. this concludes staff's presentation. oh, excuse me. sorry. i would just also like to make a note that drawings were submitted this morning and circulated to the commissioners to reflect the department's plan submittal guidelines and have been signed and stamped by a architect registered in california. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for any questions and the project sponsor team is here and has prepared a presentation. project sponsor. you have five minutes. yeah if i could have the computer, please. good evening. or good afternoon, commissioners. it's a pleasure to be before you again. my name is chris. elsie. i'm the owner of the prime company. this project, if you remember, this, is kind of same song. second verse. we own the project at catty corner to this on 15th hundred. we came to you in january and this is the sister project that to that development

proposal again, we're a vertically integrated company. we design the project with our own in-house architect, our staff. we act as the general contractor. and then we also have our own management company. we again, the site there is at 15th and south fans as noted, it's an existing surface parking lot. so we're not going to be displacing any current residents . it does have the corner lot conditions, so we have good access to light and air and then it is within a couple of blocks there of the trans pit stop. the design objective again for the project was to try to create affordability by design. we do have the mandated inclusionary component, but the rest of the units we feel like will be hitting within those. ami ranges to be attainable for residents within the community. we did

have an extensive outreach, each particular with usm and united to save the mission on we as you can see there on the left that was kind of what we started with. and what we ended up with is on the right. we reduced some of our overall number of bedrooms in the project. we actually increased the height of the building. we moved it from a u-shaped building more to an l shaped building, and then we improved streetscape, added some murals and then added some overall just community open space for the project. uh, there are some of the active space there for the commercial space on the ground floor, first floor , just another shot. this would be actually from the 1500 project that that we've already started working through the

building permitting process with . and so this would be looking over towards the 401 project. those are some of the murals that will be on the side of the building and that shape that we arrived at with the usm. um, feedback. this is some of the community space that's within the building. we're about ten x what the required amount is at about 21,000 common community space and i think an important thing to note is this is just some visual images of those different community spaces that we have. but the intent is that both projects that residents from each building can be able to use the community space at either either of the properties. so like the 1500 project has the gym, this one has kind of a larger co-working king and pool and spa facility. again, these are the living units for the

project, but they're self contained. they're they have each have an individual bathroom , a kitchenette, and then the living bedroom space. there and i will turn it over to john and he will go through some of the state density bonus. thank you, commissioners. john kevin here with ruben and rose on behalf of the project sponsor. this is all things that you all are aware of already projects in the mission so it's subject to the highest affordable housing rates in the city. 25% currently 15 at very low, five at low and. five at moderate. you'll all be aware that the board of supervisors inclusionary reduction legislation just went into effect about a week and a half ago. so fortunately, this project is going to be one of the first ones out of the gate to be able to take advantage of it. that's great news. they intend to move forward with building permits as soon as we

get through the planning process. so this is a project that is moving towards construction, is moving towards delivery, and in either case, we're providing a base amount of 15% no matter what, in order to get the full density bonus. and then just very quickly, standard and waivers and incentives, concessions, building height, rear yard appropriate for a corner lot such as this and then finally the open space there is a certain amount of compliant, a certain amount of non compliant open space. and then we have a ton of that common interior space and it's shared between both projects. so these tenants are going to have plenty of options in terms of space outside of their units. so thank you very much. and we respectfully request your support. thank you. okay. that concludes sponsors presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star

three or raise your hand via webex. through the chair. you'll each have two minutes. good afternoon, president tanner and all the commission. my name is guillermo chacon, first generation san francisco and i know this area very well where they're speaking of grew up around there and a brief history with me. i'm a i've been a carpenter for eight years. the first the first couple of years was fast and very prosperous. but 2019 kind of put a damper on things for me. i'm a san francisco resident and as i said, i always cook when i come to these meetings. i often learn a lot. i learn a real lot when i come to these meetings, i'm going to say that i just i'm in favor of this project to get some hours on my books. so i could retire in san francisco and be a part of this community and stay here and be able to provide something for my young family at. and i would

appreciate if the president and the commission would approve this project. thank you. yeah, my name is harry wong and president tanner and commission. i would just want to say i'm a carpenter as well. and i live here in san francisco. and i noticed, you know, lately the way the offices are being empty, like 34% vacant lot and i saw somewhere in the wall street journal saying it takes like, like 18 months to almost three years to get things approved. i don't know if part of a lot of the commissions in the city is very difficult to get things approved and because of the jobs are dwindling down here, families are moving out of this city. a lot of people are going to texas and oregon and seattle. so there's not a lot of children in this city, you know, so

people can't afford to rent. you know, we work here and we can't even afford hardly to live here because it's very high and they said the process is very slow. i don't know why. you know, some people want like nimby, don't want. not in my backyard or some say yes in my backyard. but it's very difficult when we try to strive to live here, you know, and jobs are slow right now. it's really it's really devastating. and so we're just trying to see if we can get this project approved so people can move forward. and you know, because i know a lot of people here, they're suffering right now. you know, and we just want to have a better time. and if jobs can move faster, you know, i know there's a lot of permits that take time to come through. but you know, some people oppose even on on the board, you know, you guys and the commission, you guys agree and some don't agree, you know, because you guys live in the community, too. you might not want to see things happen in your, you know, people because of the homeless people here and, you know, the drug thing, everything is really bad here. and then people are saying, you

know, break ins and people are leaving. you know, a lot of people working at home now and so it's difficult. we're not having a lot of jobs for the carpenters. so we're trying to hope that you guys can do something. and we're looking for treasure island as well. you know, to come up. so i just want to thank you guys anyway for your time. thank you. my name is lou payne, been a member of the carpenters union for 35 years. i'm a lifelong san franciscan. i'm familiar with that area right there. i heard that it's getting built on a parking lot. is that right? um, the only thing i saw wrong with this is does the new building have parking? because there's going to be a lot of residents there needs the housing, but it also needs parking. i'm kind of going through the same thing where i live right now because they took away the garage. it had two garage ways right in both

garages. they built units and they put a curb. so they put all these people, they put more people in our building, but they took away the parking. so that would be my only concern. but other than that, the city needs more housing, especially in that area. thank you. good afternoon, madam president. commissioners my name is mauricio chavez. i'm an organizer for the northern california carpenters union local 22. i represent approximately 4000 members here in san francisco county to include the one sitting behind me. i come before you today to speak in support of the proposed project at 401 south van ness, and not just to speak in support of this project, but to share with you how proud i am as a leader in today's labor movement

of the prime company, the elk brothers are from kansas, manhattan. if i'm not mistaken, as an out of town developer. they chose to do the right thing by partnering with the carpenters union. and what does that mean in the proposed project will not be a crime scene. the proposed project will not be guilty of wage theft or tax fraud. the proposed project will provide a livable wage, will provide health benefits for the carpenter, the carpenters spouse, as well as the carpenters, dependents. this i love the union and what is done and what it stands for as a collective collective bargaining representative as well as for what it provides to the members. some of you may know i served in the us army. i was a signals intelligence analyst, got out after my initial contract expired. many times veterans do not know where to go. we do not know what to do. we do not know how to survive and thrive. however, i stumbled across homeless to hardhats and was

invited to join the united brotherhood of carpenters, which provided a means to provide, to survive and thrive. it means it provided a means for me to provide a level of comfort for my wife and son here in the bay area, which is really almost unattainable for someone with no college degree or engineering experience. i applaud the prime group as well as the elk brothers for their commitment to do the right thing and to be an example of what it means to be come to a city like san francisco that historically has historically been a union town. thank you. i ask that you support and pass this project. okay, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you. happy to see this project. it did look familiar. as you said, we had the earlier project earlier this just this year. also happy to see the conversation and the agreement that you've come to with community based organizations

and indeed the murals. i know that there's a strong tradition of mural art in the mission and happy and looking forward to seeing that continue here at this project. i also just wanted to remark, you know, we can at this commission and i among commissioners can grouse at group housing projects from time to time. but perhaps in contrast to some other examples, this one is very thoughtfully designed with quite a number of nice amenities that we don't even see in projects, whether they're group housing or not. so do appreciate the inclusion of the ample community space in the basement levels and ground floor, but also each floor having the shared living space. i don't know if there are any other questions, comments or motions from commissioners and perhaps just to answer the gentleman's question, i don't believe there's any on site parking. and so hopefully folks will be able to use bart and muni, which they are very close to, both of those amenities at this location. commissioner moore, this is a question this is a question for mr. kevin. you were part of the january

approval. is that correct? that's right. i thought that the january project had a long, contentious engagement with, um, usm, and i thought that the agreement that was reached only covered the previous building. am i misunderstanding that were there are two buildings that are supported or how does this work? because i did not see any particular letters of support or special expression of restating their commitment to this project. yeah thank you, commissioner moore. yes, the previous memorandum of understanding. i should clarify, was a memorandum of understanding, not a settlement agreement. and the reason i say that is just because there was nothing to settle. the parties came together and we had a really useful conversation because this is not an ordinary situation where we're giving the first right of first refusal to section eight, vouching voucher holders. so we came to this agreement and yes, that one

agreement covered both projects at the time, and that was important. as for usm, it was also important to us. so it worked for everyone. is that actually reflected in the motion and restated in what's in front of us? because i do not think i clearly read it then i'm seeing it and the staff report, i'm not sure if it was in the motion last time. we've got a binding agreement amongst the parties and certainly we wouldn't have a problem with memorializing it in the motion. i think i would like to do that just for reference, as time goes by and different people step into different positions here, it would just help to memorialize it as you're using the right word here. i support that. commissioner moore and perhaps as a finding, we could reference the memorandum of understanding reached between the parties. all right. that would be something i would support as an expansion to the motion. that's in front of us. and i think the motion is clear. did staff want to address that? thank you for that question. the mou and the settlement agreement are both referenced on on page

three of the of the motion in the public outreach and comment section. do you have it in front of you and could read it into the record one more time? yeah absolutely. the entire portion. sure. sorry. a little dry. the project sponsor stated at the outreach in november or started outreach in november 2016 and has worked closely with usm and mda and other community organizations in the mission neighborhood and the project sponsor team has entered into a settlement agreement with the usm and will provide a number of community benefits as well as an mou with the carpenters union to use union labor also in working with the community, the design has been revised to include additional murals, street landscaping, public seating, etcetera. the project sponsor held the required pre-application meeting on june 6th, 2023. two members of the public and the shotwell neighborhood group representative attended, according to the project sponsor notes of the of the meeting.

