regular hearing for thursday, february 8th, 2024. when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. 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 your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruptions. clapping or cheering for. finally, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and at this time, i'll take roll commission. president diamond. commission

vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner. imperial here. commissioner. couple. here and commissioner ruiz here. thank you. commissioners. i'll remind members of the public to silence your mobile devices. uh, commissioners at the time of issuance, there were no items proposed for continuance. um, there still are no items proposed for continuance, but i am pleased to inform you that under your discretionary review. calendar item 12, case number 2023, hyphen 004801 drp at 178 27th avenue. the discretion tree review has been withdrawn. uh commissioners that will place this under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the

public or staff. so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered it as a separate item at this or a future hearing item. one case number 2023. hyphen 006191. see you at 157 laidley street. conditional use authorization. um, members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar and heard today. or at a future hearing. you need to come forward seeing none. public comment on your consent calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners. commissioner ruiz , move to approve item one on consent. second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve your consent calendar, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i. commissioner imperial i. commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0

and we'll place this under commission matters for item two. the land acknowledgment. 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 as the ramaytush, we have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibility as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. we 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 ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item three consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 25th, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. again, you need to come forward. seeing no one coming forward,

public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you. commissioner imperial move to adopt minutes. second. thank you . commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes. commissioner braun, i. commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 item for commission comments and questions. if there are no comments and questions from the commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item five directors announcements. good afternoon commissioners. just a, um, calendar update one. thank you for the hearing last week on the housing element implementation and rezoning, obviously. and thank you for the for the public who came out to testify. there's been a lot of interest in that since too. and

requests for meetings with our team from neighborhood groups. so we will push out the next hearing just to give us enough time to have some of those meetings and have meetings with supervisors and come back to you with kind of updates from those meetings. so likely, i think we talked about february 22nd as the next hearing on housing element implementation and rezoning. we're likely to push that to early to mid-march. just fyi, on the affordable housing in the report regarding funding for affordable housing and the affordable housing leadership council's recommendations, we still plan on having that in february. i think the last meeting february 29th. so that'll stay on calendar and we'll likely we'll push out the rezoning hearings to early mid march and the consideration of the adoption of the resolution that commissioner ruiz discussed. that's february 29th as well, too. yeah although we talked the board has passed a resolution already, kind of doing the same thing. so we should just discuss whether that's needed at this point,

because we would have likely urged the board and the mayor to take that position. they've already taken that position, requesting that the state maintain funding for affordable housing. so. yeah. um, regarding the resolution at the board, because as i had discussed this with some community members who were concerned about the cuts to affordable housing, and then i referenced the resolution. it seems like that seems sufficient. and so i don't know what the direction the commission wants to take other than acknowledging that resolution. i don't know if we adopt that resolution as well. i'm not sure what the procedure are. yeah. i mean, normally our resolution would be to urge them. so i think it's kind of taken care of. but we'll get into the details of those specific items, you know, regarding state funding and federal funding and local funding. so you'll have the ability to opine and then if there's a desire to do something , additional resolutions, etc, we can certainly do that. but

i'd suggest having that hearing first. vice president moore, could you share the transcript of that particular resolution with us? that would be very helpful. it was at the board meeting for adoption without committee reference to just give us a i'll send it to you. that would help. i think. very good commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to item six. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. uh, good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. this week, the land use committee considered the state mandated adu control update. commissioners you heard this item on september 28th, during which time you recommended approval with one modification to amend the code to exclude adus from dwelling unit mix requirements. this item appeared in front of the land use and transportation committee two weeks ago. on january 22nd, with the intention of incorporate additional amendments related to new state bills. noticing an historic preservation, this

week, those amendments were added to the ordinance as supervisor peskin shared, he had two additional amendments that he planned to add to the duplicated ordinance. the intent behind his amendments was to steer more applicants to our local adu program to get more rent controlled units. these amendments have not yet been drafted, and still need more analysis by the city attorney's office supervisor melgar expressed concern over the city losing its pro housing designation. if this ordinance was not adopted in time. the deadline is march 19th and staff indicated that we may still be able to adopt these changes by that date. however, they would not be effective by then. hcd has not yet confirmed whether they would use the effective date or the adoption date for the pro housing designate. then there were six public commenters with the vast majority in support of the ordinance. the file was then duplicated. the original amended file was then continued to the call of the chair at, as it's being referred to the planning commission. since the amendments were not considered by you originally, the duplicated file was not

amended and continued for one week. next the committee considered the duplicated family housing opportunity wsud ordinance. the original file was sponsored by supervisor melgar and effective last october. this duplicated ordinance is mainly championed by supervisor engardio and permits additional density and increased height limits for eligible corner lots within the psd. the planning commission heard this item on october fifth of last year and recommended approval with modifications. the recommended modifications are as follows. to permit density exception limits up to one dwelling unit per 1000ft!s of lot area. this recommendation is intended to correct an error in the ordinance include an arm one inch the eligible zoning districts for the study, and to allow lot mergers in arm one districts and all rh zoning districts. revise the required rear yard requirement to allow this for corner lot provisions to allow for corner lots to shift their rear yard to the interior of the lot, and

decrease the proposed corner lot height limits from 65ft to 55ft. the supervisor did take the bulk of the commission's recommended modifications, however, he did not take the commission's proposed height reduction amendment, and the arm zoning district amendments were limited to district four. there were approximately ten public commenters, with about half in support and half in opposition of the proposed ordinance. those that spoke in support noted that the proposed ordinance responds to the lack of middle housing, um middle income housing for the 80 to 120% ami range. supporters also commented on the need for more housing, especially for families and the ability to stay in place across different phases of life. those that spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance said we needed more affordable housing, not market rate housing, and complained that more housing will further exacerbate exacerbate parking needs in the neighborhood. peskin inquired about the commission recommendation to limit the height to 55ft, and why it was not incorporated.

