okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission. regular hearing for thursday, november 16th, 2023. 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 and when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're 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 (415)!a655-0001 and enter access code. 26602737 and 326 and press pound twice to comment. you must enter star three to raise your hand and once you've raised your hand you will hear a prompt stating that you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. when you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. for those of you joining via webex, you may log in via the link found on today's agenda and enter password cpc 2023 and 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 attending in person, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. please speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. if you care to. finally, i'll ask that we all silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

and at this time, i'll take call . roll commission president tanner. here. commission vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner dimond here. commissioner imperial here. commissioner koppell here, and commissioner ruiz here. thank you, commissioners, for joining us at this early morning start so early. wow, 10:00. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance? item one, case number 2020 hyphen 007806 ca at 1314 page street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 4th, 2020 for item two. case number 2022 hyphen 001394 ca at 1526 powell street conditional use authorization is proposed for conditional continuance to january 4th, 2020 for item three case number 2023 hyphen 002996. ca 8807 through 809. vermont street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 25th,

2024. further commissioners under your continued consent calendar item eight. case number 2023 hyphen 004973q8 1701 fillmore street a conditional use authorization had posting issues and needs to be continued to january 18th, 2024. 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 being proposed for continuance. only on the matter of continuance. good morning commissioners. first off, wishing you an early thanksgiving to you and your families, whether you're traveling, staying local or hosting to the subject matter for 1314 page while the department is looking for january 4th for the continuance date, we're requesting february 1st because the applicant is in the ballet. this is her busy season and she's unavailable for all thursdays in january. so with the severity of the impact of the application, we would

really appreciate having the ability for her to attend in person. thank you. what was the date, sir? february very first. 31st. thank you. thank you. last call for 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 additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioner moore, approve continuance for 1 to 3 with the caveat to move 13 to 14. page 2nd february first and adding fillmore street on today's calendar item eight to january 18th, 2024, second. thank you, commissioner, on that motion to continue items as proposed and add 13 to 14. page two, february 1st, commissioner ruiz, a commissioner diamond i. commissioner imperial i

commissioner coppell i. commissioner moore i. i miss someone. did you miss commissioner braun? i. i was given an old old sheet and i'm like, i'm missing somebody here. sorry. commissioner braun. commissioner moore. i and commission president tanner, i. so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places us on your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. at this or a future hearing item for case number 2023 hyphen 0091868 pca exception and extensions for existing uses. planning code amendment. this is just for the initiation item five. case number 2022 hyphen 0065808 1155

pine street unit number one conditional use authorization item six case number 2022 hyphen 005955 coa at two one sansome street unit number 1005 conditional use conditional use authorization item seven case number 2019 hyphen 019901 at 1068 floor to street. item eight has been continued and members of the public this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled off of consent. 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 requests to speak, commissioners public comment on your consent calendar is closed and it is now before you. commissioner diamond, move to approve all items on the consent calendar. second. thank you, commissioner. on that motion, commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner diamond, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell. a commissioner moore and commissioner. president tanner.

i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us under commission matters for item nine. the land acknowledgment. commissioner ruiz is going to share the land acknowledgment today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone , who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula, as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush colony have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors elders and relatives of the ramaytush colony community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you, commissioner reece. thank you. item ten commission comments and questions. any

comments or questions? commissioner imperial i just want to mention that last night i attended the i think it's the fourth open house of the housing element in the is it officially called housing, but it's an open house and i think every one of us were invited and it was good for me to see the attendance of the of the residents around the area and also to the staff itself, answering the questions from the public. you know, it was a good event, i thought, at. and, you know, so i just would like to applaud the team that coordinated that. and for the staff being there and really engaging with the residents and the public, great. thank you. it reminds me, i did attend the open house last week. the third one. and again, great event, really great effort by staff and just really thoughtful input from the public. so looking forward to hearing more about that in future hearings. any other comments or questions from commissioners? okay thank you.

very good. commissioners. item 11, remote public comment. so as you've heard, the board of supervisors adopted a resolution ceasing their remote public comment practice. we have now received direction from the mayor's office to follow the board of supervisors. orders lead. there was no explanation provided from the mayor's office . all i can think of is to create consistency throughout all commissions and boards in san francisco and to encourage more foot traffic around civic center. i do want to read into the record the instruction i did receive from the mayor's office. it states in part and i'm going to read verbatim the instructions from the mayor's office are that all commissions shall also adopt the board of supervisors. new rule. in other words, no remote public comment except when necessary, to accommodate a disability. this also means that all presenters from departments will need to

attend commission meetings in person. mean there's more information, but i think that's the relevant portions of the instructions from the mayor's office. i did pull other commission rules to see what they're doing and it seems that at least the ones i'm aware of are going to follow suit and cease public comment with exception to reasonable accommodations received in advance for those who are disabled. yesterday at the historic preservation commission, they hesitated to adopt out the mayor's directive and they wanted to see and find out how other commissions respond. did and so they continued their decision to january. 17th because their january 1st january hearing is expected to be canceled after

receiving this direction from the mayor's office, i instructed our notification staff to remove the remote public comment language from our notifications. and so the earliest you could start, if you chose to, would be in your december hearings. but with that, we should probably take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're in the chamber, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. hi, good morning, georgia. swedish. i sent you a note about it, but i have to tell you, since i knew this was going to be on the calendar last week, i have that song in my head and i stevie wonder, i just called to say i love you. you know, i just. i'm sorry. i just couldn't help it. so it's a great song, but anyway, but when i think about that, though, seriously, people all do participate in this for wherever they whatever their reason is, because they love san francisco, whether they have this perspective or that perspective or that perspective, that's why

they come here. so i think that the good thing to come out of covid was the remote hearing and as i said in my note to you all, you got a very many important items coming up in the next couple of months. so like the zoning, the rezoning, the stonestown, the budget. so i just think that if, you know, i know the mayor told said you should all do this, but i think that there should be an exception for the important issues that come before this commission and the hpc. i was glad that they decided to wait. i think they're looking to you for guidance, but maybe i'm just assuming that. but it seems like it would be prudent to wait at least till the spring. and then plus we've got the whole variant rsv issue in the wastewater and all that. so that's it. and i just say one thing about the staff, you know, i know sometimes you have a lot of staff and you have questions. i

don't think everybody should have to sit here. they're they're not at home. they're down there at 49 south. van ness. they're in their office. they're doing work. seems like it'd be more efficient for the third or fourth staff person. or we may have a question of to be in their office doing work. so they're here. they're not home in their jammies. so i think that you ought to i hope that you will really consider at least delaying it to next spring when after you've gotten through, we've gotten through the winter and we've gotten through all these important items that will all be excuse me, that will all be talking about. thank you very much. seeing no and no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward. let's go to our remote caller. this is sue hester. i am asking the commission to delay the hearing on this and make it public that this is going on. the number of

people who know this is a hearing that's going on right now at 10:00 in the morning, which is the time you don't normally meet, is very minuscule . the first notice that we had at all was last thursday when mr. ionin mentioned it in passing at the planning commission. and the agenda came out at 505 in the afternoon last thursday and it had this item on it. no one knows this is going on. i sent you all a email asking for you to stay. this decision and publicize it and insist on a staff report that's real. you don't have the language of what is on there, what is what you're going to be voting on. i schedule this for the hearing in january after christmas and with demand that

you have a staff port and demand the staff report has in writing the direction from the mayor and the specific language that the commission is being asked to do. and let there be little discussion in the public. the board of supervisors who had a bit of a concern because they had inappropriate language, to put it mildly, used it public comment period. and there was a press coverage, board of supervisors discussion. et cetera. before they change their their rule on public comment you have no such history. no one has as far as i can tell, really caused a stir by by using inappropriate language in the public comment. but you have a need to have a public comment. you need to have public input. i

i have called in a few times and i know i'm not the best speaker on the phone, but please continue this to allow public discussion about what you're planning on doing, because it's going to going to be very abrupt and abrupt and the nature of one week and no discussion. commissioners haven't had a discussion on this at all. and i think we are entitled to. thank you. are there additional remote callers planning commissioners? this is lorraine petit. i'm calling to urge you to please continue remote public comment.

for now and for always. i mean, it really has become it's a very successful program. we've had no problem. it's a valuable and very critical extension of public participation. for many unable to participate before the covid. those for whom it's a great hardship to attend meetings in person. seniors workers, families, low income folks and many in the bipoc community. the success of this program is hard to hard to overestimate and remote callers we've all seen this remote callers make significant contributions to the commissioner's understanding of current conditions. potential

effects of proposed actions, potential collateral damages, facts that were hidden. and until dissipated consequences to eliminate remote public comment. now, with defeat through public scrutiny, we now elimination. it would appear that it would it would sort hateful speech. people but it really it doesn't it would indeed reward them. so it would be a gift to those who want to deregulate all of our planning code and all and bad actors to it would be it would just be a triumph for the haters who really are their aim is to spread disruption and exclusion.