there was neither opposition to nor support of the project. the department has not received any letters in support of the project. sorry, excuse me. the department has not received any letters in support or opposition to the project. that is more restating the history of what happened. commissioner diamond, do you have a suggestion of how to specifically tie this memorandum to the motion in not just a narrative way of recalling what happened? i defer to the city attorney because i think that there's a reluctance to well, i'll just defer to the city attorney on this. so deputy city attorney austin yang, i'm sorry, i was under stood the question, could you mind would you mind repeating the question? i understood that i would like in our motion to see a reference in our approval that refers to the memorandum of understanding on the other project. kitty corner. i think it's 1550 south.

vanessa has a number. correct. and make that inclusive for this, for this project as well. because the way it is in staff report, it is only a narrative about what happened in the past. but it does not go into the motion of what we are approving. so the conditions for this project, even though the project sponsor has indicated there are relate ships to the project across the street, that the commission's consideration should be the condition of approval should be limited to this project. you might make findings in in the motion that describe the project sponsors representations about the availability of amenities across the street, but the approval should be limited to the use on this site. i don't think that the concern is the yeah, i mean we got your direction. we can include that in the motion and reference the fact that there was an mou between the sponsor

and usm and it both applies to the prior project and this project. yeah, we're happy to reference that under your direction. okay, great. i think that is what i would like to do. thanks for picking that up. i mean there's so much going on that i understand that it was not it was only reported in staff report, but i think the specific ask six is important to us here. yeah commissioner diamond. question for the project sponsors attorney you had indicated that it wasn't a settlement, an agreement, it was an mou and this paragraph refers to both the settlement agreement and an mou. is this an accurate description in the paragraph mou , correct? yes a settlement agreement. it says so. so i would. excuse me, commissioner, i would suggest to update that to reflect it. the name of the document, which is a memorandum of understanding. it says the project sponsor team has entered into a settlement agreement with usm. you're saying that should be an mou with usm? yes yes. okay. that will provide a number

of community benefits as well as an mou with the carpenters union. so there are two mou with the carpet. yeah, that's typically what it is. yes. mou with the carpenters union. yes. so there are two mou, correct. two separate. whatever other revisions we make, we make, we need to change settlement agreement to mou. yeah. so this would be finding five for those commissioners are looking on page three of the motion. so um and i would just advise to spell out mou as memorandum of understanding and not have the acronym there just for clarity. okay. is there a motion to approve with the amendment as suggested? commissioner muriel move to approve with conditions and the correct motion of the i think of the item number, condition of the condition approval as spoken earlier. great i'll second that motion and just for clarification, there is a motion that has been

seconded to approve with conditions, with the amendments to the findings to include add a reference to the memorandum of understanding with usm as a finding and then correcting finding item number five public outreach and comments. striking settlement agreement and replacing with mou or memorandum of understanding on that motion. commissioner braun i. commissioner diamond i. commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high, commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimous 6 to 0 and will place you on items 14 a and b for case numbers 2022 hyphen 010057cu and vr for the property at 31 coleridge street. you will consider the conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. good afternoon. commission president tanner and

commissioners kalyani agnihotri department staff. i'm presenting to you a conditional use authorization to legalize the demolition and reconstruction of a single story dwelling unit at 31 a coleridge street. the project is located along the rear lot line within the required rear yard of the lot, which also contains a two story single family residence at the front with the address. 31 coleridge street. the rear structure can be accessed through an independent entrance on covid street. the project involved unpermitted construction that resulted in residential demolition per planning code. section 317 b2c, thus requiring a conditional use authorization to legalize the project, which is considered tantamount to demolition in the rh two zoning district. the project also seeks a rear yard variance to reconstruct the residential cottage within the required rear yard of the subject property. although the project involved the removal of the roof, the western and southern walls and interior framing and partition walls which resulted in the

unpermitted demolition, it wholly reconstructs the rear residence in the exact location, footprint and height with alterations to the fenestration and interior layout. the project also proposes landscape features within the rear yard space between the front and the rear building. overall, the scale, the design and materials of the proposed building are consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood and will benefit it with an upgraded design. the project does not impact the structure at the front of the lot. the unit is presently not occupied by tenants and there have been no evictions in the last ten years that there was a tenant buy out recorded in december of 2019 before the current owners of the property purchased it. the unit has been vacant since the buyout and there will be no net loss of dwelling units on site. the reconstructed unit will be subject to prize and eviction controls per the rent ordinance. so staff would also like to note that this project is not subject to the increased penalties or new fines per ordinance number 04023. since violations occurred before april 28th, 2023, which

was the effective date of that ordinance at packet publication, the department has not received any correspondence regarding the project. in summary, the project complies with the zoning and policies of the general plan. the project supports the retention of an existing dwelling unit and greatly improves its conditions by making the repairs and modernizing it with interior finishes. the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to any persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity, vicinity and thus recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. thank you, mr. ionin. president tanner. commissioners. jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor.

it's a very unfortunate series of events that led to a lot of work being done at this property without proper permitting. they involved a inexperience at purchase here at the start of the covid crisis and being referred by her realtor to a contractor and to an engineer who has created many problems like this throughout the city, someone who you may well know the if we can go to the overhead, i'd like to show you the facade of the cottage edge. this is the preexist conditions of the cottage. i'd like to draw your attention to this little overhang over this doorway and

page down. page down. okay you can see that we have retained the exact envelope, the exact size, the exact footprint, the exact height, the only alteration we've made is that that overhang over the doorway has been raised and the front entry door has been altered, but without any increase in floor area. it's this cottage was not fully demolished. it's unfortunate that as much material was removed as was removed that led it to the situation that we're now in. the requirements of section 181 for our modification of a non

complying structure seem to my eye to be triggered only by this extended eave that projects in a very minor way over that entryway. the preexisting platform deck was not above 30in and as a result of the permitting requirements, we're required to add guardrails there . so that is a new permitting item as well. otherwise the project is very much as it preexisted same amount of space, same occupancy, nice old cottage in the bernal neighborhood. we held neighborhood outreach meetings. i've spoken to lou blodgett, who many of you may remember as the director of the department in years past. he is a neighboring property owner. he

was he recalled the condition of the cottage and had no problem with its replacement. i would just like to add that i feel that this particular engineer, whose work has left a mark on a lot of neighborhoods in the city , left a lot of messes that are that are sitting on the laps of a lot of homeowners. i've got several of them on my desk that i'm assisting people with. recovery from legalization from additional permitting processes that involve penalties or additional engineering fees, redoing plans. i believe that this department should make a finding that this individual was acting as the public enemy and that the planning code exception allows us increased discretion

to the department in how to enforce conditional use and variance requirements. i'm going to read from section 181 where it says non notwith standing the foregoing provisions of section 181, a structure occupied by a non conforming use that is damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity, or by act of god or by the public enemy may be restored to its former condition and use, provided that the such registration is permitted by the building code and is started with 18 within 18 months and diligently prosecuted to completion. i would simply suggest that this is not a matter that should require a lot of staff time and the upcoming matters from this same individual should not be requiring as much staff time as this one took with. i appreciate all the hard work that kalyani agnihotri did on this project

staff was terrific. i just think that staff could be making better use of their time so if you have any questions about this, i'm happy to respond to them. it's replacement of an existing cottage. thank you. okay. with that, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you and the zoning administrator. thank you. commissioner moore. sorry to hear another unfortunate story. the only question i have for mr. paul is who is going to live in this cottage? what is his real purpose? is it large enough for being a home for an individual?