engardio responded that based on his discussions with developers, six stories is the quote unquote magic number to make these projects feasible, all the amendments were incorporated into the file and continued for one week because they were substantive. last, the committee considered supervisor dorsey's downtown rail extension fee waiver ordinance. this ordinance would allow conditional waivers of transportation sustainability fee and eastern neighborhood infrastructure impact fee for projects located along the downtown rail extension. this waiver is in exchange for constructing foundations and shoring systems designed to not impact the proposed rail tunnel. commissioners. you consider this item on december 14th of last year and voted to recommend approval during the land use committee hearing. there was no public comment and no significa comments or questions from the committee members. the item was then forwarded to the full board on a positive recommendation this week at the full board, the code corrections ordinance that you sponsored passed its first read, and the board also considered the sequa appeal for

2395 sacramento street. this was the first sequa appeal of the of a general plan evaluation. the existing building on the site is the cooper medical college health and science library, a three story, article ten city landmark. the proposed project would use the state density bonus law to add six story, a six story addition, and an eight story addition to the existing building, creating 24 residential units. the project was heard by the historic preservation commission and the planning commission. with unanimous approval. the appellant was a neighbor adjacent to the project site. he objected to the department's use of the programmatic housing element eir, to streamline environmental review for the project. the appellant argued that the department's general plan evaluation determination improperly sidestepped all environmental review and was a never before used in attention of the department. the appellant also asserted the department failed to identify peculiar impacts to the historic resource in addition to other environmental topic impacts. in response to, the department demonstrated that the gpe

complies with sequa and follows the same approach as hundreds of community plan, evaluate has issued in san francisco since 2009. the difference this time is the use of the housing element eir for streamlining, which does comply with sequa. the project also went through extensive project level evaluations of impacts to historic resources and how mitigation measures were applied to reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. during public comment in support of the appeal, approximately 19 people spoke against the project due to its impact on the historic resource and requested additional environmental review. approximately 11 people spoke in support of the department's ceqa determination and in favor of the project's adaptive reuse for housing. questions from supervisor mandelman dorsey and stephanie included asking the department to elaborate on the approach to identifying project impacts in the context of gp's under the housing element, eir. in addition, the department was asked to clarify the project level review required in a gpe to identify significant impacts and required mitigations for

historic resources. supervisor stephanie provided closing remarks, noting that the department was very clear in the housing element. eir about its intention to streamline ceqa. review of future housing development, and the department's project level review of the project was sufficient. she noted that if the board followed the appellant's argument, then all projects could be considered peculiar, effectively prohibiting streamlining altogether. she further went on to encourage the board to affirm their commitment to the policies passed in the housing element, and to say yes to building affordable housing and family housing in a high resourced area. when called to a vote, the supervisors affirmed the general plan evaluation and denied the appeal on a 10 to 1 vote, with supervisor peskin opposed supervisor peskin provided no remarks during the hearing, making it unclear why he decided to vote no. and that is my report. it thank you. all right.

good afternoon, president diamond commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator. it's a tough report to have to follow up. um, board of appeals did meet last night, and they heard one case that is of interest to the commission. and it was the appeal of the coastal zone permit for the great highway pilot project and associated traffic calming measures that coastal permit was heard and granted by the commission in november 9th of last year. there was a decent amount of public comment at that hearing, but the planning commission granted that unanimously. um, there were three appellants, um, to that decision and their concerns were primarily around issues of um, noncompliance with our local coastal program. and with environmental impacts and or the lack of more environmental study of the pilot program. um, it was a lively hearing about five hours. we had around 90 public

commenters, both in person and remotely. uh, at the hearing, the uh, board did deliberate and ask a lot of questions, and they shared some of the concerns from the appellants. um, but ultimately determined that they would not be in a position to make alternative findings that the permit was not consistent with the local coastal program. so they did ultimately vote 3 to 1, with one commissioner absent to deny the appeal and uphold, um, the coastal zone permit. um, as you may recall, the coastal zone is kind of split into three districts, one being full coastal commission jurisdiction, one being very much full local and one kind of in the middle, which is where this project was, where it's kind of all local process. but there's still also an appeal option to the coastal commission. so that is still an option, um, going forward for that coastal zone permit. thank you. thank you. the historic

preservation commission did meet yesterday. they held their election of officers and reelected commissioners must sudha as president and commissioner. nageswaran as vice president. they then went on to hear the proposed department budget and work program and adopted a recommendation to you to approve today. um, and heard an informational presentation on the waterfront resilience program, which you will also hear. i believe in the beginning of march, if there are no questions, commissioners, 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. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. general public comment may be moved to the end

of the agenda. oh thank you. good afternoon, georgia, i sent you an email commissioners, about, uh. 2515 folsom, which you heard back in january. and i when i watched that hearing, i said, my god, this is really kind of almost like a template, uh, because there's so many ask outs and facets that relate to the constraints reduction ordinance and the rezoning. so one of those issues is key lot issues that those were key lot. i mean, so and the adjacent lot with the tics at on 21st street, which was a very nice alteration within the existing footprint. they were concerned with the roof decks and the stair penthouse and the parapets, and that was their issue. and i guess for me that raised the issue of, um, the two roof decks on the folsom project, the two stair penthouses and the roofs