so please do not eliminate remote comment at your meetings. if you do, do it. at least don't be. don't let it be because just because remote comm it would inconvenience you or because the mayor told you to do it. so please continue it. don't force seniors and others to declare a disability in order to call in as it would be a punishment to make them call in, declare themselves as disabled. it's not a solution. it would be a punishment. and if you eliminate remote, call in, please realize that what the supervisors did in eliminating remote call in, they also eliminated listening to the meetings by telephone. this is a very crucial accessibility issue . thank you. 25% of your time

residents have no okay. last call for public comment 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. seeing no additional requests to speak commissioner's public comment is closed. i will simply add that the board of supervisors resolution that they adopted was attached to the agenda for specifically what you are being requested to do. also in consultation with the city attorney's office, it was determined, and if you recall in march was the last time i believe we adopted a resolution to provide for emergency remote hearings due to the whole the covid thing. we were adopting these resolution ins on a monthly basis. and so at that time, it was simply put forward to this body, whether or not you wanted to continue remote public comment and there was consensus by this board to do so, but there was no resolution adopted,

and it was simply to direction to me, your staff, to continue the practice. and so we felt that there was not necessarily a resolution that needed to be adopted in this particular instance. a vote probably would be would be good. but the city attorney's office did state that simple direction from the chair would be sufficient in order to cease remote public comment. with that, i'll leave it to you all to deliberate. well just on that note, procedurally, i would agree with the secretary in terms of if we do decide to follow this direction, i would appreciate us voting on it just to formalize it and have that be part of our our direction that we take together, or at least at the will the majority of the commission. i will just make a few comments and then call on commissioner moore. we had the chance to talk about this a bit in our officers meeting this week. you know, i, i was a little disappointed to see the direction come out to stop remote public comment. certainly understanding and even speaking

with colleagues of mine who work in other cities, who've also faced some of the kind of uptick in the zoom bombing that's been very reprehensive and certainly the hate speech. all of that can not only just it really disrupts. is it maybe the polite way to say it, the public proceedings for everybody who's participated eating. and so i can certainly see that being a big challenge edge and leading to this this this direction. however we have been, knock on wood, very fortunate that we have not been subject to that throughout our many, many, many public hearings. we've had pretty good participation and behavior by our remote callers. they've mostly been on topic and certainly not any hate speech that said, i do wonder if there's some potential to at least send some more inquiry to the mayor's office or to other boards and commissions to ask about maybe some flexibility to allow whether it's a certain amount of time like per item we can have up to 20 minutes of remote callers or some other way to mitigate the length of time,

which if the case that we did end up with, you know, hate speech or kind of zoom bombing, that we maybe couldn't stop, we might at least be able to have a limited amount of it occur per item per hearing. again, i do understand wanting to create consistency because if you're a member of the public in one commission has remote public comment and the other commission doesn't, that could be confusing , right? you think you don't need to come to city hall, but you may need to come to city hall to give your comments for one commission versus another commission. so certainly can understand that as a rationale. and the zoom bombing as well. but i know it's been working very well for us and has enabled a greater participation in our hearings. that said, i'm going to call on commissioner moore, and then i see commissioner brown and commissioner perry. if i may interject, mr. chair, that option is already afforded to the commission as far as establishing specific time limits for items it would have to be the same time time limit for each item. yeah, i understand that. i'm more wanting to be collaborative with the mayor and, you know, understand if there is any kind

of room between that and what their thoughts are. so we just haven't had a lot of dialog. we just got the directive. we're discussing it today and i just hope we can continue to discuss it. commissioner moore, let me first appreciate what you said. i support your analysis of the success of public comment in this particular forum. let me also thank the public who made some very, very thought provoking comments relative to the specific nature of calling the planning commission. what we do is extremely public. what we do really affects people in the trenches and so we are in the trenches. so to speak, and it's for that reason that for many years i've always said the best planning is really done with the strength of public comment. and i think public comment has been enhanced and has basically grown and has solidified to be important through the last few years where despite not being able to be here, people still were effectively communicating extremely important information

that helped us to have more mature comment and basically also often shape what the commission and the department do in order to bring things more in line with what needed to be done. that said, i'm actually very encouraged by the historic preservation who i also consider to be a very important part in the physical discussion about what we do to ask for more time to think about it. this comes to us very quickly. see, it comes actually on a day where we're not even in our normal cycle of how we do things starting at 1:00, and then everybody who normally just listens can hear us. so i would be very much in support of letting this sit for a little while, actually have people potentially we do more public comment on it once they are aware of what we're discussing today. and i think that would be the nature of my contribution today. thank you, commissioner brown. uh, yes, i

actually i guess i have a question first. so at any time with proper notice that any time this body could choose to change its rules around allowing remote comment, is that right? yes i mean, up because we've included it in our notices. i think the most appropriate earliest date would be december since we don't we're no longer including that in our notification. and then if we were to start receiving nasty public comments and abusive public comments, um, you know, i know that when it comes to a specific item, of course, if they're off topic, they can be basically cut off. if they're not relevant is the main concern is the main issue that if they come in during general public comment, there's no ability to cease that without i mean, we don't have a written policy about this. so i'm just wondering what happens then? i will defer to the city attorney's office. but but i mean, we are not allowed to stop

anyone from criticizing this body or the department or staff or for whatever reason. i mean, that's their right to do so. but not i mean, kumpo inappropriate remarks related to one's ethnicity or or culture or religion. i think would be deemed inappropriate. and i would be more than happy to mute them. but i'll let the city attorney chime in on that. thank you for that. yes, the line is difficult to draw, but there is a point at which difficult language becomes abusive language and violates city policies and therefore a speaker can be cut off or muted. and i think that was part of the issue that the board was trying to address was where to draw that line. and i think the point of the mayor's policy is both to

avoid having to draw that line. but also to encourage people to return to city hall. thank you for that. yeah, i certainly understand that if we were to start having trouble with remote public comment, we might have to rethink this. whatever our decision. well, if our decision is still to continue to allow it. uh, so my thoughts on this are, you know, i think we're, we're really losing a lot of the things that we learned and capability that we grew during the pandemic that have really expanded opportunities for people to participate in public processes. and i think losing remote public comment creates a lot of concerns. i for me, i take to heart the other aspects of this that have already been stated. but i just think this remote public comment really broadens participation. and i think those public public commenters have already raised a lot of that with seniors or people who are ill and don't want to get the rest of us sick or have travel obligations or family obligations. evans i also take to heart the point raised

by miss actually about saving staff time as well. and just as my little personal anecdote about this, you know, i work for cities in my day job and this past tuesday i was at an in-person planning commission hearing that went until, well, i left at 12:30 a.m. actually, they're still going at 130. and, you know, it was actually quite far away. and i think, you know, it's it was sort of a use of that city's time. and in this case, their expense. where i spoke once and could have done that remotely. and i know we'd be losing that capability as well with this directive. so i think for a lot of reasons, i'm very strongly in favor of continuing to allow remote public comment and rethinking if something goes awry in the future. at the very least, i would certainly be supportive of continuing the decision on this. thank you, commissioner brown. commissioner imperial. yeah. um, i'm appreciative of what president tanner and as well as

vice president moore and commissioner brown in all of their comments. i think we, you know, i do value the, the accessibility of the public comment. and you know, in other sense, in the most sense, we're we're a public service tool. and this is where the public will be able to know what's going on in the city and be able to comment. so i think that's one good thing. and even though, you know, personally we do or i do sometimes, you know, the relational sometimes for me, i do encourage in-person just because for me i person really see you know the emotions the face you know and also like who are the people talking like i do actually appreciate the in-person when people come in on the other hand i do also appreciate the remote callers who are especially who are

seniors probably working and of course many of the working class bipoc community will not be able to come during our during our hours and perhaps we'll only need 10 to 15 minutes of their time or three minutes of their time to comment. and i think that's very, very important as well. and even though it drains my energy to just listen in, the public comment in the remote comment and without hearing them personally, i think in the purpose of public service is really important. um, in terms of the hate language, i think we do need to craft some, some language. and this is when i would support a continuance because it would give the staff some direction or at least we do have an idea on how to control or mitigate that kind of situation so that, you know, secretary jonas, even though i think he's doing a good job, but it doesn't leave him, you know,

directionless or it felt like everyone's blaming him if someone muted him. so it gives him some credibility, right? so i think we need to set some rules or protocols that if there is going to be remote hearing or there's continuance or doing a remote hearing, if we're saying a minimum amount of time for remote hearing for 15 minutes, then we should give we should have that protocol. when it comes to the hate language. um, so i would support for a continuance. so that we have that kind of staff report in terms of how we proceed with the remote hearing, even if it's just 15 to 20 minutes time, that i would support from the president. tanner's comment. great. thank you all for your comments. so what i might suggest we do is continue this discussion for a little bit just to try to see if we can just even learn more from the mayor's office and even from others, just what the rationale and understanding, because there may be something persuasive that we want and we don't want to be, i

think, out of step with other commissions, but certainly just want to express to them our desire to sounds like mostly keep it if we can or have some portion of remote public comment kept. so it seems like we would just continue this maybe to our future hearing. i know, commissioner moore, you won't be at our next hearing so we could continue it to the first hearing in december if you would like to be present for the discussion of this topic. okay. yeah commissioner moore, do you want to share anything else? i wanted to make one additional comment since we do not know exactly what is behind the mayor's motivation to extend it broadly to all commissions. from my perspective, it is not constraints reduction. when we sit here and while it is a little bit harder sometimes to follow a lengthy online comment from somebody, a remote comment from somebody, overall, it does not make our work more efficient. it actually informs our work better. having it. yeah, certainly. commissioner diamond and. i think if we're

going to do a continuous, we should be very specific about what we want to accomplish during the time period of the continuance. you expressed some of those information desires. commissioner tanner i am interested in knowing from the city attorney's office if we continue this, if, if we decide at the end of the continuance to allow it to keep going, i want to know what the line drawing is so that if, you know, because we haven't yet experienced that kind of call, it's kind of hard to think about this in the abstract. but i agree with commissioner imperial that i want to know in advance what the rules are for line drawing. so it's really clear and that that would be a very important consideration to my vote on this. okay so it sounds like some things we might do in the intervening time between now and the hearing if this item is continued for later discussion would be some dialog with the mayor's office to understand and maybe even the board of supervisors. i mean, they passed