is it being used for extended family or what is its purpose? it's a lovely little two room space. it's a small house. it will be rented the property owner lives in the in the two story house up front, which has its own permit problems created by this same process. but this cottage is very appropriate for a single individual or for an older couple. okay. thank you. that's all i needed to know. i am in support of making wrongs right and as quickly as possible . so i move to approve with conditions and curious what other commissioners have to say. second. yeah, that's great. did you have anything to add? mr. zoning administrator okay. i don't see any further commissioner comments or questions. very good commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun i, commissioner diamond i, commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high, commissioner moore high commissioner. president tanner i

so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. zoning administrator would say i'll close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant with the standard conditions. thank you, commissioners. it'll place us on item 15 for case number 2022 hyphen 011558. cour at 170. seacliff avenue conditional use authorization. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm christie. i need to make a disclosure first. yes go ahead. sorry. commissioner diamond. i'm a member of the board of temple emanuel, which has retained mark cavagnaro as its architect. that project has nothing to do with the project on seacliff, and it will not affect my ability to be neutral and impartial on this project. and i've already told this commission i recused myself from that prior approval. in any event, although i have had dealings with mr. cavagnaro office on some of the building implement part of that temple emanuel project. thank you, commissioner diamond good

afternoon, commissioners. i'm christie alexander with planning department staff. the project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.1 303 and 379 to demolish an approximately 4700 gross square foot three storey over basement single family dwelling and construct an approximately. 11,341 gross square foot three storey over basement single family dwelling with a two car garage in the sea cliff neighborhood within in the rh one d zoning district and 40 x height and bulk district. since packet publishing, the department received one letter expressing concerns regarding the potential creation of habitable space atop the proposed building as currently proposed, the project does not include areas for habitation on the top floor, with the exception of a glass enclosed stair penthouse for roof access.

overall, the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the proposed building has been contextually designed with regard to site specific conditions and will develop the law in a manner that provides a quality multigenerational family sized home to the city's housing stock within a well resourced neighborhood. the department also finds the project to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i will be available for any questions. is the project sponsor and the architect are here to make a presentation from their team. great thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. thank you. my name is mark cavagnero and i'm here with joan

park architects and i'll try to get through this quickly in five minutes if you can make sure you're speaking the microphone to help us hear you a little bit better. thank you. okay sorry. see if that works better. i'm trying to advance with one hand. here's the site, the street elevation, the two existing houses for clarity. 178 sea cliff on the left received permit approval a couple of years ago, and we've resubmitted an application which you've received to revise that design. and we're here today to talk about the focus on 170 sea cliff. the house on the right. this image shows the approved design from two years ago on the left at 178. and i'm showing this just for reference because it gets intertwined with what we propose to do. again, the focus of this hearing is the building on the right, 170. we began by

trying to understand the street, the context. that's very lovely and it's very important in the city. what we observed is the houses to the west of us. those highlighted in yellow are largely not visible from the street for a variety of reasons. if 170 encircled is our project, it to briefly show these just going up the street. it's mostly garages, walls and some heavy landscaping and a driveways and cars. but the houses themselves have very little visibility all the way up. sea cliff to the west of us. however, what we did feel was very different was if we're 170, the four houses to the east of us, 130, 140, one, 61, 64 are very visible, all quite beautiful relate to each other very well and have a lot of character for that. we wanted to bring into the thinking of our work. here's the street elevation, the 170 on the left.

the focus today, the 178, the building which has already been approved to be removed. and then to the right of it. 130, 140, 160 and 164, we went out, we studied those carefully and really looked at the neighborhood and admired it. the permit that was given two years ago for 178 is now shown in this drawing on the left. so we began by being enamored with the pair of houses at 130, 140 that are kind of bookends. they share a driveway and they allow a beautiful view to the marin headlands in the water. they were built by one family, some years ago and they've been maintained as a pair of houses that except for paint color, are virtually identical. and they frame this view in a really nice public way. a different view, different time. just wanted to show how it's evolved. if you look at our pair of buildings, 170, they're owned by the same client. parenthetically, the

focus of today's hearing and 178, the project that was submitted and approved a couple of years ago. there is a garage between them, 13 foot wide part of the 170 encroaches on that 70 foot area and there is no view off to the water, which we thought was unfortunate. so we started doing some analysis just to fit in. i'll try to make this very brief, but all these four houses to the right of us have a flat roof, a strong cornice and a very similar 2 to 1 rectangular window open vertically oriented, which i found in a lot of these buildings from this generation, the houses to the left, the existing at 170, which we would like to remove. and unfortunately the project that was approved by a different architect a couple of years ago, we're showing it for context to explain our thinking. 178 don't don't have have that same 2 to 1 vertical rectangular window organizing both the blank wall and the windows. and we feel as

though maybe that's part of the reason in in a significant way why they've never felt comfortable on that block. so we looked at our design to both revise the 178 and to look at 170 our project. we're here for today and to bring that 2 to 1 vertical proportion, the flat roof that steps down with the existing houses to the right 164, 61, 41, 30 and we like the rhythm we see in the vertical line of those three openings that allow this view off to the north bay and the water. so we decided that we would really work to that and highlight that view and make our buildings frame that view in a very public and very, i think, community beneficial way. so if you look at the design we're proposing again one 70s on the right, we're really trying to make it in 178 have a flattering view. the garage is submerged, so we maintain a completely unrestricted view off to the

marin headlands and the water for people who walk walk their dog, jog, drive by. we think it's a real nice asset. thank you, sir. that is your time. okay the commissioners may have clarifying questions. as members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed on this matter is now before you. thank you. are there any questions comments or motions on this project? commissioner moore i have a question for mr. carbonaro. when you're referring to both buildings, are you saying that this pair of buildings has a total of 11,000ft!s, or are you just referring to one of them having 11,000ft!s? i. the one in question, 170. that is the one which has 11,000ft!s. yeah yes. thank you. commissioner braun. i

move to approve. commissioner moore. i would like to ask staff as to whether or not this particular part of town falls under our affordable housing legislation or under well-resourced neighborhood densification. this is indeed as a single family home, even with 4700ft!s, a very large home is this particular area exempt from our legislation? because i sit here every day struggling with 450ft!s or less, as we did on several occasions today. and this one seems to be rather large. so i would like to know as to whether or not extensive specific protection for these types of houses or do they not just fall under what else we need to do in the city? yeah, it's an h one district. it's in

a well resourced neighborhood. you know, you could take advantage of legislation that's been passed by, you know, man, woman and melgar to densify and add units. well, my own personal moral compass, willie would ask me personally to ask for some form of density action because we have now two homes next to each other, which makes about 22,600ft!s. that is a substantil building given how we struggle in every neighborhood with trying to gain additional housing. our communication was supervisor and guide you today very much reflected on what we need to do. merging lots. et cetera. et cetera. here we're having the volumetric possibility for very large homes and we are not finding any form of accommodating others. and an

even larger home for single family. i like to pose that for my commissioners as a question and see where we fall. i would certainly. did you want to ask i was just going to say in our in our upcoming when we bring forward legislation for you for the rezoning, you know there will be minimum density requirements. so where you're demoing and rebuilding, you know, we'll ask for a minimum density. but i think we grapple with the same thing. we don't have necessarily rules on when we ask for additional density or not. certainly could you, the project planner, perhaps address if there had been discussions with the project sponsor about adding an additional unit as is permitted under local and state law. they just proposed to do one unit. they did not want to do another unit. okay. does the architect want to speak to the project sponsors desire or willingness to consider revising the project to add an additional unit. hi, tom tunney and jason

rose on behalf of the project sponsor, we had talked about this a little bit with staff in they have this same property owner as trying to develop the two properties already, so didn't really have the it's a single family home to be to be frank and so his preference is to keep it as one unit but maybe there's a way that there could be another way to find a second unit in some other fashion. certainly i would align myself with commissioner moore in that this is a large house getting larger and it quite interesting to be juxtaposed next to the tiny cottage that we just talked about and how many hours of staff time were spent for different reasons on that project. and while certainly it perhaps is contextually similar to the other homes in this

neighborhood, and i think part of what we're striving for is that every neighborhood can do its part to help. to add more diversity of housing types to the housing stock. and certainly we have debated many times single family homes that have had an additional adu in each one. sometimes we talk about making that unit more livable or bigger so that or better shaped so that it can be more habitable. i certainly would be wanting to perhaps continue this project for a revision to include an additional unit if there is a motion and if a majority of the commissioners agree. commissioner dimond, while i would have much preferred that they included an adu, i don't think we should be doing this on a one off basis where sometimes we ask for it, sometimes we don't. i feel like we need to be very consistent and that if we want these units, if we want to have minimum density, then we should change our ordinance this later this

summer when we're or next summer when we're proposing it. but i can't support doing this on a one off basis depending upon who's in front of us and what the feeling is of whoever's present that day. i don't believe that's the right way to project this message. that being said, you know, they wanted to voluntarily include an adu. that would be terrific, but i would not withhold approval mandating that they do that for as we said, on an ad hoc basis. thank you, commissioner. imperial. um, yeah, i, i don't think i can support this project as it is. the the, the gross square footage is immense from 4700 to 11,000. i would like to see actually more than one unit. adu i would like to see more 2 to 3 units in this. again it's but i do i you know i also hear what commissioner diamond is saying as well in terms of, you know, what, again, this was a