open to the entire project, to the entire building. the four units and the access to the decks is not really clear. so i guess the question is, can you objectively state that it's okay to have roof decks for children? because that was the reason they didn't. the project sponsor didn't want to lower the parapet . are roof decks good open space for families with children? wouldn't it be better to be at grade in the yard? those are issues that you may be facing. um, there are already objective standards for stair penthouses and parapet in the residential design guidelines on pages 38 and 39. and i think most of a lot of the stuff that's in the sdgs is objective, can be determined to be objective. already the other issue that stood out to me was workforce housing. the potential workers in that house and or who were living there now are going to build it, and they're happy to build it, but they're not going to live there. and so what's going to happen when that when those four units are done on folsom, it's going to be high

end expensive market rate housing in the priority equity geographies. so back to 21st street. that was flats. and there was issues with codifying the flat policy. there and finally i realized it was since a key lot um, there's the corner. what's going to happen on the corner. and if i have the overhead real quick, please. so there's the corner there, and i checked the pin. there's folsom project, there's 21st, and i checked the pin and there's a project been brewing around there since 2016. 2018. and um, it's splitting the lot and it's going to be big building on the corner. and i guess it's ministerial review in the pegs. six units. maybe it'll be eight units because of the constraints thing. the density change. and um, so there you go. i don't know, it just seems like these are issues that are going to be facing and, and, and the

commissioner may not even face them because that may be a ministerial project. and just one more thing. the 21st street project that housing the people that were here, they have lot line windows and two of the units. so stuff like that. and there's my 150 words for the minutes. thank you. um good afternoon, commissioners. tom radulovich with livable city. i'm here to encourage you to step up and plan the city. i wanted to talk today about land use elements as i mentioned before, san francisco is, as far as i know, the only city or county in the state that has refused to do a land use element, even though it's a required element. i think land use elements are really important. i come from the transportation side. if you're trying to plan transportation and you don't have a land use plan, you're going to try and plan transportation really, really poorly. uh, bart did that a lot. we built a lot of extensions with no land use plan, and we frustrated a lot of riders. we wasted a lot of public money, and we didn't really provide good mobility for

the region. so that's one reason, um, now what is a land use element? do it required by law. it says you're supposed to look at uses density open space, etc. so these requirements for buildings, um, uses those kinds of things. you might say, well, we have all that stuff. we have hundreds of use districts. we have hundreds of uses defined. we have incredibly elaborate and arcane density controls and form based controls. so we don't need any of this. why plan when we have all of this stuff? i would argue that all the stuff that you have isn't very coherent, and it's not really clear what the public purpose is, because when you look at the planning code and i've looked at it more than any sane person should, um, there's a lot of controls, very elaborate. but the why isn't there? why do we do the things that we do? so for example, all these elaborate density controls, you know, rh one, two, three, all this stuff, what are those for? right. one reason might be for purposes that aren't good public purposes anymore, you might want to exclude people. you might want to say we're going to segregate the city by income. right.

that's what a lot of people use. density controls for. that's not a good public purpose anymore. you might say that there's some positive purposes associated with health and happiness, right? you want to prevent overcrowding. you want provide every resident with access to green, usable open space. you might want views out views of trees. you might want an incremental or iterative approach to change the neighborhoods can grow and develop, but not in ways that's like shock and awe, right? so that that new growth is generative, contextual. i'd argue that your density controls don't do any of those things. well. so to really what you could do in a land use element, understand what the public purposes are. you're trying to satisfy and then align your controls with those public purposes in a way that's never, as far as i know, been done. maybe they did it in 1956 when they cooked all this stuff up. i don't think that they did. and you might come up with different answers today. same thing with uses. um, you know, we have a lot of use districts. you know, the old school was you segregate uses, right. that's high modernist planning. now we say we want to mix them, but not all uses mix. well, sometimes if you

allow too much of one use, it can crowd out desirable ones. so a real set of policies and standards, an approach, a strategy around use would inform what you do with these 100 plus use districts and again begin to align them with public purposes. this stuff hasn't been done, but it's really, really important. i think it's a foundation for a lot of the rezoning that you're going to do. uh, hopefully through housing element and so on. but it's time. thank you, thank you. last call for general public comment. seeing none general public comment is closed . and we can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners for item seven, case number 2023 hyphen 011362 pca for the tobacco paraphernalia establishments in north of market. special use district planning code amendment good afternoon, commissioners audrey maloney, planning department staff, before i give the department's report. uh, kyle smiley from supervisor preston's office is here to speak on the ordinance. good afternoon.