the resolution first just to understand some of the rationale and maybe things we aren't considering to perhaps put some thought into if we were to have some where is that line where it becomes abusive speech, i think is really the question, right? when does the speech, public commenters, speech become abusive such that we could curtail that? is there anything else that we're wanting to consider? i think those are the main two two things. and then also it does allow for some of our remote commenters commented wanting more time for others to weigh in. and certainly this would give them another opportunity to participate and to give public comment on this matter. do we need a formal vote to continue this to december, the december meeting? i think that would be appropriate. okay so does someone want to make a motion to continue this discussion to december 7th? commissioner imperial move to continue to december seven, second. thank you, commissioners , on that motion to continue this matter to december 7th. commissioner ruiz. hi, commissioner braun. hi

commissioner diamond. hi, commissioner. imperial high commissioner coppell. hi. commissioner moore high and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes. unanimously 7 to 0 and i will certainly send your thoughts to the mayor's office. we appreciate that. department matters. item 12 director's announcements. good morning, commissioners. just a quick update because which i mentioned last week during commissioner during director's comments are a response on the 30 day items to eight-cd. this is related to the policy and practices review are due the day after the thanksgiving break. so a week from monday we will be sending them a response next week. and on the items that that have a 30 day timeline, as i mentioned, most of those relate to the constraints ordinance that's at the board of supervisors and will be at committee that monday as well. so we'll send you a

copy of that. we also then have a follow up with the hearing on december 7th, where we're talking about kind of the entire suite of changes to state law that happened this last legislative session, as well as kind of a broader look at at the policy and practices review and our response. i did get to speak with director hillis and then also with the mayor's office about the just the directors from hcd. i felt very confident that they are on top of handling it and responding on behalf of the city with a unified voice. so i felt very comfortable waiting until later on to have our discussion, but do know that it is being the direction or the policy and practice review is being responded to. and i thought continuing to have a collegial relationship with hcd and a collaborative one. so i felt very confident with that. and thank you, director hillis and to ms. gluckstein and the mayor's office as well. there's nothing further commissioners on

item 13 review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. good morning, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. this week the land use committee considered the nonprofits art educational and special use district, which was introduced by supervisor peskin. the proposed ordinance would create a nonprofit arts education educational study at 800 chestnut. the former site of the art institute. the study would allow a nonprofit arts educational institutional use, which, for the purposes of the study, would be defined as a public or private institutional use, operating as a post-secondary educational institution in and is notrillionequired to be certified by the western association association of schools and colleges. all other provisions of the r-3 district would apply except that the nonprofit arts, educational institutional use in the study would not be obligated to comply with the institute's institutional master plan. the historic preservation commission

and the planning commission both heard this item last week and both recommended approval at the hearing. there were no public commenters or committee discussion. the item was then moved with a positive recommendation as a committee report. then at the full board, the board passed the nonprofit arts education study on first street and that's all i have for you for the report. thank you. good morning, president tanner. commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night, but they did not take up any items of interest to the commission. thank you. okay well, the historic preservation commission met yesterday and they adopted recommendations for approval for several legacy business registry applications. the first being elixir for the second oldest watering hole in this town of holes at and ill

paypal. i'm butchering this eel polio are a long standing restaurant on columbus avenue and heroes club on clement street as well as friends of scrap on tolan street, which is a great little establishment. and as previously stated, they also continued their decision on remote public comment to gain more input with that, commissioners as 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. good morning again. for the past few weeks i have been requesting codifying the residential flat policy and creating objective design standards to preserve flats in their original configuration of rooms as defined by the hallway and in their original location within the structure. it is important to preserve flats not only for tenants that may occupy them and could be removed even under the flat policy, but also for any future tenants. occupants seeking housing that satisfies the housing needs outlined in the flat policy findings in resolution 20024 approved october 12th, 2017. the flat policy recognizes the importance of this typology of housing in san francisco for middle income families. there are flats throughout the city. victorians edwardians some built in the decades before world war two and various styles and then many built in the postwar

period, often throughout the sunset district. flats are located in both the high resource areas like the richmond or the marina as the example on mallorca way. what i sent to you in the email, which was approved with several permits and completed prior to section 317 and was never before the commission and was for sale all last spring. as the price dropped, many flats are in the priority equity geographies like in the mission. some of these flats have been altered out of existence because the demo calcs have never been adjusted and high end, high priced mega mansions are created as seen in noe valley in the past decade. some of these flats took advantage of section 317 b seven, the flat policy is squishy and needs more teeth. two recent projects that i mentioned in my november 8th letter only came to attention in because doctors were filed but never reached the commission because the doctors were settled. the proposed floor plan of one was in the pdf that i sent yesterday evening. this

floor plan that i sent yesterday evening shows that the policy can be complied with even by moving the flat to the ground level next to the garage and creating the mega unit above of just because it manages to have front and rear egress. this is really not that much different than the sham units that were in front of the commission prior to the flat policy under section 3.17 b seven. so so please codify the policy with objective standards, objective design standards that preserve this typology of housing as written in the emails. and as i said today, when you enact the housing element and here's what i just said, copy of statement for each of you and here's 150 words for the minutes. thanks very much. last call for general public comment. 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 additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed and we can move on to

your regular calendar. just for members of the public and through the chair. we received a request from this supervisor's office to move item 15 to the end. so we'll be taking up item 16 and 17 out of order. uh, item 14 been case number 20. 23 hyphen 005549 pca eliminating public art requirement for 100% affordable housing projects. this is a planning code amendment. good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs filling in for audrey maloney. the ordinance before you would amend the planning code to eliminate the public art requirement for 100% affordable housing projects and provide for the relocation or removal of existing artwork at such projects, subject to certain conditions. i'd like to pause my remarks and allow madison tam from supervisor dorsey's office to speak on this ordinance first, and then i'll return. can

i just i'm sorry, before you before you begin, i forgot that commissioner ruiz needs to request a recusal. sorry my employer is a member of chuchu who has a position on this item, and i've been advised to recuse myself. thank you. is there a motion to recuse commissioner ruiz. commissioner diamond moved to recuse. commissioner ruiz on this item. second. second. thank you, commissioners. on that motion to recuse commissioner ruiz, commissioner braun i. commissioner ruiz, high commissioner diamond high. commissioner imperial high commissioner. couple excuse me. commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. go ahead. great. thank you. good morning, president tanner and commissioners. i'm excited to be before you today to discuss this legislation. in this legislation amends section 429 of the planning code artwork

options to meet public art requirement to make two changes to this sections applicability to 100% affordable housing. first, it provides for relocation and removal of art subject to certain conditions, and second, waives the requirement for public art in these projects. the first component of this legislation is the result of a long, frustrating example of a well-intentioned requirement having unintended regressive impacts a condo building in district six at 1400 mission has an onsite mural that fulfills the public art requirement. the beautiful mural has been covered in graffiti for years, since before supervisor dorsey was on the board of supervisors. and over the years the building has continued to receive notices of violation from the department of public works for the visible graffiti. when the property management attempted to address this issue, they learned that they could not solve their graffiti problem without creating a planning department issue as well. our office has worked with the building management and hoa and attended several meetings with the residents, and the residents of this building are proud to be

homeowners and are incredibly grateful for the opportunity to own an affordable unit. and they just want the graffiti gone. they don't want their building to be a source of blight and invite more vandalism to their block under existing code, they could remove the graffiti, but they would be required to replace the art of an equal or greater value. this is a below market rate hoa that is not in a position to raise its dues for a non-essential amenity, a policy designed to give people of all income, of all income levels. access to art has shown to be regressive. in this example. the second component of this legislation seeks to prevent future situations like 1400 mission and lower the cost of affordable housing for developers. we have we have ambitious, affordable housing goals in this rena cycle and reducing costs to building these desperately needed units and making progress on those goals is crucial. waving this requirement is one of the policy goals in the housing element. goal 8.6.5. and this was also called out in hcd's policy and practice review action 4.2 affordable housing dollars are limited and san francisco should be doing everything it can to make itself more competitive for

the limited sources of state financing. as a part of meeting our ambitious goals, we are going to have to make some policy trade offs. while supervisor dorsey is in full agreement that all people should have access to art, we recognize that there are other considerations, as the first is that this requirement is for public art, which does not necessarily mean the art is visible to the residents of the building. at 1400 mission, residents would only be able to see the art if entering from a specific side of the building. we're putting the burden of improving the public realm on the backs of affordable housing developers and affordable housing residents whose hoa fees may have to increase to maintain this art. second, these are not free dollars. these are dollars that could be spent on additional units, on site services and better on site security, a concern that we hear about from constituents far more than access to art. there are also requirements for non residential buildings to provide art either on site or through a contribution to the public arts trust fund. and we are not proposing any changes to market rate housing or these non residential projects requirement to fulfill all the art on site or to fee out. there will still

be plenty of opportunities for public art. and finally, this legislation is simply removing the requirement for on site art. a developer could still choose to provide on site art of any value if they believe that would make their project better or as a part of their community negotiations. there are a number of recommendations in the staff report that i'm happy to speak to after you hear them. so now i'll pass it back to mr. starr. remember, masks are. so thank you, madison. the department recommends that the commission approve with modifications. the proposed ordinance. the department supports the proposed ordinance because it would reduce the cost to develop and maintain affordable housing. and it effectuates implementing action. 8.6.5 of the housing element. like many other cities, san francisco is facing a substantial increase in affordable housing unit targets without proportional increase in federal or state funding, removing unnecessary costs for affordable housing developers is one way that the city can help

funds for affordable housing go further. the department has also identified refinements to the proposed ordinance and additional ways to reduce the cost of affordable housing that is funded by the city. we've been working collaboratively with the supervisors office on these amendments and believe they are in support of most of them. so the department proposed recommendations are as follows. first is amend the administrative code, section 3.19 to exempt 100% affordable housing projects, including 100% affordable residential buildings built to satisfy affordable housing requirements of market rate projects from the 2% for art required payment. the second one, which is consider allowing 100% affordable housing projects to apply to utilize funds from the public art work trust fund to be used to purchase and install on site public works. after some feedback from the community and for the discussions with the supervisor's office, the department is kind of rescinding that recommendation. number two. so just please note that. and