conversation that we had last week. what would what should guide the commission in terms of expanding, you know, expanding or renovation of, you know, of a single family unit, you know, understanding that there are multifamily, but this one is 11,304 square foot. i don't know how many family members you have , but it's this is immense. so yeah, i think i'm asking for the department to give us more direction, more guidance. if anything, when it comes from expansion of one single family home to a large single family home, what are the criteria that we're looking for that the same time commit to what we're saying about densification, a well resourced neighborhood? i do not accept the 11,341. so that's where i go on this. if there's no continuance, i will vote no. but if there is a continuance, then there has to be a good conversation about how many

units will have this. but as of now, i understand there is no ordinance, but that should be in the works in the department. right. thank you, commissioner moore. in response to commissioner diamond's comment regarding a one off for the many years that i've been sitting on this commission for all sizes of medium sized homes, the previous commissions have in many times ten times, 20 times, 30 times as for the addition of an adu or of a second unit, there is nothing new to it. there's nothing one offs here. that is a policy that has haunted us for the last 15 years. the only thing is that with the acceptance of the housing element and with our own commitment to racial and social equity and pursuing an equitable realization of the housing element, for us, the bar has become higher. no one offs and i would suggest suggest that this

project does not meet the objectives of the general plan, which will basically redefine and through the acceptance of the housing element. so i believe by us, not really at least attempting to take a broader look at this project. we ourselves are not fulfilling the obligations of why we're sitting here and i'm not making any suggestions of how this would be resolved, but i would support a continuance for a thoughtful discussion with the owner and a very good architect who i think can creatively add something which will not detract from from the enjoyment the view corridor and everything else of two large homes under one ownership. thank you, commissioner diamond. so i'm not disagreeing that many, but not all times. the view that commissioner moore has expressed has been part of our discussion. but correct me if i'm wrong, the

version that we approved of the adjacent house, i don't think had an adu in it and that was it did not. right. so i'm saying we don't always do it. and that's what i'm objecting to is i feel like our rules should be very clear and that when the architect and the project sponsor begin their design, they should know what the rules are. if we want them to absolutely include adus, then we should make that part of our rules so they don't waste a lot of time designing something and then come in front of us and we decide in this case that at least four of us are going to impose the second requirement. so i'm not opposed at all to the requirement of adus, but i am opposed to the process by which we're doing it on a one off basis, and i think we should do it by ordinance and not by ad hoc discretion. the role of the planning commission is to guide and critique and objectively step back. and since this property has two homes on it, and if the first property, which

i do not recall any more, must be in a number of years ago, was approved with that request. i think it is even more important for us to at least in the dual enlargement of very large homes, to ask the second home to deliver the particularly for us the pressure and the bar has been raised to the extent that i personally cannot sit here and ignore that i owe it to the west where we are fighting about 450ft!s. this home could accommodate 25, 450 square foot cottages, just as a scale comparison where i say, well, all because we don't have a rule, i'm not going to do it. so i challenge that we need to be proactive and i'm leaving it open for the architect who has all the skills and all the resources to properly investigate that, to step back and give it a try. so i think we have a lot of opinions which is good. i do wonder, i know

commissioner braun has written a motion that did not get seconded. i don't know if there is a motion to continue for further discussion. and second, commissioner, bronze. okay. so commissioner braun's motion to approve has been seconded. and is there any other motion or comments or questions? commissioner imperial i'll also put a motion for continuance for up to two weeks. i'll second, i second that. and i think i would convey the sentiment of the motion is to, to have the project sponsor to consider if an inclusion of additional unit can be feasible and to propose as such. did you want to address or have any questions? we would support the continuance and would like to work with staff to try to find a way to address this. it's a reasonable request. does two weeks sufficient? that'd be fine. okay. thank you. very good. in that case, well, i don't know because my motion has

been seconded. i'm not sure if i can withdraw it, but i am willing to withdraw the motion if you're willing to. the motion to continue will go first. will be heard, will be asked first. and so you can support the motion to continue and your motion will just die. right? procedurally the procedural motion supersedes the action. so on the motion to continue to november 9th, commissioner braun , high commissioner diamond high, commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell i, commissioner moore and commission president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and the motion to approve with condition is dead. commissioners that will place us on item seven teen for case number 22. no i'm sorry. item 16 for case number 20. 21 hyphen 01300087 25 sanchez street conditional use authorization. good afternoon,

commissioners. christie alexander again with planning department staff the project before you now is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.1303 and 317 to demolish an approximate 706 square foot two story single family dwelling and construct an approximately 4052 gross square foot three storey over basement single family dwelling within the rh one zoning district. dolores heights special use district and central neighborhoods large residents special use district and 40 x height and bulk district eight since packet publishing, the department has received correspondence from three neighbors expressing concerns towards the project. the concerns are centered on the project's impact on relative housing affordability to the neighborhood as it sits within the central neighborhood. large residences and special use district. and number two, the

properties, current tenancy and three the retention of a shared access path between the subject property and the adjacent property. at 733, sanchez street. in response to the first concern it is important to note that the project is not subject to the controls of the central neighborhood's large residents sued as it was submitted prior to the effective date of that legislation. the remaining concerns have been addressed by the project sponsor by providing documentation and through the conduction of a site visit to the property, an agreement between the adjacent property owner and the sponsor has been reached to set back the proposed homes. 7.5in along the eastern side property line to maintain the existing access way between both homes. staff has forwarded a revised set of plans to commissioner with the 7.5in side setback and a red line version of the draft motion, which i'm reading into the record. and

overall, the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the proposed project has been designed to be contextual with the surrounding buildings fronting sanchez street and revised with regard to site specific conditions. since initial submittal, the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. fauci. this concludes my presentation and i'll be available for any questions. the project architect and the owners are here to make a presentation from the sponsor team. project sponsor. you have five minutes. have the nsf.gov. can we go to the computer, please. good

afternoon, president tanner and commissioner. my name is vanessa polgar. sawhney and my husband bob and i would like to take this opportunity to thank you for reviewing our materials for our home at 725 sanchez street. we especially also want to thank christy and the planning department for all of their help over the past two years. in the next couple of minutes, i'd like to briefly explain how this home has been intertwined in my family's history for almost 60 years and how this project is deeply personal. my parents were immigrants who came to this country for a better life. my dad fled budapest during the hungarian revolution of 1956. my mom left athens in the aftermath of civil war in greece. they met at a dance in san francisco and they married in 1961. they started their lives together in a little apartment in dolores

heights on chattanooga street. and four years later, they decided to purchase their first home. and on the day they were supposed to sign paperwork for a split level in westlake, my mom headed forth to run some errands ahead of time, and she ended up driving on the 300 block of liberty street and when she got to the top of the hill and round the corner, she came across realtor dick fiore, perched on a ladder, nailing in the for sale sign for 725. sanchez street. and on that day, it turns out my parents actually did sign papers for a home, but not even the one that they had envisioned. and earlier that day. in august 1965, this is what santa street looked like, that home provided shelter and protection for our family. and within those walls, dreams, hopes and a better

future were attained. and my brother was born five years later, and i came three years after that. you'll see here just a brief time capsule of our time over the years at sanchez street when my parents passed away, the home was entrusted in my care and we kept it as a rental until the height of the pandemic, when our lovely tenants of almost eight years gave notice that they were leaving. so bob and i were at a crossroads as to how to proceed with the home. and so we had to ask ourselves a simple question. one day or day one, and we opted for the latter and spent the next year with our terrific team designing a home that would perfectly meet our family's needs. three years ago, that was. and here's our son on the same deck that my brother and i played on designing and

dreaming of the future home and helping the architect with some sketches. what we present to you today is this rendering which incorporates christy and the planning department's suggestions, all of which we enthusiast fully embraced and so now we ask today for this little home, which is only four rooms, and has 700ft!s, to finally realize its full potential. shall we? thank you for your time and your consideration in our project. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex through the chair. you'll each have two minutes. hello commissioners. my name is

liz clark and i am the adjacent neighbor to 725 sanchez my home was built in 1911, and while i've not lived there for quite that length of time, i have been there since the early 90s. and i love it. and i just would like to point out that this has been my single family home for over 30 plus years. vanessa has a history with the house, but they have never lived there nor have they contributed to the neighborhood. would this project is big and we have a tiny street and it's going to be with all the demolition in the multi-level excavation action and construction is going to be traumatic for the neighborhood no matter how we look at it. despite all that, i'm not here to oppose the project or make any changes, nor have i suggested any of those in the

past. i simply wanted to make sure that my property is safe and the integrity is maintained and i have asked the only thing i've asked from them have been a copy of the plans construction plans, and to have a liaison appointed to help me a single person, an with a lot of health issues is maneuver. this this project per an email this morning i asked i asked for plans and i asked for the liaison and per an email this morning i was denied both, which is shocking to me because it didn't think that was anything unreasonable to ask for. i'm just asking for your help in in keeping, like i said, keeping my property safe and. i think the

denial does not bode well for the neighborhoods and for the neighborhood, for the neighbors and is extremely unneighborly. so thank you. please help. hello thank you, president tanner and the commission. my name is joanna illing and i am the other adjacent neighbor at 733 sanchez we are the ones who had put forth the request to maintain the prescriptive easement of two feet 10.5in between the house. and i want to thank christie, the staff planner, for bringing this forward and incorporating our wishes to the project. but we're fully in support of the project. we have been aware of vanessa's plan since we purchased our house last year and they've been very forthcoming with sharing their plans with us before we purchased it so that we were fully informed about what we were signing up for. we're very grateful to the neighbors for being willing to work with us and find a fair and equitable