commissioners kyle smiley, chief of staff for supervisor dean preston. thank you for your consideration of this critical item for the tenderloin and lower polk communities. and for the opportunity to provide some context and background on this effort. so last year, our office was approached by advocates in the tenderloin who conveyed concerns around the proliferation of tobacco paraphernalia, establishments and in particular, the activities that went along with those uses. our constituents expressed concern about seeing more and more of these shops open, and we committed to partnering to address this before you is one such solution predicated on efforts passed last year to limit tobacco paraphernalia on polk street. this ordinance seeks to limit tobacco paraphernalia established in the north of market. special use district by requiring conditional use authorization. in addition, the proposal clarifies that going forward, rather than a percentage or linear foot threshold, the presence of any

tobacco paraphernalia qualifies the use as ppe. planning staff will elaborate on the specifics of the proposal, but before i turn it back over, i want to take a moment to briefly address the proposed modification. owns. when this proposal was initially brought to our office, we sought to touch base with a broad cross-section of the neighborhood. we heard support not just to make the use conditionally permitted, but to ban it entirely within the geographic bounds. we also heard concerns from community members about an outright ban of a business use in an area where commercial vacancies are a perennial issue. we landed as a starting point to make the use conditionally permitted. that said, we appreciate staff's proposed modification to make the use not permitted, and some of the more recent information on the effectiveness of this effort on polk street since the staff report was published, we have received a number of letters and heard from community members in support of this recommendation. so we look forward to hearing from the community members and the commission today in our office is open to incorporating that this aspect into the legislation

. when it comes to the land use committee, i also understand there may be a desire to expand these controls to lower polk, and we have seen strong community support for that modification as well. and lastly, i understand there is an additional suggestion to apply a quarter mile boundary around the lower polk ncd to ensure there's not a gap between the ncd and the boundary of the north of market sud. we would appreciate consideration by the commission of this modification as well. so in closing, i'd like to thank the advocates who brought this proposal to our office, in particular, pratibha techie of the central city sro collaborative, and kate robinson of the tlc bead. i'd also like to thank planning staff audrey maloney for her time and dedication to getting this policy right. in meeting with community members to better understand the ordinance. and with that, i'll turn it back to miss maloney. thanks. thank you. commissioners. so the proposed ordinance would do three things. the first is that the special, stricter definition of tobacco paraphernalia establishment that currently applies to the polk

street neighborhood, commercial district and the haight street neighborhood commercial district , would be extended to also apply to the north of market sud or the noma sud. the second is that tobacco paraphernalia established would remain a conditionally permitted use within the noma sud. however for now, a business that sells any paraphernalia would be required to obtain this conditional use. because of the new, stricter definition of what constitutes a tobacco paraphernalia establishment, and third, any legal nonconforming tobacco paraphernalia establishment within the noma sud would be considered abandoned after an 18 month period of discontinuance. so i wanted to just make sure two things are clear. the first is the planning code's definition of tobacco paraphernalia establishment. so section 102 of the planning code states that it is a retail sales and service use, where more than 10% of the square footage or more than ten linear feet of display area, whichever is less, is dedicated to the sale distribution. deliver furnishing

or marketing of tobacco paraphernalia from one person to another and the second definition i want to make sure is clear is what we say when we say tobacco paraphernalia in the first place. and that is, i know tobacco is in the name, but it is actually a broader definition than that. so the planning code defines tobacco paraphernalia to include paraphernalia, devices or instruments that are designed or manufactured for the smoking, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the body tobacco products prepared from tobacco or controlled substances as defined in the california health and safety code. so tobacco paraphernalia does not include lighters or matches or matches or cigaret holders, nor does it include any tobacco product or cannabis product itself. um, so i just wanted to make sure those were very clear. so as as mr. smellie already stated, and these

definitions kind of mean that targeted drug products like foils used to consume illicit drugs fall under our definition of tobacco paraphernalia. and there is a clear concentration of drug related incidents in the noma sud advocates in the tenderloin identified this proliferation of variety stores selling targeted drug or tobacco paraphernalia, and they're selling it in a concentration in less than 10. so they don't need to come in and get a permit to operate as a tobacco paraphernalia establishment. currently um, and it also creates a land use issue with the overconcentration of these types of uses, which prevents neighborhood serving uses from locating in the district. so as such, the department recommends that the commission approve, with modifications, the proposed ordinance. but before i go into those recommended modifications, i wanted to note that since the publishing of your packets, the department has received numerous letters of public comment and one petition. the petition and the letters are all in support

of the ordinance, including the department's recommended modifications. the petition was submitted by the central city sro collaborative and contains 81 signatures of local residents. the letters in support are from the central city sro collaborative local two, uc college of law, the tenderloin community benefit district, and the lower polk community benefit district. i wanted to bring these letters up now because one of those letters, the lower polk community benefit district, requested one additional recommended modification that mr. smellie mentioned, and that is to create a quarter mile boundary for tobacco paraphernalia restrictions around the lower polk and cd. um, so i'll go into that a little bit more, but first, for our original recommended modifications, the first is to make tobacco paraphernalia for establishments not permitted in the noma sud. the second is to expand the controls proposed for the noma sud to also apply to the lower polk ncd. and then the

third is if the sponsor does not take recommended modification number one to amend the noma sud . just to clarify that where the polk street needs tobacco paraphernalia, controls overlap with the sud because they would be different if the first recommendation is not taken. just clarifying in the code that the stricter controls apply. which leads us to our last new additional recommended modification. um, so we'd like the commission to consider extending a quarter mile boundary for tobacco paraphernalia controls around the lower polk and cd. the polk street ncd already has this boundary for tobacco paraphernalia, controls and we believe it makes sense for the lower polk ncd as well. and just very quickly, sfcv, if i could get the overhead. great thank you. so it's a little bit of a hand-drawn map, so apologies, but this map is in your case packets. it shows the