then number three, create new and clarifying existing hearing criteria for considering action as outlined in the staff report. add clarifying language to remove relocation to the removal , relocation and alteration provisions and subsection d to encourage that 100% affordable housing projects. proposing a minor relocation or alteration of the artwork are offered the same less onerous process currently available to market rate projects. and lastly, there are some technical amendments that were outlined in the staff report that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions from you. thank you. thank you. did did the supervisor's office want to address the amendments? i know you noted that you wanted to speak to those. yes. so we are supportive of recommendations. three, four and five. and on recommendation one, amending the administrative code section one, we are in support of that recommendation. we're still awaiting language from the city attorney's office about what that would look like. but

amending this would basically allow the full intent of this legislation to be carried out. and on recommendation two, for allowing affordable projects to apply for public art trust fund dollars to build or to provide on site art after discussions, we decided that we would not be in support of this recommendation because the intent of the public art trust fund is for beautification of downtown. so our downtown office buildings and our residential buildings downtown are not just gray, boring, run of the mill buildings and the public arts trust fund. the way it's written in the code is that it has to be used for projects within a half mile of the c three or within a half mile of the project that paid into the fund. so we still believe that those dollars should be used. and in that area where it's intended to be as written into the code and this brings up further work that our office is really interested in collaborating with the planning department and community organizations on around equity for how those dollars are used. district six has the largest

share of the civic art collection with really none of this art being significant to our many cultural districts that we have in district six. i often say that district six is the cultural district district because we have three of them and we'd like to see more of these dollars be put toward community projects that are and culturally relevant art projects. so we will for that reason, not be taking that recommendation. thank you very much. i see commissioner dimond wanted to share something just before you open it to the public. i'd like to get more clarification on this recommendation, too. are there other funds that are available for under percent affordable projects to apply to? or was this the only one? and you've decided that it's not appropriate for this purpose? so if an affordable housing project is in that perimeter, it already could apply for the funds. there's not any existing funding sources that we're aware of and commissioners, you all received a letter from chuchu via email and our office would like to

commit to working with them on trying to find alternative sources of funding while we work on these other amendments. and before we get this to the land use committee. thank you. that's very helpful. great thank you. with that, we should open up 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 morning, members of the commission. charlie shamas with the council of community housing organizations. we would like to express our concern regarding this proposed legislation, and we're pleased to hear that the supervisor and we hope the commission, the planning department, are able to create time to create additional community engagement to craft this legislation, further collaboration with both affordable housing organizations and community based organizations will enable us to create a solution that doesn't depend on making the false tradeoff of affordable housing

versus public art for low income residents. public art has incredible value in affordable housing projects. it contributes to community placemaking, cultural expression, cultural stabilization, public art that has been incorporated in affordable housing projects is often closely tied to the community organizing efforts that are needed in order to develop those sites and it reflects ongoing community investment and ownership of those sites. this legislation that removes the ability of low income residents and community members to create, enjoy and participate in public artwork erodes racial and social equity. many of our chuchu member organizers options, including, for example, meta, chinatown community development center, episcopal community services, have expressed the value that public art plays in furthering their mission for comprehensive community development. we ask the commission to not vote on this legislation until we're able to address the outstanding issues of a dedicated source of funding and further engage

nonprofit developers and community based organizers. oceans using a lens of racial and social equity designee eating an alternative dedicated source of funding for public art would allow the city's investments towards affordable housing to keep where they're designated purpose. and we ask that the supervisor, da's office and the planning department work directly with community stakeholders to find a solution to the issues of cost presented by this legislation. thank you. hello, commissioners. david wu with soma filipinas. we share chuchu's concerns regarding this legislation. specifically the importance of equity and access to art, especially for low income community members as we understand in the initial legislation, this only applied to the c three affordable housing projects and now the intention is to expand it citywide by also amending the admin code which would impact a much greater number of people,

not just soma residents. we previously had a productive meeting with supervisor dougherty's office jointly with chuchu to discuss our concerns and to explore possible sources of funding. but since then we have not been able to circle back before today. so our request would be for more time to allow for dialog with impacted stakeholders such as affordable housing developers, low income residents and cultural districts and communities, especially if the scope of the proposed legislation now will be citywide . if this were to move forward, one project that would be impacted would be nine, six, seven mission street, which is a future site of 100% affordable senior housing. many residents and community groups like soma, filipinas have participated in meetings with the developers to give input on the design amenity fees and public art possibilities of the new development, which folks are very excited about. and since it will be built on what is now

kapwa gardens, there is a lot of excitement about incorporating public art designs that carry forward the community life and art that the garden has inspired . we really hope to have more time to be able to work with supervisor dorsey's office, especially to find a dedicated source or sources of funding. we were also concerned about planning staff's recommendation to tap the public art trust as a source of funding. this idea actually, first came from soma, filipinas, but when we reached out to the arts commission to learn more about the public art trust, we learned that the intent of the source of the trust is to ensure for public art in the downtown c three area and the current funds in the trust should actually be prioritized prioritized in soma. so we are glad this has been returned acted if it were to go through, not only would we lose public art and affordable housing in soma and all low income housing, but soma would

also lose out on public art intended to serve the community. this is especially hurtful given the state of downtown in soma and the need for revitalization and cultural relevant art as we advance an equity vision for downtown. thank you. good morning, commissioners. raquel redondo is director of soma pilipinas and i hope you still remember last week's presentation and public comment from myself and colleagues of the equity council on our vision for downtown that centers equity and meaningful inclusion and participation of immigrant low income and people of color, communities in the revisioning of our downtown. as i mentioned last week, there is a lot of interest in utilizing art and culture and nightlife in remaking downtown. and i've recently heard of initiatives of making soma an art culture entertainment district. art and culture are actually not new features of our neighborhood. as soma pilipinas is founding,

founded on a thriving filipino cultural arts scene of film, music, dance and theater with legacy arts groups like kearny street workshop, cool arts and bindlestiff studio. but we remain largely invisible as a community because we've lacked the real estate public art, and to this day we do not have a visible and permanent cultural marker like chinatown's gateway, japantown peace pagoda, or little saigon. pillars how this is related to this item is our concern around the planning department's recommendation to tap the public art trust as an alternative source of funding. we're glad that that's been retracted, but i do want to underscore the importance of the public art trust as a potential source that we were looking at. so when we found out the funding is really intended for c three zone and to ensure that we don't have a bleak downtown with no art or life, that the public art should be in the c three soma area within half a mile from the project being out as madison mentioned, and that there are

current and last but not least that there are current undesignated funds that can and should be used for public art in the cultural district, in the cultural district, especially for the soma pilipinas gateway, which has now been stalled for a year. last month, supervisor dorsey introduced a resolution urging the arts commission to partner with soma pilipinas to complete the design and development of the gateway as part of the civic arts collection. prioritizing funding from the public arts trust. this is in line with our chest report and the arts commission recently completed monuments report, which calls for more culturally relevant art monuments. as madison mentioned, the arts commission has the largest collection of public art in district six, although not one in the whole collection reflects the rich filipino history. in san francisco. in fact, the only monument in the city's collection, the dewey monument, celebrates the us colonization of our people. so we're glad that the planning department have rescinded the recommendation, and we really hope that the planning commission would join supervisor

dorsey in advocating for the public art trust fund to support our gateway. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak missioners public comment in this matter is closed and this matter is now before you. great. thank you. thank you to supervisor dorsey for sponsoring the legislation being here today. miss tam, we appreciate your comments. yes. and thank you, staff and thank you to all those who came in and commented. i would say i'm in support of the legislation and in support of staff modifications. three, four, five. and it sounds like number one, generally there's support, but there's specific language of that is being hammered out. so i would add my support to continue to figure that out and to incorporate that . you know, i'm certainly sympathetic to, you know, wanting to have art and the way that our 1% for the art program has really added to the richness of housing across san francisco and even other buildings that are not necessarily housing buildings. so i think there's a

really good core of that. i do think that this does give housing developers a flexibility. it doesn't prohibit them from having art. it just means that it wouldn't necessarily be restricted in terms of the amount of money that needs to be spent on the art pieces and the process, because i understand that this art that is currently part of 1% for the art goes through a special process and procedure with the arts commission. i believe. and so there's some other kind of not necessarily bureaucratic, but some participated in and some restrictions. so certainly i would hope that our affordable housing developers would continue to incorporate art, to commission art, to have culturally relevant art. and i think based on my relationship and understanding how they operate, i don't really have concerns for most of our affordable housing developers that that would be a challenge or something that they would not want to do. and certainly they don't want drab, dreary, unfriendly buildings. they want their residents to really love and to appreciate where they live as well. so i think that we can still have art, but maybe we

don't necessarily have to require it in this way and certainly would look forward to finding additional sources, perhaps even working with the art commission to understand where our opportunities that there might be to either consistently have source of funding for art as well as taking advantage of other opportunities that may come up from time to time that could help to integrate art into our affordable housing development. so i would be supportive of a motion to approve the legislation. commissioner imperial so moved. second is that with or without with the staff recommendations, one, three, four and five. commissioner imperial. oh yeah. thank you. thank you for the comments. and president tenor i mean this legislation for me, at first i did share the concern as with commuter organizations as well in terms of the removal of requirement. i mean, the requirement actually brings a affordable housing developers and also the community and really work together, even if it's like in of course, there is

this same vision to have affordable housing, but at the same time interact with the residents and the community based organizations. so at first, i mean, that was kind of like, i see even though it's 1% require payment and perhaps it added cost to the building of affordable housing, the know the work that it it it impacts in the community staff ends in a long time in the long term. and the stories behind that and so in terms of like you know what i resonate with what chuchu comment in terms of like trying to identify the source of funding that dedicated source of funding has the supervisor start brainstorm forming on this in terms of where will be the possible source of funding will come from. yeah. so we definitely have started that conversation. that's what led to