solution that works for both of us and the safety and functionality of both homes. we intend to preserve the prescriptive easement between the houses as a shared egress that will add value to both properties as well as maintain the safety of that gate to protect against intruders. and we hope to record it with the city as a deeded egress so that it will be permanent. my architects, richard and amelia, are here. if you have any questions for us, and i thank you for your time. thanks okay. seeing no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's go to our remote caller. commissioners this is bruce bowen from the dolores heights improvement club. i have three comments i'd like to add. first, i'd like to thank the owner for agreeing from the beginning to implement an excavation monitoring plan as recommended by the project's geotechnical engineers. a plan like this is best practice and most effective for protecting the owners and neighbors interests when it is thorough and transparent, as we hope this

will be and we hope it will be a sign of cooperation and requests from neighbors such as we just heard earlier during the course of the construction, which this is a very common, challenging location, a one way street really, that could potentially block two blocks of the neighborhood during construction of many significant excavations that have taken place in our neighborhood in recent years. most have proceeded without mishaps and the overwhelming majority have had a plan, such as the owners have agreed to in place. and we're happy this project will have one also. second, i'd also like to thank the planner, christy alexander, for responding to a number of concerns brought up by adjacent neighbors and others. and finally, i would like to point out again that this project, though, is not subject to the central neighborhood's large resident special use district as its project application was submitted days before the effective date of the ordinance. however, although this does not

apply to this project, we are happy to have whatever protections it provides now that are in place. the sod was put into place because the many projects we've seen on our few blocks that for example replaced existing housing with 2 or 3 times those large without adding density from what i know, the sod has deterred or resulted in changes to a couple of proposed projects so far. but i don't do not believe that you have deliberated yet on one of these projects within the sub, 1 or 2 have been on the consent calendar and i hope you will carefully, way in the future the necessity and desirability of these large projects when they come before you in light of the discussion on the previous item, though, you may want to consider some of the ramifications of this kind of a significant expansion. ann thank you, sir. that is your time. thank you very much. last call for public comment, seeing no, it's georgia . i want to thank i want to

thank christie alexander for she's very helpful because i was intrigued by this because of the major excavation. i had an issue with that on a project, a couple projects actually near me and um, you know, there was a discrepancy in the geotech report, which was concerning and christie took care of it. so thank you to that. this is, you know, two levels below garage, two living levels below garage. it's a lot of excavation and i was intrigued by the neighbor's request for the plans and of the addendum, i assume and i don't think that's doesn't seem extraordinary. i mean, the plans are also put on, um, electronically. now, from my understanding, the agenda can be submitted electronically. um, and for the application and then i guess at some point they'll need a, a hard copy of plans when they start the work for at

the site for the contractor and the people who work there. so i, i think that, you know, given that it is a major excavation and given my experience with major excavations that sometimes things change and happen when looks at it, i think it would be reasonable for this neighbor to have plans because it is such a major, major, major excavation. and i know you don't deal with excavations. that's dbis thing. but the design you're approving is going to be in the excavation. so that's all. thanks a lot. take care. bye. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners public comment is closed on this matter is now before you. thank you. i just want to ask the project sponsor if they can just address the comment and request from the neighbor for a copy of the plans and just knowing who to liaise with during construction. thank you, miss

tanner. president tanner. so i think what the christy ford to us was a request for a contract. construction documents which have not been produced yet. we're in the site permit phase of the of the project and only the kind of site kind of large picture design drawings have been produced at and that have that has been emailed and mailed from the planning department to adjacent neighbors during pre and during the pre 311 hearing. so plans have been provided. the other plans that are requested have not been produced yet. they are produced during construction documents and building the building permit phase. great and i would just advise if you want to connect with your neighbor, because i don't think the planning department is going to be playing the liaison role, just to be clear. so you will need to be contacting each other and during the construction phase, work with each other. so just to be clear to the man who's requesting the documents at this point, the plans that are prepared for this hearing are the only plans that we are considering, which are not

construction documents. those will be produced and considered by the department of building inspection subsequent to this hearing. and hopefully, again, you can provide those to your neighbor when those are available. so are there any comments, questions or motions from commissioners? commissioner diamond i just want to point out there is a standard community liaison provision as the last condition of approval. so it's not an option where you get to have a community liaison or not. you just need to identify who it is to your neighbor. and with that, i'd move to approve. second thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. commissioner braun, a commissioner diamond, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell. a commissioner moore and commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and will place us on item 17 for case number 2023 hyphen 002179q at 2100 bryan street conditional use authorization. good

afternoon again. commissioners kalyani agnihotri department staff presenting a conditional use authorization to remove an unauthorized dwelling unit from an existing one story commercial building at 2100 bryant street and react activate a previously abandoned limited commercial use at the same property. the project requires a conditional use per planning code section 317 to remove the udu, the building. historically contained a limited commercial use in the r2 zoning district, evidenced by the historic sanborn maps dating back to 1960. the property was found to contain a by means of registered voter roll information between the years of 2014 and 2017, the unit has been unoccupied since, and it was last used as a design professional use till 2021. it's not presently occupied by any tenants and there have been no evictions or buyouts in the last ten years per an assessment of an independent appraiser, it was found that the cost to legalize the results in a significant loss in the existing commercial

value of the property and the added cost to bring the building into compliance with the building code would also render it financial infeasible to be legalized. so so the project proposes to reactivate the limited commercial use a design professional office on site per planning code. section 186. in addition, the project also includes the removal of the existing parking garage and the curb cut on the 19th street frontage, and it replaces the garage door with a window and also adds minor interior tenant improvements at packet publication. the department has received letters of support, 59 letters of support, and it states that this project is a positive contribute to the mission and it would bring enhancement to the surrounding neighborhood. the sponsor has conducted extensive outreach with the local residents and the neighborhood organizations by reaching out via email and mail. in summary, the project complies with the zoning and policies of the general plan and the mission area plan. it reactivates a commercial building with a local business. it contributes to the

characteristic mix of uses in the mission and the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. thus, we recommend approval. this concludes my presentation and i will hand it over to the project. sponsor thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. thank you. got it. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you. my name is nick cola and i am counsel of record for the project applicant jeremiah desai

, as well as its founder, lauren jeremiah, who is also in attendance today. we're seeking approval of a project calling for the reactivation of commercial use at 2100 bryant street, as well as we're seeking for authorization to memorialize the removal of any prior unauthorized residential use pursuant. to section 317. so lauren, the founder of jeremiah design, is a longtime san francisco resident where she not only bases her business operation, but she also raises her daughter. she founded jeremiah design. there we go. approximately 15 years ago, which focuses on interior design and art consulting. over the years, jeremiah design has earned accolades from forbes magazine, architectural digest. it has grown to the point that it now employs 12 women and it

collaborates with many locally based artists as well as independent furniture makers on a recurring basis. many of whom have submitted letters of support for this application. thank you. all right. um after building up our business over the last 15 years, lauren had saved up enough to purchase a property for the purposes of housing or business operations. in late 2022, she went into contract to purchase the property. all the disclosure documents evidence that it was a commercial in nature. it had a short term commercial tenant and occupancy at the time that it agreed to leave. after after the sale went through and the assessor's office indicated that it was commercial in nature as well. after closing, lauren went to go get a building permit application over the counter so she could make some minor alteration plans to house her business operations there. and there it was discovered that the only permit history for this property was a 1987 reroofing

permit. and for some inexplicable reason, the roofer who obtained that permit listed the property's use as residential, so she had to be referred over to planning in order to get through, get a change of use. at that point, it was discovered that a prior owner from 2014 to 2017 had used the property as his voting address of record. hence now the requirement that we go through 317 as well. lauren went from a point of thinking that she was going to be able to get an over-the-counter permit. she could terminate her lease for her business principle place of business, and she could move in and begin paying her mortgage off through through delays that were beyond anyone's control. and the unforeseeable issue that we now have of having to go through the conditional use process, we're now ten months removed and lauren is in a position where she is paying

both a mortgage and rent for her business operations. we're here today to respectfully request that you approve this application so that she could stop bleeding, she could move her business operations and her employees into her new place of business. at 2100, bryant street. and she could get back to focusing on business rather than this. thank you for your time. all right. thank you. with that, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak, commissioner's public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. certainly great to see a small local business thrive thing and very sorry to hear about the challenge that have led to you here before us, honestly. but hopefully we can. dispatch was this quickly, commissioner moore i'm in strong support of women in architecture and design and moved to approve second, there's

nothing further commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. commissioner braun, a commissioner dimond high commissioner, imperial high. commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0, placing us on items 18 a and b for case numbers. 2017 hyphen 012086 kwa hyphen. zero two and 2017 hyphen 012086 drp for the property at 77d wolseley woolsey street commissioner does you have a conditional use authorization and a discretionary review filed in this particular case? we don't normally do that when there's a conditional use except a discretionary review. i believe staff will discuss why we did that in this particular unique instance. but given that we'll have we'll hear from staff on the discretion review and the