concentration of drug offense counts as reported by sfpd in 2023. so right now that red you shows the quarter mile boundary that extends from the polk street ncd. so that is covered. that area is covered by the polk street and cds. stricter controls that are already in place. but as you can see there is a small gap here where we have a high concentration of drug related incidents between these two sections of the lower polk and cd in purple. and so if we create a quarter mile boundary around this purple, it'll cover that area right there so we can make sure we don't continue to get an additional increase in drug related incident counts through tobacco paraphernalia sales. so with that, um, myself, along with kamala harris and the tenderloin community planning manager for the department and of course, kyle smiley are here for any questions. thank you. thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're please,

please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is shane white and i'm a community organizer at central city sro collaborative on behalf of the public safety committee at central city sro collaborative, we urge you to support the planning department's recommended modifications to supervisor preston's proposed ordinance to extend the special definition of tps that applies to the polk street entity and haight street entity to the north of market sud. against the daily backdrop of sidewalks overrun by the open air drug market, used needles and broken pipes. the tenderloin has long been treated as a containment zone for lawlessness, illegal activity that has proven to be unacceptable, and other neighborhoods across the city. given our district's fentanyl spread and overdose crisis, it is vital that we move away from the proposed conditional use regulations that are difficult to enforce and too easy to evade

and implement an outright ban that not only curbs the emergence of new general stores selling tobacco paraphernalia, but produces the overtime reduction in the overconcentration of stores selling targeted drug products. after all, the proposed conditional use authorization places the burden of enforcement on an already overburdened community. as san francisco's most diverse and largest working class neighborhood with the highest population density of any area in the city, and the most children per capita, we call on you to continue to restrict the proliferation of tps as those establishments encourage illicit activity and the consumption of illegal drugs . like the similar controls implemented in polk street and city and haight street and city, proved to be beneficial for the neighborhoods. the tenderloin is calling for the same protection we write. we are here to urge you to fully support the planning department's recommended modifications to the proposal, sitting in front of you, and make new tobacco paraphernalia establishments not permitted in the north of market. special use district. we thank you for your service as commissioners and the

opportunity to voice our concerns. hi good afternoon, commissioners. my name is greg johnson. i am not just a resident of the tenderloin. i'm a member of ksox public safety and doing the petition, which is here. i believe you also may have it already. um gathering those 81 signatures was i had had an awakening that reminded me of just how unsafe the neighborhood is. as we have these merchants that are there who serve no legitimate purpose except to cater to one specific trade and that's the sale of narcotics and the use of narcotics that are tied together . the last shooting that we had

there that killed one, injured five, i believe, um, half a block, not even a half a block across the street from a tobacco , a smoke paraphernalia shop. we don't want a conditional use. we don't we don't want that. i had 81 people that i'm here representing today that says that they don't want it at all. they want a complete ban on it. and i think that that's fair. we're trying to change the image . i'm trying to change the image that everyone here is trying to do. exactly that of the tenderloin. we don't like what's going on there, but this is the only thing that we can do is come out and speak, please don't do this to us. we don't deserve it. thank you. sorry. somebody

left the glasses. i don't know who. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pratibha and i oversee the community organizing department for tenderloin housing clinic and central city sro collaborative is a part of it. and as greg and cheyenne mentioned, and that we have a public safety committee that has been meeting for the last one and a half years, um, mostly comprised of sro residents in the tenderloin. we one of the things i don't want to take too much of your time, i just want to emphasize the same thing that we want to support the staff recommendation on total ban. and i just want to tell you the conditional use. i just want to emphasize this. the conditional use permit would be basically, if it would have been in effect a year ago, for example, all you would see us here almost 30, 40 times speaking against it, because that many stores have opened up in tenderloin that is

not serving the residents per se. the seniors and the families, and they are open 24 over seven. and that that's why we looked into other aspects of figuring out how we can make our sidewalks better, how we can make it more livable for the community. there and that this is the this is one of the solutions we came up for long, long terme solutions because i know it's not going to affect the existing stores, but at least in future. so that's what and i want to thank supervisor dean preston, who basically listened to us. we had to work very closely. we worked very closely with his office. kyle and also the planning department. i really appreciate that you all the planning department staff basically pitched in and figured out a solution. and we want to urge that you please support this. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kate robinson. i'm the executive director of tenderloin community benefit district. i want to echo

what pratibha said and really thank the planning department staff and the supervisor's office for taking so much time to work with resident leaders on on a real solution to a growing problem in the tenderloin. you know, we've been supporting a pastry chef trying to open an a business, and it's taking him a year and a half to open this store and we it's really going to be good. it's dessert. it's courses of desserts. so trust me, we all want this to open and in that time several smoke shops have popped up and so it just leads us to question why is it why is it so easy for a smoke shop to surface and, and so challenging for just a block away to open a pastry shop, you know, and, and um, it really has an impact on the neighborhood.

as mentioned, this neighborhood has the highest density of children, and we're already oversaturated with smoke shops. and we don't need any more of them. it's it is time to say enough is enough. we know who these stores are, are catering to it caters to the drug trade mostly at night. these stores are open all night. um, and they're not serving the community. so it's time to, um, put on a full on ban. and we really, really appreciate the efforts and the recommendations of the planning department. thank you. uh, good afternoon, commissioners chris shulman, lower port community district benefit district director, thank you for reviewing our letter. and thank you to staff for reviewing our letter and picking up a recommendation that we made. i appreciate that. uh, thank you to all my peer