recommend nation to like i said, we no longer support that recommendation, but that's where our thinking was going. so we'll continue to be brainstorming that, just not using the public arts trust fund and that will and that will be in terms of having conversation with the art commission in this issue. yes. and i thank you. and i also would have questions about because the public art trust fund is knowing it, that it's only applies for downtown. i'm wondering if for the planning department for us about the central soma projects that actually would also contribute to the impact that when it comes to the art, the impact fees. so the director. hillis do you have any update about central soma projects such as the flower mart ? if there are, what are happening in terms of the central soma projects as well? and i think that's the issue we're running into with with trying to implement what what raquel talked about in the soma

pilipinas cultural district was they were relying on potential funding from kilroy's project, the flower mart project in central. so i'm to fund the gateway. and so as you know, office projects aren't moving forward. that project is not likely to move forward any time soon. so that funding not available for this project. so we're looking for other potential sources. we were looking at the at the trust fund as a potential source, but i think this all highlights you know, the bigger problem that there's not a ton of funding for arts projects we rely on either unfunded mandates to require affordable housing projects to use really what's in essence, housing money to fund art or through other sources like, you know, a fee on office projects like the central soma projects. so it just speaks to that bigger issue of funding for art projects. but we do think, you

know, it's part of our housing element and our work program is to work with the cultural districts on their implementing their plans. this was certainly a major part of selma's plan was to initiate and build this cultural marker in art work. and so we're working with them to figure that out. but without the kilroy funds, that gets more and more difficult. and we've got to look to places like the i'm wondering whether the planning department should also be part of those conversations because, you know, just sitting on the head of the planning commissioner in terms of the cultural districts and the impact of affordable housing, especially in district six, there's a lot of affordable housing in that area and perhaps more in other areas as well, where there are going to be cultural districts as to how they're going to tap in. and we certainly believe prioritizing the projects that are that are coming from the cultural districts is important. and

critical. so we've been working closely with soma pilipinas on that project and trying to identify resources. but you know, what i'm seeing now is like this is an intersection of different layers of stakeholders is the affordable housing developers, cultural districts, the art commission, the planning department. you know, again, this is i know the legislature is only for 100% affordable housing, but that housing can be interlinked in different aspects in itself enough that i think it really needs to be a thoughtful conversation is really trying to identify again, you know, i have said this before in terms of the now that the reduce of impact fees, i mean those impact fees actually really help in terms of the what are kind of like the investments for the community and for now it is, you know, reduce for three years. but but i'm hoping that the city will try to find a different source of funding, even if it's just 1%

minuscule, if it means like 30,000, 50,000. i mean, you know, again, i think we need to find that little way. i would support the motion on on the one, three, four, five, which would also if the motion will also be included in the findings that there needs to be a conversation between different departments, planning department, art commission and committee stakeholders and the cultural districts around this. thank you, commissioner. the makers of the motion amenable to having further conversation between departments and stakeholders. sure great commissioner moore. i like i like a little bit clarification on background. normally a single project does not trigger legislation that from district specific now extends citywide. mr. starr, do you have any data

by which there is evidence that that public housing projects which fall over affordable housing projects that fall under this particular legislation show no more impact on arts and than were we seeing it everywhere else as um, so this is the project in the case report on 10th, is it 10th or 11th? and mission is unusual because it was a 100% affordable housing project done to meet the housing inclusionary housing requirement for another project. most 100% affordable housing projects are have city funds or federal funds or something like that. so we don't see many projects like that. and so i don't know if there's a lot of examples of that. and keep in mind, this only applies to downtown when they extended the 1% for art project to other areas of the city, they excluded housing from that. so for some reason, housing is included in this 1%

for art in the downtown only. and also 100% affordable housing. so we felt that with the limited funds for 100% affordable housing, it was just an added burden. and this project shows a very good example of that. i'm not sure that saul dewitt is culturally sensitive or appropriate, but you know, like our madame, he's he's a sort of i don't think you perhaps, perhaps i didn't phrase my question properly is there physical evidence that graffiti and vandalism are particularly targeting affordable housing projects irrespective of who is financially responsible or has built them? i mean, i think graffiti just affects most buildings in san francisco. this particular one is an egregious case of that. but i don't think that afforded housing projects are particularly prone to vandalism. and i do think that

they have a harder time maintaining the art because of vandalism, because of ongoing maintenance costs. so the building that we're talking about, i believe, is an ownership building. so those people living in that building pay a monthly hoa fees and now that money needs to go to paying the sol dewitt foundation. hundreds of thousands of dollars to repaint that art. and so they're going to have to keep doing that in perpetuity. thank you for that response. so there is apparently no real evidence that particularly art in public housing projects are targeted for this commissioner. more i'll just add on to that and say that when we were researching some other examples of on site art, this case was particular egregious because on site art can take the take many different forms and in this particular building, it's a street level mural. so there's a project actually just a couple blocks down the road near the federal building that did there mural about as high off the ground as the ceilings in this room are. so that's significantly less

vulnerable to vandalism because someone would have to be really trying to vandalize that versus something that's on the ground level, which, as aaron said, any building in the city, regardless of if it's affordable housing or not, is susceptible to that. i'm a strong believer for equity and access to art, irrespective of who lives in the building or near a building where it occurs. so let's just play this out for a moment because why wouldn't it be then possible to move murals on affordable housing projects up to the second or third floor with that kind of vandalism wouldn't occur? why wouldn't guidelines and specific recommended art pieces be more or less susceptible to vandalism and moved into those locations? i'm trying to create an equal playing field and my original question was, is targeting using one project with an incident of

graffiti should not be basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. and i am at this moment not addressing reducing or eliminating the costs for public art in those buildings. but what i would be personally more interested in to stick with the major demand for equity and art for everybody is to find alternative funding sources and alternative funding sources. could be that a portion of public art for market rate buildings just a fraction would go into some pot, which then would be used to the rare incidences that we are building 100% affordable housing. i like to use a different kind of logic of how to approach a really significantly important question that is equity. i do not believe that all of a sudden, in eliminating art, i think it sends the wrong message. and so

i would like the supervisors office to consider of how to package this legislation slightly different. and that is basically using the general provision of market rate buildings do and we have quite a few of them and we continue to basically improve the majority of them and building them that they become ultimately the generalized source for a fraction of that contribution going towards the buildings that we're trying to eliminate art from. great. that's that's it in the room. thank you. commissioner imperial. yeah. i just like to chime in to what vice president moore is mentioning. i it sounds like the issue itself is the and i think this is where i'm trying to figure out on how to sit on this as well is like the dedicated source of funding versus the requirement of removal. the legislation itself is about the

requirement of removal. i think at and i think i'm sharing now the same sentiment in a way that the requirement of removal should not be as a legislation, but in a way amending the code where looking for the source source of, of funding. so it's not about the removal or the requirement. there needs to have the requirement of art. but that but looking for dedicated source of funding is my is seems to be the biggest issue here. um, i think it does i think maybe director i think it's both right? it's both for future projects and for projects that have art, that are experience. vandalism. yeah. for both. right. but i want to be clear. you know, if you build an affordable housing project on geary, it's not necessarily affected by 429. you're required to do 2% art. and that doesn't come with any funding, but that doesn't come with any funding. you've got to fund that. that's

a mandate. you've got to fund that through the affordable housing fund, right? and you've got to make trade offs on amenities. but you're required to do 2% art, a market rate project does not have that requirement downtown. it's a little different when you're in the c three. this legislation or this this code section applies. everyone has that requirement. but again, it's public art, right? so this has to be visible. it's for the public, not necessarily for that building. and i'd say it is it's an unfunded mandate. there's a reason we're hearing from affordable housing developers that it costs too much to build an affordable unit. you know, of over $1 million. it's not just this this requirement. there's other requirement that we have in the code, too, which you'll you'll hear about. so part of what we were charged to do is try to reduce the cost of affordable housing project. it doesn't say you can't do art if art is an amenity that the project sponsor wants to put forward, whether it's public or not, it's in a courtyard or

public doesn't preclude this. it would still come from that same same funding source. it's just not a mandate by the city to do it. yeah, i mean, that's the i think that's where i'm kind of sitting on is the requirement like this legislation itself is about removing that mandate. but we're discussing about, okay, if the affordable housing developer has the option or is willing to do the public art, then they there needs to have that source or there's funding. yeah, yeah. but i think, you know, again, the legislation itself is so we're exempting the 100% affordable housing developers at and you know, i think there needs to have i mean now i'm just sitting on this like the number one doesn't that's not something that i would support. but i would support three, four, five, you know, but number one and two is not something that i would support. so that's number one. i just want to be clear that's making it kind of the market rate projects equivalent

to affordable projects, right? a project on geary that's affordable would be required to do 2% or does, whereas a market rate project would have no requirement. that's not right. okay. thank you. so that's the one. that's the number one recommendation. thanks commissioner brown. uh, i really appreciate the very thoughtful conversation we're having. that really comes down to trade offs when funding sources are very limited for providing affordable housing. i, i do support it. the idea of continuing to work on finding a means of providing an alternative funding source for public art and including a source that could be tapped by affordable housing development projects. but you know, my perspective on this is if it's a 1% or 2% of the hard costs of construction requirement, that's very significant. and if i'm given the trade off between that and getting more affordable housing units delivered and especially thinking about the 2%

requirement that might apply to 100% affordable housing projects, which provide that deeper level of affordability that we can't get through inclusionary requirements. it really stretches our our funding for affordable housing further. you know, i'm in support of reducing that cost. it's also part of our housing element as well. it's a, you know, it's a policy that's been adopted and then, you know, on the idea of i'm very like i said, i do hope that there can be a funding source for public art and there can be public art included in these projects. and i you know, but i also yet another trade off that i'm thinking about is by reducing the public art requirement, cost for affordable housing development, maybe that gets translated into amenities for tenants on site that would have been sort of value engineered or stripped out of those projects in order to fund the public art. so i'm seeing a lot of trade offs here. i do support the legislation and the recommendation and the motion right now, but like i said, i