conditional use, we'll then hear from this project sponsor on the conditional use authorization. we will then hear from the district requester for five minutes and then the project sponsor for five minutes. public comment and then rebuttals. good evening or good afternoon. good evening, commissioners. ellis monsky planning department staff as jonas described the. request before, you are first a conditional use authorization in to modify the previously approved conditional use authorization in under motion to 1034 for the project at 770 woolsey street to amend condition of approval number 25 to change the elected method of compliance with the inclusionary affordable housing program from providing on site affordable housing units to the payment of the affordable housing fee under planning code. section 145 point 5g3. this particular conditional

use has a very limited scope. the planning commission is asked to just consider the change in tenure or means of compliance with section 145. separately, there is a publicly initiated request for discretionary review of the building permit applications. associate with the project at 770. woolsey street record. number 2017-012086. to add stair penthouses to the previously approved 31 duplex buildings, which i will address later in the presentation. the original project on november 18th, 2021. the planning commission approved the project, which comprised the demolition of existing greenhouse structures on an approximately two acre site. new construction of 62 dwelling units, which were within 31 three story residential duplex buildings and

an approximately 16,300 square foot publicly accessible open space at the corner of woolsey and hamilton streets. currently site permits for all the dwelling units and open space areas as well as demolition permits are under review by various city agencies as during that review, revisions to the site permits for the 31 duplex units included stair penthouse sizes among minor architectural changes. those stair penthouses represent covid an increased volume not previously considered, hence it was noticed and discretionary review was filed and as currently conditioned on the project, would provide 20% of the units on site as below market rate equivalent to 12 units. 10% at low, five at moderate, and five at middle income. with the proposed change, the project would be subject to a 33% fee rate. the fee is calculated

applying a per square foot fee to the total gross floor area multiplied by the rate in this case, 33. as you're probably aware, starting next month, the temporary reduction in inclusionary affordable housing fee takes effect. this is a pipeline project so both the on site and the fee percentages would be reduced to 12% on site and 16.4% fee. public comment. since the publishing of the report, the department has received one phone call in opposition to the modification of the conditional use authorization because the callers strongly supported the creation of affordable dwelling units on site and within the neighborhood and then, as mentioned earlier, a drt was filed in relation to the building permits for the stair penthouse design the requester. bonnie bridges of 738, wayland avenue, a neighbor across the

street to the north of the project, is concerned that the proposed addition of stair penthouses will exacerbate the incongruous scale of the development in relation to the neighboring houses and further will block light and air to the houses along wayland avenue. her proposed alternative is to remove the stair penthouses and configure a means of capturing those stairs within the existing approved building volume as detailed in the discretionary review application attached to the staff report. the project complies with the planning code and is considered generally consist with the residential design guidelines as the stair penthouses are set back from the street facades and sloped to minimize their visibility and therefore the impact to light and air of neighboring buildings across the street would be minimized. the stair penthouses would be approximately 75ft away from the requester's front facade. the setback and configuration of the stair penthouses would also render them minimally visible from the

street and therefore be maintained. the visual scale at the street. as such, staff staff has deemed that there is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and recommends that the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project at the revision to add the penthouses. furthermore, in summary, in relation to the conditional use authorization, the department finds it consistent with the determination of the planning commission on november 18th, 2021, and as stated in motion 21 034, the department finds the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan with the modification requested, the project will contribute to the affordable housing fee, which supports development of affordable housing citywide a city goal. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this

concludes staff report. i'm available for any questions. very good. project sponsor. you have five minutes for your presentation on the conditional use authorization. i'll just go ahead and get started. okay. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mark shkolnikov presenting on behalf of the project sponsor group. i we are excited to bring this project back to the commission following its unanimous approval in november 2021. now, as then, this project will activate along vacant site with 62 units of new housing and a vibrant public open space at the corner of woolsey and hamilton in in the aftermath of the pandemic and a persistently challenging market, the sponsor team, like many developers in the city, has been searching to identify a path to bring this project to reality. that path became clear this spring when the city, including this commission, took action to temporarily reduce impact fees

and inclusionary requirements. those changes, which go into effect in just a few days, have moved the needle for this project site and we are hopeful that it will be the first of many to progress to construction in the coming months. as before you. today is a request to switch the project's elected method of section 415 compliance to payment of the in-lieu fee. as ella had mentioned, the pipeline project under the city's new temporary reduction ordinances, the project would qualify for an in-lieu fee rate of 16.4, payable at the issuance of first construction documents. this. to be clear, the project sponsor is actively working with the city staff so that it can draw its first such construction document soon after the approval requested today. and we plan to start construction on site this year. the sponsor team looks forward to addressing the

separate discretionary review request in just a few moments, but thanks for your attention to this and this would be a huge help to create a pathway for this project to move forward. thank you. okay. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should hear from the requester. you have five minutes. thank you. i'm going to go old school on you. as if can we go to the overhead, please. hi, i'm bonnie bridges and i

live at 738. wayland street, not avenue. we're the third house from the corner at wayland and bowdoin across the street from the subject property and at the high point of the block, i am also an architect. the proposed and previously approved design was quite elegant and aligned with the high quality of design work that comes out of iwamoto scott's office. and despite my concerns about the development at large, i was impressed with the quality of the design work and the creative massing of this planned unit development. and i support the previously approved design. after filing the doctor group, i principal mark s called me to discuss the project and my concerns, and he shared that he worked for yamada scott for five years and was the project

architect for 770. woolsey previously to joining group i and therefore was quite familiar with all aspects of the design. he shared some background about the project and two main design drivers one that the gable structure is would refer and relate to the forms of the historic greenhouse that are being demolished. and two, that when the simple gable forms were added, they created a street front that they referred to little monopoly houses as simple all no stair penthouses. mark also shared that he was in a pre-construction phase working with j a wj, a waterproofing consultant, and carmelo a

general contractor to provide advice on the project, at which point they both recommended that the stairs be enclosed ed for their concern for the risk of water intrusion. hence project sponsor added penthouses make sense. that is 31. penthouse is of a substantial large project at in this neighborhood of three stories of which the neighborhood has predominantly two stories. this change is not immaterial. it substantially alters the approved design and curiously, to me, as an architect, it abandon earns the architect's own design intent and their major objectives. so i want to reiterate that i support the previously approved design.

i'm not fighting that project. what i'm talking about is these 31 protrusions that project up and disrupt what they claim to be clean massing and also affect in particular our situation. so i've lived at this house for 25 years, raised my family here, own a small business, run a successful design firm. our house faces south, our main source of light and air comes from the south or the prevailing breezes. come off the john mclaren park down wayland street , and through our house, our main, the living spaces are on the second floor, the garage and basement are on the ground floor. many of the houses in this neighborhood are the same condition. we use these operable windows for access to fresh air, and this is our main source of south light, which penetrates deep into our tiny little house.

what i want to know is why didn't the developer and architect team not seek professional advice during the design process and address their waterproofing concerns? then why did this come so late in the game? so i request that the stair penthouse change is rejected and the project sponsor either removes the stair penthouses and restores the project to the previously approved design or figures out a way to contain the stairs within the previously approved massing. thank you. project sponsor you have a five minute presentation. okay. hello again, commissioners . i think bonnie and i could have combined our presentations in some regard so could you switch back to the computer, please? great so from the

beginning, this project has held itself to the highest design standards and set out to be a model for sustainable urban living. a key component of that is the open space that the project provides. over 80% of the block is covered by either open space or renewable energy sources. this is by way of over 17,000ft!s of publicly accessible, open space, 5000ft!s of common open space, plus 46 private yards and 46 private roof decks and over 600 photovoltaic panels that said providing roof decks at this scale has required a learning curve in particular. and in light of the severe rainstorms we endured last year, what we'd previously planned as open stairs to the roof decks has proven to be a vulnerability to the durability of the units that we need to address. outdoor stairs being susceptible to wear

and tear present a high risk combination of being less likely to be maintained while threatening substantial water damage. and as has been advised by our waterproofing consultant and our general contractor. therein, we've proposed to introduce stair penthouses to enclose. the last flight of stairs to the roof decks. those are highlighted in green on the screen and the red star to the right indicates the request was address 738 wayland street. so just for reference, this we have that the a units along bowdoin and hamilton which i'll jump to shortly the c units along woolsey and the b units opposite the requester's address on wayland street. so what we've done for the a units here is we've set back the stair to a

minimum of i believe it's right in there 27, 26ft from the street frontage and we've sunken the roof deck in the penthouse just under three feet below. so the max roof height to further mitigate the visual impact. and then we've sloped the roof as well in a form that we think is congruent with with the design of the buildings. for the c unit here, the stair penthouse is just over 12ft away from the property line, but we've sloped it ascending away from the street frontage so that will also mitigate the visual impact from the street. and for the last unit type, that i wanted to point to the b type, this would be the one opposite. the requester's address. we've prepared this diagram showing the sunken roof deck in penthouse that i described, the sloped roof and also in this case where we range from 20 to