organizations and residents who who have commented and taken the time. uh, and thank you to the supervisor's office for sponsoring this and listening to our concerns. um, i just wanted to provide i'll be very brief and provide some perspective on polk street. uh, we've actually had special controls, probably for 13 or 15 years. uh this last year was a clarification just to kind of tie up some loose ends. uh, and even though we're adjacent, uh, and we actually have some area within the north market, uh, residential special use district, uh, we've largely kind of gotten off, uh, unscathed with this proliferation because of our special controls. uh, these special controls work. uh, they're pragmatic. they're needed. and i fully encourage you to adopt the recommendation. both support the ordinance and adopt the recommendations of the good work your staff did. uh, thank you so much. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional

requests to speak. commissioners, public comment is closed. and it is now before you , uh, thank you to the supervisor for, uh, for bringing forth this much needed, uh, item. and thank you to staff for their work on coming up with very sensible modifications. i am very much in support of the ordinance as modified. i think it should be a band, not a conditional use. i think it should extend to the lower pork ncaa and i really appreciated mr. shulman's suggestion and that staff, um, is endorsing that. and i think the quarter mile buffer is a really good idea. commissioner imperial. yeah. thank you, president diamond. i also would like to support the planning department's recommendation. um as specifically recommendation number one and two. and also the added recommendation number four. um, i think it's a sensible, um, addition and recommendation. um, i don't

think, um, and knowing the fact that this has community support as well, i also appreciate what the planning department has done in terms of listening to community's needs on this. um, and yes, i think it does make sense to make a total ban instead of a q a um, especially if there is, um, businesses popping up and it will create more burden and, and, um, intensity for the community as well. um, and tobacco paraphernalia establishments. sometimes we have to, uh, you know, ask ourselves as to what is the contribution it creates to the community as well. um, although it is a retail use, um, but that's my personal, um, opinion as well. but but thank you. and i approve with planning recommendation. commissioner koppell. yeah. move to approve with the staff's recommendations. second, and just add include the quarter

mile buffer. yes commissioner ruiz. uh. thank you. i also so, um, appreciate all the community folks who came out to speak today. i think we've heard loud and clear for what the community needs. um, i just have a couple clarifying questions for department staff. so do we have a sense within the noma sud how many tobacco paraphernalia shops are currently, um, up and running? it's a great question. and it is one of our enforcement problems. so the whole reason that we don't have an accurate number is that most of these shops are not actually tobacco paraphernalia establishments for that land use purpose, because, right now the definition of tobacco paraphernalia says you can sell up to 10% of your total products or ten linear feet of counter space as tobacco

paraphernalia without having to come in and get a land use permit to operate. as such, you can be a general retail sales and service use. um, and so a lot of these stores are simply variety stores, corner stores, bodegas that open and sell just under or just at that 10% amount of counter space. and so we don't actually track that because they're a retail store. what we can tell you from hearing the community is that, as i think you heard one of the public commenters say, there's been 30 to 40 that seem to be either already operating or have recently operate. and when we met with the community, they said, just in the last couple of months, there's been 5 or 6 that have have opened as as variety stores selling chips and sodas, but also a certain amount of tobacco paraphernalia. yeah. okay. thank you. and so with this, uh, by an if we were to pass it today, if a current store were to close their then

what does that mean. can another store open up in that same location and sell tobacco paraphernalia? or with this ban, they would be not able. to so great question. so that's where the abandonment provision that's in this ordinance comes in. we normally have for most uses, a three year abandonment provision , which is a use leaves. that's permitted at that location. if another business wants to come in and do the exact same use, they have up to three years before for that use permit expires as the ordinance would shorten that to 18 months. that being said, there would be an availability for a new, let's say, variety store to come into the same location person who wants to sell under 10% or at 10% within that 18 month period after the other one leaves and that's just how our, um, our nonconforming use laws work. and

that's why i think you also heard the community members say they understand that that aspect of this legislation often will take longer. what we saw is in the polk street ncd over this course of this last 13 plus years, over time, these businesses do leave and new types of businesses come in to those locations who might not sell tobacco paraphernalia. and as soon as that happens, that tobacco paraphernalia grandfather, if you will, is removed or a business leaves and 18 months goes by without another business coming in, that's when that tobacco paraphernalia grandfather would be removed as well. so over a long period of time, it will help reduce the concentration of uses. great. and then in terms of, of regulating the stores that currently exist, is there no cap on how how long these stores can operate? i mean, operating 24 hours is seems quite extreme to me. what are

the regulations around that? that's another great question. i believe there are are hours of operation for generally for the district, but i don't believe they're either 24 hours or until 2 a.m. um um, i think it's until 2 a.m, but i'll know hours of operation. yeah. so hours of operation is a whole other issue because we have so many different land uses. so um, again, these stores are not tobacco paraphernalia established mints. so it's hard to say. okay. tobacco paraphernalia establishments can only operate until. 6 p.m. or 8 p.m. because they actually are just variety stores. so if we were to say, okay, now all general retail sales and services have a smaller operating hours of operation window that's going to pull in uses that we actually don't want to have to close earlier. okay. thank you. i see miss swati also has her. yeah i was just going

to say on that point certainly this commission, um, could make a recommendation to the supervisor to consider an hour a, you know, an hour of operation, an, um, limit for either this particular land use or all land uses or some subset thereof. um, as you know, we've you've had conditional uses before for hours of operation and other zoning districts where there's you know, an as of right time frame and then, you know, between the hours of whether it's, you know, midnight or 2 a.m. beyond, you might need a conditional use for later hours. so it's a very common thing that we deal with in zoning ordinance. it just happens that this zoning district doesn't have those same limitations. yeah. and i think that's something that i would be supportive of. i mean, i would want to hear from the community. and i think the responses that i heard today from the department really kind of show why we need a ban, because there is really an oversaturation of businesses that already exist. but how is that going to address the problem that the community has has discussed today? and i feel like maybe a potential cap on when these businesses can operate might address the issue