hope there can continue to be thoughtful, thoughtful dialog about more resources for public art. great. thanks everyone, for the good discussion. we have a motion that's been made and seconded just for clarity, are we including the finding as well? i'm sorry, the finding proposed by commissioner? yes very good then commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with modifications. one, three, four and five, including a finding that encourages further communication between departments and stakeholders. on that motion, commissioner, excuse me, commissioner braun. i, commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial no. commissioner coppell i. commissioner moore. all right. commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner imperial voting against if commissioner liz could rejoin us and through the

chair seeing that supervisor chan is now with us, we will resume the normal order of the agenda and take up item 15. next case number 2023 hyphen 005567 pca for fleet charging locations and parcel delivery service planning code amendment. thank you, commissioner. secretary good morning, commissioners. jenny delumeau planning department staff. the item before you is an ordinance that proposes to amend the fleet charging definition. the planning code to prohibit parcel delivery service as an accessory. use the ordinance is sponsored by supervisor chan, who is here today to present and share some remarks with that supervisor chan, good morning. thank you for being with us. good morning, commissioners. i really appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. i just want to first express my thanks to director hillis and really the planning staff, including ms. dell'omo behind us today for the work that we've been working on

together. that is before you today. i just want to first, if i may articulate my really overall policy goal in what is before you today and probably subsequently, very soon before you again is really the goal about supporting small businesses and workers in san francisco and particularly around parcel delivery services. and that means is when individual order online receiving delivery, that's really kind of the activities that we're thinking about how that impact our city's local economy. and with that said, of course, you know, i do not ever really do this work alone and with many stakeholders in conversation that it brought to my attention that perhaps what we can really look at and evaluate the impact that it has on our small businesses and our workers, but also our neighborhoods all across. and as you know, for me, representing the richmond, we have three neighborhood commercial corridors which is gary balboa

and clement, which are very vibrant. so to think about parcel delivery service and particularly impacting the west side, but really citywide, and that we start to evaluate the possibility of fleet charging station that may be conducted with parcel delivery services and use. so we've been working with your staff and they've been so helpful and i'm just really grateful for the modification that is before you today as well. i'm very in support of it. in fact, the language actually clarifies, you know, sorting, loading and reloading activities allow us to be able to be very clear. but today i also wanted to give you a little bit of the language that i would love for you to consider that is brought forth before by some of our state holders. not that i ask you to adopt that today. i just wanted to articulate potential initial further amendments that

for you to know that for this discussion and the language will be before you is to really discuss about the maintenance operation, safety checks or reconfiguration of electric motor vehicles or other uses is also prohibited at fleet charging station. again, the overall goal about fleet charging station is that we want the future to move toward electric vehicles. we want us to get there. but all the other activities that are. accessory to charging your electric vehicle that eventually somehow become a primary use, that's the concern that we're addressing today. so i would love for your consideration and also for transparency and i don't want to blindside you when you potentially see me a month from now. again before you is that i am also working on a legislation

to be introduced regulating parcel delivery service facilities, which then will require a conditional use currently before you actually, i should say, before you was a interim zoning control for parcel delivery services, facilities and then what? i am now moving toward is a citywide and permanent conditional use authorization. this again would allow us, us as the city, both the you yourself planning commission as well as the board of supervisors having a possibility to discuss how these types of economy, especially e-commerce, impacting our local economy like small businesses and workers. so that's the context of the policy before you today. and i it would be very grateful for your support and hope that you will have your approval today so that we can continue to conversation at the

full board. thank you. thank you. supervisor. i appreciate your time. hey, jenny de lima again. thank you. supervisor chan for being here to present today and collaborating with the planning department. again, this proposal is to amend the definition of fleet charging. the planning department is supportive of the goal to make it clear what uses are allowed on these project sites. however, as supervisor chan mentioned, our recommendation is just to modify the language a little bit to clarify that a project may still locate a parcel delivery service on the same site as a fleet charging use if they seek a separate approval and receive that approval for that use and then make any relevant amendments to the planning code to reflect this overall. so with that, we're here for any questions you may have. thank you. thank you. staff presentation. we should open up

public comment. sorry. commissioner dimond has a comment. just before we take public comment. supervisor chan raised the possibility of additional language that might be considered in the future, and that means it wouldn't be back to us because we're having a discussion on it today, which is the maintenance and data collection that i think was in the letter that we all received from mark gleason. i wonder if staff could let us know its view on that issue before we get to public comment. certainly so the planning department staff feel that we understand and the reason why the language is being proposed. and however, we don't think that it necessarily meets the goals as we understand them of the ordinance because, you know, if a project is coming in at fleet charging and they are proposing any sort of maintenance or related activity as an accessory use, it would be required to meet the criteria for a conditional use as part of the overall consideration of

that conditional use for the project. so it would be under the same scrutiny either way, before this commission. and in addition, you know, for projects that are currently principally permitted as supervisor chan pointed out, there's pending legislation in to make projects that are principally permitted in pdr districts. also a icu. so again, that scrutiny around maintenance is an accessory. use would be would be there through the queue process. thank you. with that, we should open up 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. good morning. excuse me. my clock wrong today i guess in any way. thank you for hearing this item today. i'm mark gleason. i'm here speaking on behalf of teamsters joint council seven

here in northern california and our affiliate locals represent thousands of parcel delivery and logistics delivery workers here in san francisco that make commerce essential and important for all of us. the teamsters are highly supportive of this item and worked closely with supervisor chan in his creation. definition change is vital, and we have heard from av companies that they plan to use spaces they charge their fleets in to also run future package delivery services in attempt and their attempt to bypass conditional youth use authorizations was put on parcel delivery uses. we are very okay and appreciative of planning staff's request and the additional amendments that have been added and we thank you for your consideration of our request to add more specific language to this amendment. thank you. good morning,

commissioners. peter ziblatt land use counsel to join joint council seven the teamsters union. i just wanted to kind of reiterate what mark just said regarding the proposed legislation appreciate staff's tweaking of the language. we're in support of that modification and we think it makes it clear what activities can occur at a fleet charging location and what cannot. i think it's probably obvious to planning staff and to the commissioners who are experts in the nuance of the planning code. but i don't think it's necessarily so clear to fleet charging applicants and the public at large about what actually can occur at each of these locations. and while it's kind of obvious, you say, look, you have fleet charging, you're approved for fleet charging, that's all that can go on there. it's not so clear that that's how the applicants see it. and so because of that, we think it's imperative that the code be modified. so it's clear exactly what can occur where. and

because fleet charging has been known to or as mark alluded to, we understand that fleet charging and parcel delivery service uses tend to kind of have been considered melting into each other from a land use perspective. we think it's important that that's very clear, that that they're discreet, separate land use activities as regarding the proposed additional language today, i think that's an additional add on to make it very clear that automotive repair or maintenance or activities also cannot occur at fleet charging locations because fleet charging locations is for fleet charging period. and i think, you know, in the past the zoning administrators had to issue a letter to termination to an applicant on brannan street, the cruise activity, the cruise fleet charging locations to explain to them this exact issue , which is you cannot maintain av vehicles at a fleet charging location. you cannot download data from those vehicles. you cannot reconfigure for those vehicles for other uses while

they're fleet charging. and so we think it's imperative that may be obvious that we're, you know, adding additional caveats or requesting that the planning commission adopt additional caveats or modifications to the code to make it really clear. we think it's imperative because we don't necessarily believe that the applicants in this area fleet charging understand these restrictions. thank you. okay okay. last call for public comment. but seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. great. just want to thank everyone for coming in. thank you, supervisor chan for being here in person to share this legislation with us. i will just say i'm really glad that you brought it forward. i think i know myself if i always get confused when we talk about fleet charging, i think part is because the word fleet charging is meant to be specific to one type of use, but just colloquially, it could. it's confusing, right? like it could

just be charging your fleet, but it's like, no, it's for av fleets that only come and go. so i think this legislation and the trailing piece go a long way towards helping to clarify both for the public, for us, for applicants, for folks who are trying to figure out what to do, what they can do. and hopefully we have some handy publications that the department can publish that can help folks know how to both electrify their fleet and charge if they already have a parking lot. but to separate out the distinct types of ways we're thinking about charging vehicles of different kinds. so i think this goes a long way towards providing a lot of clarity. so thank you for that. i won't comment too much on the additional language. just again, to say i think if we can continue to create clarity of what can occur where and then the types of permits that can or cannot be might be needed to accomplish all of the uses and different activities that go along with some type of business operation. i think that will again, help folks to understand what they can do and where they can do it. with that, i will call on commissioner koppell, thanks supervisor, for showing up today and i do want to also

acknowledge the letter we received from mr. gleason. i think just the just to simplify, i think the cleanest way to maybe do this is i'm going to make a motion to approve with the addition of the planning's recommendation owns. but i did want to recognize the letter from mr. gleason and also acknowledge that and say i would be in support of that and just want to put that on the record. so the supervisor has a room later on to make any other changes they see fit due to this industry being a little. a little difficult potentially, but we're still seeing it evolve . so that's just the simplest way. i think we could go about it right now. and i want to make a motion to approve with the planning's recommendations. second. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with staff recommendations on that motion. commissioner ruiz, brian sorry, sorry. this thing got screwed

up. commissioner braun, high commissioner ruiz. high. commissioner dimond. high. commissioner imperial high. commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore high. and commissioner. president tanner, i. so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and will place us on item 16 on for case number 2022 hyphen 008784 ca at 248 valley street conditional use authorization. good morning, president tanner and commissioners kimberly durand, planning department staff. if you have before you a request for conditional use authorization for the tantamount to demolition of the existing one storey over basement single family dwelling with a detached garage and the construction of a four story building with two dwelling units, a two car garage and two class one bicycle parking spaces is in order for