24ft away from the property line on wayland street. and lastly, we've prepared this diagram showing the view from 738 wayland street and this demonstrates the visibility of the stair penthouses. so just in summary, the penthouse is comply with planning code, have been designed to minimize the appearance of a new building height and will help ensure the this new housing project will result in high quality and durable units. thank you. thank you. we should take public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on on the conditional use authorization and or the discretionary review request. and again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to

speak, commissioners, i am just about to call you up, ma'am, your requester. you have a two minute rebuttal. we well, hold on. there is a late request to speak, so let's go to our. public commenter, our remote caller. you have two minutes. thank you. hi, everyone. this is kelly torres, a portal, a community member speaking to oppose the updated plans for 770. woolsey community members were never opposed to new housing and the need for it. and there are many developments planned and currently underway for our neighborhood, as well as the surrounding communities and cities. as everyone should know by this point, this site holds a very special place in the portilla's heart and community members spent a year fundraising to collect money to make an

offer to purchase the lot from the current owner. $15 million was donated to this cause. not a small feat, but the community did it. however our offer was turned down and sure enough, the developers empty promises are coming true and past predictions. a reality by disrespecting this community yet again, by doing away with any affordable housing plans or 1662 units of high end luxury housing and 13 units below market rate, whatever that currently means. the addition of penthouse units just smacks of greed. a high end complex in the middle of a working class neighborhood also carries with it the risk of green gentrification. once the 17,000 square foot community corner is developed, it teachers library, firefighters, police officers and the working class members of this city already working here could benefit from affordable housing. the developers need to honor their initial plans to build a portion

of affordable units that could make many lives easier. sadly, the clear reality is the developers don't care about community or providing anything affordable, and that making a ton of cash is their ultimate goal, leaving us with the problems. this luxury condo complex will create pollution, road erosion, gentrification, traffic and congestion. to conclude, i ask you to reject these updates and direct the owners to commit to their initial plans. we do not want another san bruno avenue and woolsey debacle. thank you. okay last call for public comment. seeing no requests to speak to your request or now you have your two minute rebuttal going back on the. so we received this package and this notification and i went to the website and i

immediately downloaded the 76 pages of the project sponsors pack package, which was so large and it was very difficult to do anything with what it did do, however, was gray out the impact in the elevations of those stair penthouses? you can refer to the project sponsor documents i have highlight them in red back to my previous point this is not immaterial and it is not insignificant. that it is how big the stair penthouse is on bowdoin street. it as well as i suppose as the other units down on hamilton on i am asking for a reconsideration of the penthouse

as previously stated. thank you. project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal if you want to use it. yeah i think just to bonnie's point, there was no intent to minimize the stair penthouses. it's purely a matter of depth. i mean they're they're compliant in height. they're actually a few feet below the maximum height. and as i'd mentioned, they range from 12 to 25ft setback from the street. so the visibility, i believe that we'd shown in the rendering i provide was a much more accurate representation of how they'd be experienced from from the street . good afternoon, commissioners. nick roosevelt, land use counsel for the project sponsor. i just want to say we're available to

answer questions about the public comment call that was received. i think the point to emphasize is that there was a lot of information put put forward, but i think there's a very clear track record of the project sponsor being a very open and engaging with the community on this project, incorporating in a very above code substantially above code, public park, having a agreement in place in a substantial timeline to, to make that park available to the space available. unfortunate only the agreement that was struck, the terms of it, which was not just raising the money for the property, but actually developing the property so that the project sponsor could meet its obligation to build out that space, not just do it was was not met. the project sponsor is still having active conversations with the community on building it out, working with nonprofit partners to build. i think a really exciting space and we're available for questions. thank you. very good. and with that, commissioners, this matter is now before you.

again, there are two items. thank you. are there any comments, questions, motions from commissioners. commissioner imperial yeah, i just have a clarification on the car. let's go first. i think with coa discussion in terms of the transferring from i'm on site to off site fee at and as you mentioned earlier. yes. can you come up that the reduction of temporary inclusionary housing fee and on site will be applied and is that something that has to be. is in the packet right now? there is no explanation that and i'm just looking back on the mission and ninth street sud where it does say where we

did voted to you know even though the temporary but it does have may apply so in this case that may apply is that something or i guess my confusion is the opposite is on site that that is what we're being voted on and then the application of temporary reduction will that may apply or will apply. it will apply it the it doesn't come into effect until november first. so that is why your packet that you reviewed, you know, reflects the current code requirement of 20% and 33, because that is as of october 26th, the requirement after november 1st for pipeline projects. that's their reduction can in this particular case, like i said, would be reduced to 12% on site and 16.4% as a fee.

and my understanding is that the reason for on site, off site is that the project sponsor in moving forward with the project, the temporary reduction inclusionary is kind of like motivate you to go forward. and because of the financial feasibility, i would assume, okay, i just want to have that big picture going on again, initial really. thank you very much. and you can sit initially like i think i voted on on the on favor of this project initially when it was came here in the commission. and a big part of it too for me was that the inclusion airy on site and again with where the city is at right now and we had this conversation the commission but i was very hesitant about the inclusionary housing reductions.

and i think where i'm coming from at this point and it's although i thought this is a really good project in the very beginning, i'm really saddened of the reduction of temporary inclusionary housing. and i don't think i can support that. you know, that's for me as a commissioner and the way that i voted about the inclusionary housing fee as well. um, but so that's my, you know, i think that's how i will go on and vote for this project. so yeah. thank you, commissioner diamond. so we were presented with two very different views of what these penthouses are going to look like from across from where the neighbor lives. the architect's rendering shows very tiny little trees, angles and even ignoring the red that's used by the architect. but they were much larger and really did change the sense of the roofline. so i'd

like to hear from staff, please, with which accurately represents the view from across the street from where our the neighbor lives. and is it from her ground floor? from her top floor? what is it that we're looking at so one was a plan elevation. so that is the plan elevation perspective. like we are levitating mid-air and having a perfect by that by that one you mean the one provided by the architect where the penthouses were in red? yes. yes. so you can see the full shape and outline of the penthouse, the rendering thing, i don't know the precise. was it assumed as is at eye level from across the street that one is a rendering of what, you know, the perspective would be. it's a perspective rendering of an individual standing on the sidewalk across the street. obviously, you know, being that

most of us are under under seven feet tall, you know, the perspective of what you are able to see on the roof is different. so thank you. commissioner more. i have a question for the applicant. this is if you have followed our conversation today, seeing any affordable housing unit drifting away either by changing legislation and fee reduction or by fee out is a difficult issue for us in some cases. and this is just a question we have seen developers choose a hybrid where a part of the fee is feed out. a part of the units are feed out, but there is a residual on site recognition of the commitments made in the original application

. mean is that something you have considered run the numbers etcetera. we i personally have not looked at that scenario. commissioner moore. i think the underlying sort of conclusion of the situation is this is a project that was i think, as mark said at the during the spring, oh, sorry, a little bit taller. you know, a project that was not quite there in terms of being able to commence construction. i think what's what's exciting about today is that in this existing challenging market financing construction, the in-lieu fee, which is kind of what has moved the needle and i think the reality is and the excitement at least on the sponsor side, is that this is this is construction that is going to get underway and get underway in short order. and so i think the hybrid, i don't want to 100% speak on every internal conversation of the client. i don't think it has been considered. but i think what the developer has been looking at is

what can actually get financed and commence construct action. i would like to support the project. i think it's an extremely important project for many reasons, given its size, the historical context, etcetera , etcetera. and what has gone in to working out in a sensitive site plan and the sensitive architectural solution in. however, i would love to find some potential answer. that's the numbers at least have been run to consider a some combination of a hybrid and that would make me feel significantly more comfortable because there is a public component that addresses itself. one in the use of open space and the ability for people to visit the historic site, which has been really an integral part of this neighborhood for decades. but also part of that commitment is in a certain recognition and even in a at a smaller scale of affordability and there are all kinds of ways of to address affordability. i would like that thought at least to be

considered and addressed. and at this moment, i sense that the numbers haven't quite run. it was one or the other. and again, i point towards a number of other sensitive projects, mostly of different building typology, where the commission has indeed accepted the hybrid version and was comfortable with that. so i'm just not trying to pressure you. i would like to have a clearer answer as to whether or not that, considering option also in recognition of community investment in terms of ideas, can be somewhere met half ways, quarter way or whatever. thank you, commissioner moore, commissioner braun. yes so i would certainly, as a general rule, prefer to have the on site inclusionary units. but at the same time, i see the flip side of this in which we're able to generate revenues to fund, you know, 100% affordable housing projects that can serve a deeper level of affordability than is typically achieved through the

through the inclusionary requirement. it's so i in my time on the commission, we've approved many projects in which there was an off site or in lieu fee solution for the inclusionary requirements as well as the hybrid approaches that vice president moore was mentioning. so i although i don't love it, i am comfortable with moving forward with the conditional use authorization for myself for switching to the in lieu fee and then on the discretionary review item on the stare penthouses, i guess my one, i mean, from the staff report, it looks like they they meet the residential design guidelines. there's you know, it's hard to see anything exceptional or extraordinary about their inclusion. i mean, is there any reason that staff i mean, i guess my question would be is, is this atypical to have stare penthouses or, um, i don't know, a little bit more context could be provided stare penthouses are not atypical.