now. so i'd love to hear from other commissioners on what they think about that idea. but you know, i think i would leave that up to the supervisor's office and the folks in the community as to what makes sense, you know, for the tenderloin, um, so again, i'm supportive. i'm supportive of the staff modifications and the additional modification. i think this also brings up, you know, how we, as a department and as a city are supporting the tenderloin community with what we've heard, um, as the issue of commercial vacancy, you know, how are we supporting a diversity of businesses in the tenderloin that are actually serving the families and the residents? and how are we supporting businesses like, um, you know. we heard the pastry shop trying to open up. so, you know, i would love to hear from the department. is that something that we're working on with the tenderloin community? yes, absolutely. i

mean, as part of our initiative and kimia, you can talk more if you want to, like we're looking at larkin street especially, and how we can activate and fill vacancies. taking again the lead from the community on this work. but yes, part of our initiative is just that a focus on small business and filling storefronts . do you want to add? sure hi. good afternoon. kimi haeredum, planning department staff i oversee the tenderloin community planning initiative. um as part of our work, we have four uh, areas strategic priority areas and small business support is one of them. um, we have um, based on kind of we went through a participatory budgeting process where when the mayor allocated $4 million to the neighborhood and there was strong support for small business support. so we, uh, spent a few months talking to small business stakeholders to

understand how we can use the limited funding we're setting aside $380,000 for small business support. and that's in addition to what, uh, uh, office of economic and workforce development already offers for small business support. how can we kind of use that limited amount of funding to make a bigger impact? um, we are we are very close to rolling out that program. um, we've talked with some of the small business stakeholders that are also in the room and, uh, one of them, one of the there will be three, uh, grant programs, and one of them would be to support vacant storefronts. and we've kind of used our collaboration with the street response and police inter-agency, uh, street response to identify, um, areas that could benefit bit, um, from more positive activity. um during the day, as another strategy to address kind of the drug related activities on the streets. so um, looking at hot

spots, blocks that are hotspots to the drug market has been a strategy for us. and larkin street corridor also to kind of re uh, re vitalize that corridor as little saigon as a corridor that can be that can be that active heart for the neighborhood to then, um, reap produce kind of more of a economic vibrancy impact for the whole neighborhood. that's something that's coming. and there are different, um, efforts from office of economic workforce development to on larkin street. so we're excited that in the next six months, we'll see more of that happening . great. thank you. i don't know if we're going to have a presentation at the committee, but i would love to hear more about that. um, so those are my comments. i mean, i'll leave it up to, you know, the supervisors office and the community to talk through potential hours for businesses. i want to be cognizant that that might impact that the businesses that exist

as well. so, yeah, i just want to leave that out there. thank um, commissioner ruiz raised two really important questions. um, one on the hours and one on the 18 month period. and i have two follow up questions. um, if the supervisor were to include, uh, some kind of hours restriction on, um, would it apply to existing businesses or only to new businesses? do we have the ability to go back and broadly apply it to existing businesses. good afternoon. corey teague zoning administrator um, we have operating conditions and hours of operations in the code that are changed or added over time. uh, my understanding is that the same kind of non-complying provisions apply to that as well. whereas if you have existing businesses that are currently meeting hours of operation requirements legally, and those rules change because it's a part of the land use permission, then they're not kind of retroactive to the ones

that are there as they're applied to the new ones, because it's impacting existing operation of a of a legal use. so it would apply to, to new ones, but not necessarily retroactively to ones that are already operating beyond those permitted hours. and i would just add, i think one really important note is those businesses that are legally operating. so if any of these businesses have opened up without any of the necessary land use permits, even if they're as of right permits, building permits, things of that nature, um, then they would be subject to it. so, you know, it certainly would enable us to, you know, look into any problematic businesses to see if they were legally established and following all of the right permitting protocols. and if not, then it's one more tool that we could then lean on, um, for that. so just an important distinction, because sometimes we have a lot of businesses that are open but not legally open. and then let me address the second question to you. on 18 months is that as short as we can go? could it go shorter? um, i think that's at the discretion of the board to set what that

abandonment and discontinuance period is. i think typically 18 months is the when there is a policy decision to have a shorter time period than the typical three years, the 18 months is also pretty prevalent in in the code. i'm not sure if we have anything in the code that's shorter than that. i'm not aware for, and i would defer to the city attorney's office if there's any issues. um, beyond policy in terms of how long of a abundance or continuance period you have, but there's nothing in the planning code, necessarily that would prevent a shorter period. but i think 18 months is generally the shortest we go. it's the city attorney. want to comment on that. thank you for that question. uh president, i'm not aware of any shorter period in the planning code. i think it is possible one could be construed noted, but i'm not

sure you'd want to make this the test case if this would be the only place in the code where we have a shorter abandonment period, but it's something we could certainly look into. i think both of the issues that commissioner ruiz raised are really important issues, and get to the heart of some of the concerns that we saw in the community. letters i imagine it would be very frustrating, um, to have one of these shops closed down. um, and then have it be, you know, replaced 17 months later by exactly the same shop. um, so i don't know that we should take action on those two items today, but hopefully the discussion today will lead to the supervisor's office being able to deliberate on this and determine whether or not additional measures and those two areas would be a good idea. and then because we had the discussion today, that means it would not have to come back here. is that correct? okay you could certainly make a recommendation to look into

those issues. you know, hours and a shortened period from 18 months. commissioner ruiz, do you want to add those recommendations to the motion? yeah, i would like to add those two recommendations. if commissioner. great. okay and just to confirm, yes, that would prevent it needing to come back on that issue. okay. thank you. okay. if there's nothing further, if you could what is the 18 month additional abandonment period. very good. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed legislation with staff recommendations including the quarter mile boundary and 18 month abandonment period. well, it was the quarter mile boundary, but also on the lower polk, ncd and it was a recommendation to look on limiting the hours as well as reducing the time frame of the