the project to proceed. the commission must grant conditional use authorized motion pursuant to planning code section 317 and the construction of two new dwelling units, each with a gross floor area in excess of 3000 gross square feet within the central neighborhood's large residents. special use district pursuant to planning code section 249.92, the project is exempt from the california environmental quality act as a class one and class three categorical exemptions as in addition to the one email in opposition noted in your packet. since the publication of the staff report, the department has received six additional emails and one phone call expressing concerns and objections to the scale of the proposed building. all opponents say the demolition concern about the demolition of the existing building access to sunlight, shadows that will be

cast by the project reduce privacy due to the decks and the size of the proposed units. this morning the department received 21 letters of support for the project from the property owner. the department reviewed the project for compliance with the residential design guidelines and found that the prevailing scale of existing buildings on the block or 2 to 3 stories with some buildings having a fourth story setback. the proposed project maintains the three story scale with the fourth floor setback 15ft. the building design is further modulated by a recess at the third floor, which also breaks the scale of the building at the rear. the floors above the ground level of the proposed building generally align with the primary rear walls of the adjacent buildings, as the department has determined that the proposed project meets these residential design guidelines, as some other issues

and consideration is that the property is currently occupied by friends of the property owner . our recommendation is for approval. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan . the project proposes a tantamount to demolition and construction of a four story, approximately 7980 square foot building which will result in two family sized units and a net new legal dwelling unit. the project conforms to the residential design guidelines is appropriate in terms of its material scale proportion and massing for the surrounding neighbors. should the increased building scale is also appropriate for the subject. block street frontage and is comparable to other unit flats on the building. furthermore, the project is code compliant and per code maximum uses the dwelling unit density for the

r-2 zoning district. the department finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent property in the vicinity. thank you, commissioners. that concludes my presentation. we should hear from the project sponsor. you have five minutes. thank you. commission my name is ryan knock. i'm the project sponsor and also project architect. i do have some supplemental information here, including the letters that were mentioned by kimberly and some additional illustrations and area calculations. there are ten copies here. so thank you, kimberly and planning staff for the presentation. there's a few things i want to kind of focus on here about this this parcel.

one is the unique size of this parcel, the typical noe valley lot is 25 to 28ft by 100 to 114ft. this is a very large parcel it's 38ft wide and it is 114ft deep. that's about. a44 thousand 300 square foot parcel, whereas your average parcel size in noe valley would be someplace from 2500 to 2800ft!s, that beig said, in terms of the 317 request, the existing building is in great shape, but it just is not developable from an addition standpoint. the setbacks along especially the east side and along the front, there are just too great. rather than trying to waste planning staff time and going through a bunch of demo calcs that would not work. we just chose to present this as a tantamount to demo and keeping one existing wall along the existing light. so that being said, you know,

this is a larger than average parcel. so i do think this can fit, you know, substantial single family homes on the on the parcel. the second thing i'd like to note is, you know, one of the reasons the commission was given up to 4000ft!s for the square footage was to account for the kind of extras that a single family home needs. what is being built and sold here are not two 4000 square foot structures in order to fit two car parking into the property one per unit. the garage has to be deeper than average. it creates a much larger garage. there's a staircase that has to get you up from the ground floor up to levels to the next. that's also an additional area that is needed. and finally, for a building of this height, we need an elevator shaft. and so if you really look at this, all those areas add up to about 1500 square feet extra. and the actual unit size that would be sold would be an average of 30

to 50 for this parcel. and the final thing i'd like to kind of focus on is just the character of the building and what we have done to work this with the planning department and make it as contextual and fit in as much as possible. as they mentioned, we worked very much on the front to make it read like a three story building. we as. so the fourth story has been set back also along the back of the property. it does step down on every level. finally, we have created an open air breezeway along the entire west side of the property and we have created a continuous light. well, that's similar to the breezeway, but it's only along a portion of the other property. the reason being there is that the other adjacent property is already four stories tall and

there's no windows there. so we have set this building back. so substantially from where we would legally be allowed to build in order for the context for the adjacent properties is the one to the west is probably the smallest one in the block. if you really look at this in context and scale with the other buildings, it is in context, in scale with the other buildings. it's there's 3 to 4 stories, four stories down here, three stories over here. the only one that's really short is the adjacent one. and as i as i mentioned, we've provided a continuous light wall along the whole side of that property in order to accommodate for their their concerns about light and air to their property. and finally, what i would also like to mention is that as part of the project, we are removing the existing non-conforming structure in the backyard, which is a garage. so we've really trying to work with creating the mid-block open space and making it kind of more open and all together as one. thank you.

okay. if that concludes 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. good morning. george schultz when i wrote the letter in september, i saw this on the advanced calendar and my main concern was i didn't really think of what i wrote as an opposition. i thought of it more as commentary, but that's fine. i'm it's i guess it is opposition. but my main concern was that because i felt this was a spec project, that i felt that the commission should have a condition. that is, they're informed if the thing is sold, the entitlement sold because there's been several projects that you've approved multi unit not as large as this where the entitlements been sold. so i know that you don't want to do maybe you don't want to do a one off, but it's something to think

about. it's information that i think you need and you know, i just think that's important. oh, my timing didn't start mister ion okay. so i just talk to you. i'll talk till noon. we're fully aware. okay? okay so. so like i said, i think it's a spec project. it's really large. even if it's not 3900ft!s per unit, it's a large building. and i want to show you a photo, if i may, on the overhead, please. that's from the google earth. i think that really illustrates the context of the street. it's a lot of older buildings. there's the subject property. see this thing next door is two units. that's two units. they're typical. you can see going up the block. you know, this thing does have a pint room on it, but it looks like it was original. so that's to me, that's the context. it's a very and across the street is saint paul's, the rectory and all that. so it's a very low key block. this is a

large lot. there's a lot of fenestration on this building. that fenestration is vastly different than the fenestration of these buildings on this street. i had a couple other things i wanted to say. i guess i won't talk about the tantamount to demolition because i'm really puzzled as to why they're they're keeping the one little piece of the wall. but there's no permit for a demolition. so it's not a demolition under dbe, but it's just a demolition by section 317. so that's sort of just interesting tidbit. i guess the other question is, does this project meet the intent of the large residence sued? do they want to large major units like this in the sued and according to the pem, the original the existing house is only 1400 square feet. you did get extra letters. i don't know what the letters support were, but there are neighbors on the street who are apparently concerned and um, and it will be expensive housing

when it's done. if it's done, you know, it's no doubt about it. so i guess that those are my comment, but i do think that it is somewhat out of character for the block. maybe that's subjective. i think it's subjective based on the photo that i've seen. and i guess that's it. oh, and the value of the permit is for this remodel is $660,000, which when i first started talking about these demolitions and noe valley ten years ago, that was the thing that caught my attention was the low value for these projects that were really demolitions. but they said they were alterations. i felt like the city was getting cheated out of money and maybe they still are, but maybe they aren't. that's all. thank you very much. okay. seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's go to our remote callers. hi my name is

gary levenberg. i live at 270 valley street. so we're just down a few doors from this from this project. but our home is a larger home on the block and it's 2500ft!s. but we're on a single 25 foot wide lot. this proposal is for two homes, almost twice the size of mine on a lot. that's only 50% bigger. it certainly seems out of scale from my point of view, there's no other home in this whole area. that's i think the biggest is maybe 3000ft!s. so this home would be significantly larger than anything here. and it squeezed into a smaller area. it just doesn't seem in keeping with the scale and the idea for the community to get more families or people living here, especially in an affordable fashion as this has been brought up, this does seem like kind of

a spec house as opposed to somebody trying to take over this home and move in and whether they build one or more units, these just seem a little almost obscene for this size. and the character of this neighborhood. and i and i think the scale is while the planners while the people proposing this are sort of suggesting it fits it just doesn't seem to fit at all. and it certainly is going to have a big impact on the immediate neighbors and the people behind. i'm just calling because i lived on this street for, geez, 30 years. my kids grew up here. my kids still live in the city. we're all for. we need more homes. we need more families living here. we're behind that 100. i don't understand how this particular project really is helping helping our neighborhood or the community to really fulfill those those needs. that's really all i have to say. thank you.

members of the commission, thank you for having me in attendance today. my name is michael pollack. i live at 254 valley street, which is the house immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed development. i'd like to say first and foremost, i am strongly in favor of the continued development of affordable housing, new housing and generally progressive policies. we have here in san francisco. i think we desperately need more housing here in the city as well as probably in the state of california. my issue with the home, as it's excuse me, the project as it's currently proposed, is really about structurally how it's designed, the size, the impact it will have, both on light my backyard space privacy in the neighborhood, and my belief that as currently designed, this house simply is or this project is simply greater than the space that really is meant for there.