it's very common for roof decks which are utilized increased in san francisco to have a stair penthouse to reach the top floor, especially if it's a shared roof deck for multiple units. generally, the guidance that the department gives in order to make sure that penthouses are not to imposing or visually imposing is to minimize their mass slope, the roof and try to set it back at least ten, 15ft from the front of the building. therefore, like, you know, the roofline and esthetically what you see as the mass at the street, you know, is not dominated by the stair penthouse. in this case, we feel these stair penthouses, you know, after looking at them generally, we follow those. the guidance that comes from the residential design guidelines, you know, that's so that's why the we recommended that there's not probably an extraordinary

circumstance. thank you. and so i actually do agree that the overall impact and their inclusion is not exceptional. extraordinary to me. i think it's a little unfortunate that they're being added on to this particular design because of the way they slope in an opposite direction from the roofs. so they kind of they stick out a little bit, but they are pushed back from the street at street level. the view of the impact and any shadows generated by them will be very minimal. so i i'm also not in support of taking discretionary review. is that a motion? yes, i'm happy to make a motion to. i guess i should do one at a time. yes yeah. um so on the conditional use authorization for make sure i get this right for the switch to the in lieu fee payment, i make a motion to approve second

commissioner moore, do you want to comment? i wanted to do one. do we do back to the applicant and asking as to whether or not any consideration for a hybrid is at all possible which would very much strengthen my support for the entire request in front of us. yes i think that we can we could certainly. look into a hybrid. commissioner moore. i think the one thing that is a challenge here is that to switch the method of election each time we have to come back to the commission, that's i think the city attorney would would agree with that. and so leave leaving that open as a possibility is going to slow down the timeline for the project. commencing construction, because there would be inevitably a process and having to figure out the or the time to explore it. and then having to come back to the commission and the project is on

a, i think, a very secure timeline with this method of election switched to actually commence construction. and i would remind the commission that under 405 point 3g5, the discretion of this commission is very limited in terms of considering the method of election and i think, again, all i would emphasize is, is that this is i think this is the city's new legislation in action moving housing forward at a time when it's very challenging to do so. commissioner moore i, carly grove department staff. i'm also on webex. i will add if the sponsor is, i will also reiterate nick roosevelt's point is that the commission has pretty limited discretion in selecting a method of compliance for the developer. however, if the fee is authorized today, a developer can go from the fee, the fee alternative to a combination alternative administrative. lee so any shift

in the direction from fee to on site can be completed without commission review. but to his point, if we go from combination an to fee that requires commission review. so if we were to adopt the fee, the fee method of compliance s, that would give the sponsor more time to explore the combination an option without having another hearing. uh, thank you so much for weighing in. i think the pressure on us that has been basically drifting through the last four hours is always how can we capture some form of affordability somewhere? i'm saying it over and over and over again and if there indeed in without us having another meeting and approving something, there is a possibility to continue this discussion and leave it on the table to find a way, i would be comfortable of injecting that as a strong encouragement for the developer to stay in touch with the

community and pursue some hybrid option as the numbers develop. just a clarification, commissioner moore, are you saying that with conditions with consideration of looking into hybrid, but in a way that it will not come back to the i don't think i can make another motion other than what is in front of us, but what i can do is add a comment out of commission concern and encouragement for strong support to please help us consider to find a hybrid solution. okay that is all i can do and i think i'm clear and emphatic enough that this is not just a nod, but that this is taken to heart in the form that it's possible and we are not basically able to impose this as conditions. okay. in that case, i will i will also approve with approve or recommend for it as well. and i'll throw my own support behind vice president moore's comments as well about trying to still explore the hybrid option. okay.

so maybe we'll vote on this and then take up a motion on the doctor if we have one. all right . so there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, a commissioner diamond, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell, a commissioner moore and commissioner, president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. you still have the discretionary review to consider . commissioner moore did you have a comment? i hadn't pressed a button but say that given the explanation and the eloquent explanation that our planner gave us, i believe that that is a correct statement. and i personally do not find the penthouse addition from a street view disturbing enough to ask for that to be changed. okay, commissioner braun, i. i moved to not take discretionary review and approve second, there's no

further deliberation. there's a motion that has been seconded to not take and approve the project as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun i, commissioner diamond, i commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high, commissioner moore high commissioner, president tanner high. so move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commissioners and place us under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on your today's on today's agenda. number 19. case number 2013 0.13 30 m for the property at 1900 mission street. this is a mandatory discretionary review. good afternoon again. commissioners promise this is the last one from me. kalyani agnihotri department staff. i'm presenting a mandatory discretionary review of building permit numbers 2015 07080963 2015 07080974 and 2019 12189840.

to allow a change in tenure from ownership to a rental project at 1900 mission street, the tenure of the overall project would be changed to rental and the planning commission would authorize the change in tenure for the one affordable unit on site per planning code. section 415g3. the originally approved project was authorized to demolish an existing one story auto shop building and construct a new seven story building with 12 dwelling units and ground floor retail in the mission street district. the subject building is fully constructed and there will be no change to the total number of dwelling units that were originally approved on site. the project sponsor is working with the mayor's office of housing and community development to coordinate the marketing of the on site unit at the same time as the market rate housing in the project site. and they aim to proceed with the marketing immediately, as soon as possible at packet publication. the department has not received any correspondence regarding this project. the department recommends that the commission take discretionary review,

review and approve permit minutes 2015 070809630974 and 2019 12189840. with the modifications as proposed. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have a five minute presentation if you need it. good evening, commissioners. my name is paul driscoll. my wife margaret and i are the project sponsors for 1900 mission street. and i have run a small family construction company at 15th and mission for over 23 years. we have always been great neighbors in the mission, helping out with fundraiser for our neighboring local grammar school and supporting local charities and so on. we stand before you today requesting that the use for our bmr unit be changed from for sale to for rent. our reasons are quite simple. we've experienced severe economic hardship over the past four years whilst working on our

project. it started with major delays caused by the covid pandemic. the pandemic also triggered a 40% increase in our cost to build financing. interest rates have more than doubled since we started the project on. fortunately, the mission and soma district have experienced a huge decline in home values, dropping 20 to 25. this has made it unfeasible for us to condo this building a market for sale. as i said, we're a small family run business and we operate on very tight margins. when these are affected so drastically, we have no choice but to pivot to our plan, regroup and try to hold this building long term as a rental. the building is currently occupied by two young families and two professional couples with two more possible tenants currently in application process. we have an approved marketing plan for bmr unit and we are ready to start working with the mayor's office of housing to get the that large two bedroom unit occupied as soon as possible. we've also been working diligently with a

non profit organization called bates or bay area american indian two spirits to lease our highly visible small corner commercial space. we ask that you please seriously consider our request to change the tenure . thank you all. okay, we should open up public comment at members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission. through the chair. you have two minutes. good afternoon, commission. it's my understanding that this item was on the consent calendar and a neighborhood organization asked for it to be removed. and that same neighborhood organization called in today and asked for a continuance. and this concerns me because the item at hand is an issue and a debate about tenure of a bmr unit at and commissioners. i spent a lot of

time out in that whole discussing negotiating and compromising. i've brought neighborhood people into my office. i've done it on the phone. i've done it with zoom. and even when we're when we have votes, i come up here and i offer compromise as i believe in activism. but activism can go too far. activist ism can get blurry when the needs of an individual or a group take priority over the needs and objectives of the city. activism can get darker when on behalf of a nonprofit, a department, a commission or an elected official puts pressure on a project sponsor to negotiate something that a particular group is not entitled to. and i believe that specific item was called out specifically in the recent report entitled san francisco housing policy and practice review. activism gets really ugly when it leads to

more severe bad behavior. and although technically different, not much different from what we've been reading about from a distance. the conversations over the last two weeks have had nothing to do with the tenure of this bmr unit and everything to do with the intricate detail negotiations of a commercial space down below. it's unfortunate that i need to say these things, but i've been taught if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we are going to call it a duck. i respectfully ask this commission . to consider the desire of both the planning staff and hcd and approve this. thank you. thank you. last call for public comment. again, if you're in the chambers, you need to come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this

matter is now before you. thank you. are there any motions, comments or questions on this mandatory discretionary review? commissioner diamond so, so if we want to just approve the change in tenure, is that a motion to take? dr. and approval? i move to take doctor and change the tenure second, second. did you need to speak? commissioner koppell okay, just a shame that you had your time wasted like that. all right. thank you, commissioners, on that motion to take hold on justice commissioner moore is going to speak. i just like to put to the record that i never received any such letter or there was nothing, at least in my government email, that indicates that such opposition existed. thank you. thank you. did you want to add commissioner diamond? is your hand up? no. okay. sorry commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to take and approve the project as proposed. and on that motion, commissioner brown, i, commissioner diamond high commissioner imperial high, commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore high. commissioner president tanner

high. so commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing today . all right. the secretary is right. we did not go to 6:00. so you i don't know what you win, but you win something. but we are now adjourned. thank you, commissioners.

>> san francisco health commission secret call the role. >> commissioner chung present. >> commissioner christian present. >> commissioner giraudo present. >> commissioner green. >> president bernal before we start the agenda i have an announcement to make our i want president bernal led this commission though 2020 has been appoint to the chancellor at ucf f we're thrilled for dan the most wonderful person but that position will post and as held president he resigned