as gary alluded to previously, this neighborhood is predominantly composed of 1 to 3 story residential homes, and this building is far out of character that i fundamentally believe will impact negatively both light air quality privacy, a number of things directly for homes directly adjacent my own, as well as others up and down the street. i would implore the commission today to reject this plan and give us time to continue to work with the developer who's been incredibly reasonable and so far has been wonderful about working through some of these issues. is my ask today here is that we pause where we are to give us sufficient time so that we can continue to work with the developer to identify a solution here that is a win for the entire neighborhood, a win for san francisco, because it produces a net positive, more housing. but fundamentally is not rushed forward in a way that leads neighbors, is unduly served by this development as it's currently designed. and my

hope would be that the commission today will hear this and take action that will give us the chance to continue to build again, net positive, more housing, which we desperately need, and housing that will be beneficial for the neighborhood and the city. thank you. okay. last call for public comment it 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. was that the same caller? no. okay. very good with that. commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. thank you. i appreciate the architect's explanation of some of the context for the block and for how this kind of home is got some additional kind of common space and some uninhabitable space included in it. i'm happy to see one home become two homes in this lot and would be supportive of the project

commissioner braun yes, you know, i, i, i'm on this block several times a week, i'd say, and i think on the whole, this is a pretty impressive project and much more sensitively designed to the context of the block in the neighboring properties than many other projects that we have to grapple with on the planning commission. i really appreciate the parody in the unit sizes that are in this building getting the extra unit. i i'm appreciative of the upper floor side setback, the light wells conforming to the neighboring property to the east. the side setback on the west, very respectful window placement overall all and you know i think the only downside the only thing i would wish it was in here was maybe an accessory dwelling unit, maybe a little bit of a different, you know, pedestrian ground level facade. but besides that, since a lot of it's a garage door, that's not uncommon in this area. so besides that, i am in support of this project and i moved to approve second. if there's nothing further

commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner diamond high commissioner, imperial high commissioner, couple high commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places this on on the last item on your agenda today. number 17 case number 2022 hyphen 006461 cour at 56 conrad street a conditional use authorization. good morning, president tanner. commissioners gabrielle pinto of department staff. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 249 .92 and 303 for a vertical and horizontal addition to an existing two story or basement single family residency that would result in a dwelling unit exceeding over 3000ft!s in size. and it an for over 1.2 within

the one zoning district. the central neighborhood's large residency special use district and 40 x height and bulk district. the addition will be approximately 1590ft!s in size. and as part of the proposal mixture, alterations to the front and rear facades are proposed, including the construction of roof decks. the project site is an approximately 2525 square foot lot located on the west side of conrad between arbor and diamond streets within the glen park neighborhood, developed in 1960 1962. the residency is not considered a historic a class c per sequa and is occupied by the current property owner. the immediate neighborhood includes 2 to 3 story residential developments, including single family residences. the item before you is required pursuant to planning code section 249 .92 for a proposal that will result in a dwelling unit over 3000ft!s and

an fa of a 1.2 prior to the submittal of a listed application. the project sponsors did conduct a pre-application meeting on june 6th, june 29th, 2022, and no public members attended the department and the commission has received one correspondence with regard to the project since publication of the packet as correctly stated by the public member. the proposal is under the tantamount of demolition thresholds pursuant to planning code section 317. however given the demolition calculations as proposed, the department will issue a letter to the project sponsor and department of building inspection prior to the approval to the associated building permit application that will explicitly outline procedures and steps to be taken throughout the remaining review and approval process and during the construction. in conclusion, the department recommends approval with the conditions it believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the department finds that the project is on balance and consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan

and meets all applicable planning code requirements. the project will maintain an existing single family residency a use that's compatible with the r1 zoning district and expand a building on the subject building in a manner that is appropriate with the size, density and height and architectural characteristics of the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for questions and the project sponsor does have a presentation for you all. thanks thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. well, thank you. ryan. knock again. project sponsor and project architect for the project. but i do have some supplemental information here for the commission. okay. thank you. thanks, gabriella, for the presentation. the few things i wanted to point out about this property and this block in particular, this is the site of conrad street is.

sorry this side of conrad street is composed of medium to large sized single family residences. as you know, i think the main thing to think about in terms of this project size and scope and the request for the is how large is it? is it compared to its neighbors? so if you look at the two adjacent properties and include the square footage from the assessor's office and also add in the garage, which is not included in the assessor's office, this project is the average of the two adjacent properties. the one to the side is about 4500ft!s. the other sie is approximately 3000ft!s. and o the reason for this here is this the property is incredibly steep . if you go to the last page, it

shows an illustration on the property is nearly 20ft higher along the back edge. so the back building line, this doesn't really yield itself very well to creating living spaces or family spaces or anything like that. the only way to really capture that on this lot is to go vertically and add a level. you know, there's certain sort of criteria and, you know, price points in terms of how much square footage is it really makes sense to build once you get up here. we've really worked hard with the residential design team on the facade, how to, you know, have some glass towards the view, but also create some more solid railings. the top floor is set back from the facade ten feet, which is a similar distance to the neighboring property. and you know, if once again, if you start to take out the garage space and other other spaces such as that, i understand that's not the intent of the code. but if the owner were to sell this parcel, it would be

sold as about a 3300 square foot, you know, residence, not at 3700 square foot residence. and i think finally is just, you know, just the basically overall context and the way that the house works with the block, it's kind of a mixed block. there's different levels. again, basically it's a three story building with a setback along the very top floor just to make it less impactful on the block. just like that. so it just, you know, there's a deck along the front that's set back from the facade. it's minimally visible. the glazing along the front has been reduced by some of these railings. you know, there might be some temptation to request the property owner here to add an adu. i would i would just say that i would advise against that because the owner really needs some flexibility here in order to increase the bedroom count as

needed. you know, based on his growing family. so there's two bedrooms along the top floor right now that each have a bathroom that have nice windows and nice light to them, which is, of course, great. the main floor has a nice living room with a couple of extra spaces that need to be used for work from home or craft rooms or flex rooms. and then the ground floor right now has a bedroom plus a den. and of course, that den would, you know, be the spot that would be converted to a future bedroom. thanks for your time. by okay. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three. good afternoon in georgia. swedish i just appreciate gabriela mentioning that it's going to have one of those warning letters because i didn't see that in the staff report. and i think that's very important for the public and project sponsors going forward.

i'll just say two more little comments. i don't think this is a spec project, but that's just my personal opinion and i hope it isn't. anyway and there's a sort of a confusing on the matrix for the b one, which is the lineal foundation for the front and rear it says vertical element, calc. i just saw that this morning and that's really for cc1. so just so when it gets to be there's no confusion with dbi and my last comment is this. this permit seems reasonably valued also at $660,000 based on what was. so maybe that's his problem, not your problem. but thank you very much. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. thank you. i'll be supporting this project today. commissioner moore. i support the project. i just have a couple of questions. i'm going to do some to ms. vardy who has

been helpful on that particular subject matter before the applicant was comparing adjoining sizes of buildings that normally does not enter into the discussion as a passage to approval. but but we're having a central neighborhood residential special use district. could you please go one more time through the exercise that the architect knows that it's not about adjacent buildings and their size, but it's about that particular our legislation and how it is applied relative to the planning department working with it. sure. happy to go over that a little bit more. and as you mentioned, within the central neighborhoods, large residences is a big principal underlying principle is to ensure that new construction fits in with the neighborhood and that we're not seeing some of these smaller neighborhoods. you know, we have very different blocks throughout this special use district. some blocks have very small homes that are in the range of 1000ft!s or 1200 square feet. and then we have other parts of the study that have

much larger homes, topography. so a big part of the study is to really ensure that buildings that go in there, both that there's an incentive to densify when possible. but another factor is really neighborhood compatibility and the sort of the contextualism. so one of the factors that we do look at when projects are subject to this is how does this building fit in relative to its immediate neighbors and the broader context? and i think the architect did a great job highlighting the fact that this project really does sort of split the difference in size between its immediate adjacent neighbors and is not out of context, both with the massing and form of the building, but also the underlying square footage of the proposal. and then when you exceed 3000, which just seems a hard number, the department gives itself leverage or interpretation that a minimal percentage is acceptable. precisely, yeah. thank you. thank you, commissioner diamond. i move to approve. i'll second. thank you, commissioners.

there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz i commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high. commissioner moore high commissioner. president tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your early hearing today. and i thank you for making the accommodation. yes thank you all for your efficiency and have a very happy thanksgiving and we'll see you on november 30th. we're adjourned.

>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or

0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected

and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. [music] san francisco developing

programs specific low to increase the amount of affordable housing throughout the city. >> the affordable housing bonus program provides developers to include more housing for i have low, low, moderate and middle income households. this program does not rely on public subsidies but private developers who include it part of their project. under california density bonus law. housing prejudices that include affordable on site may be request a density bonus. it is an increase in the number of housing units allowed under zoning laws and based on affordable units being provided. >> however, the state law does not address all of san francisco needs does not incentivize middle income housing.

associating the city is proposing an affordable housing bonus program for higher levels of development including middle income u firsts providing a stream lined application review and approval process. >> how does the program work in it applies to mixed use corridors in san francisco. and offers incentives to developers who provide 30% of affordable in projects. to reach 30%, 12% of the units must be affordable to low income household and 18% per minute nap to middle income households. >> in exchange developers will will build more and up to additional 2 stories beyond current zoning regulations. >> 1 huh human % affordable will be offered up to 3 additional stories beyond current regulations. each building will be required conform to guidelines ensuring

meets with the character of the area and commercial corridors. this program is an opportunity to double the amount of affordable housing and directly address the goals established by twenty 14 hosing element and prospect k paddled by voters last year. pacificly, prop circumstance established a goal that 33% of all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit know san francisco invest nothing resource sos care for people with substance use crisis on the streets. includes new program and successful pilots.

>> what is the location of the emergency. a san francisco 911 dispatcher. jot train that this dispatchers receive for street crisis team and our new program is to triage calls for mental health as a medical call. we don't tree it as a police matter more a medical matter enthusiasm clint iings, paramedics emt's and councilors are dispatched through 911. we dispatch teams trined identify the crisis. they sends an emt and medic. if you are upon experiencing an emergencior worry body machine's safety on the street call 911 >> nonemergencies use 311. you can learn more about the street

board of education of the san francisco unified school district for november 14, 2023, is now called to order. roll call, please. commissioner alexander here. commissioner fischer here. commissioner lamb. commissioner motamedi. commissioner sanchez here. vice president wiseman. ward here. present bogus. thank you. and we will also just notice that as the new norm is for the board, all the public comment will be held earlier in the meeting tonight. it will be under section f, this will be public comment for agenda and non agenda items. you will be asked to turn in a speaker card before