18 month abandonment period. very good. then including a look into limiting the hours on that motion, commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner couple, a commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond. i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commissioners that will place us on item eight for case number 2024. hyphen 000027 pca for parcel delivery, service planning code amendments. okay. good afternoon, commissioners, and happy lunar new year veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is the parcel delivery service ordinance, introduced by supervisor chan. so i will invite her to introduce the item and then i will follow up with staff presentation. thank you. good afternoon. commissioner. thank you so much. good to see all of you here again. i was here before you last november. i

think at that time i mentioned that i will probably be before you again very soon. and i think at that time i did mention about the focus is going to be, uh, last time when i saw you was about fleet charging station, i mentioned that today i will be seeing you very soon, which i here i am now with the parcel delivery service conditional use authorization legislation. before you. i really appreciate the work that the planning staff have done, because when in fact this has been before you. uh uh, before this, before this very legislation actually were before you, uh, both as a really as an interim zoning control first proposed by supervisor shamann walton for 18 months of interim zoning control for the parcel delivery service, uh, facilities, then again, by supervisor matt dorsey for another six months, is about to expire for the interim zoning control on march 8th. um, it's

the reason why i'm also grateful for director hylis and his team for willing to schedule it. uh, before you now in february, so that we can have this discussion before the interim zoning control expires. um, this ordinance before you today is now taking the, uh, interim zoning control to a permanent and citywide ad. um, and i understand that there's, uh, for recommendation by the planning staff. uh, i am going to, um. well, i, i know that you already know about the legislation, but if i may, to just quickly summarizing the legislation itself is to then require to now permanently citywide, require a conditional use authorization to establish parcel delivery service uses where it was previously principally permitted. it also prohibits, though the parcel delivery as an accessory use. so i appreciate the recommendation from the planning staff. um but i have to say that i am not in agreement

with them for the recommendation . first recommendation, which is that they would like to see the elimination of the additional criteria and condition that is proposed in this legislation. the additional criteria and condition that was proposed is really the analysis that comes with the conditional use. and i think that what it is that we're seeking is a level of, um, analysis that recognizing e-commerce activities impacts our city. it definitely in all neighborhoods. now and that without a in depth analysis, both economics traffic or you know, especially staffing employment and all of those elements that should be really carefully considered before we allow them to, uh, set sites in our neighborhood citywide. it's critical for us when it comes to planning and land use discussion. uh, we also see that

there's, um, possibility of these without these criteria and condition. there could be unprecedented. and in fact, you know, unprecedented. and unintended consequences when there's, um, large scale retail, uh, conditional use without it, that how it would impact our neighborhoods. um, with that said, that here, uh, also, the staff has recommended that there are two uh, i want to combine the two recommendations as a response. the recommendations is to provide exemption for 5000 square foot and under, uh, as a facility as well as the cannabis industry. sorry, i would like to suggest, if i may, to you to consider that. that instead of just saying go out cannabis industry, which by the way, currently is under more torium,

we will no longer see more of those applications coming through. and to see new, um, uh, cannabis, uh, storefronts until probably after 2025 or 2026, because currently it's under moratorium. um, that it's actually i don't know if it's necessary to just single out cannabis industry as an exemption, but i would like to suggest for your consideration that, um, i understand the difficulty to have a conditional use authorized option with this in-depth analysis require for 5000ft!s, which is really a smal businesses. um, i would like to see if that's a possible for us to have a compromise of having a more simplified conditional use process for small businesses that are 5000ft!s and under very similar to what you have now is the community business priority processing program. uh, short for cbd £0.03 um, would love for

your consideration on that. um, and i know that there's also staff has suggested that, uh, potentially to consider the previous interim zoning control legislation to also incorporate in this one for the temporary three parcel delivery service exemption in, uh, specifically the language in the interim zoning control is to say a temporary parcel delivery service use at a given location may be authorized, subject to all requirements of the planning code for a single period, not to exceed 60 days. once within a 12 month period. uh, within without the possibility of a renewal or subsequent approval. during the 12 month period. again again, if this, uh, is granted and to be included in this legislation, then it's a reason why, um, a conditional use for 5000ft!s and under a more simplified one would be a good idea instead of

just, uh, wholesale exemption. because if you're allowing a temporary location, uh, and then and, but and also exemption for 5000 square square feet and under for that combination, uh, without any information, we again create impact on neighborhoods that may have unintended consequences and we don't know and how to track that impact. so with that said, and we just continue to ask for your consideration, uh, with that compromise in that language. and then in addition, my colleague again, the supervisor, matt dorsey, who proposed the previous interim zoning control, has asked if you would also please consider with the criterias and the conditions opens, um, that, uh, for the analysis and the impact, uh, to also include a secondary education institute option to as

a part of that criteria for the analysis. so to conclude that i know they got a lot of your time already. i asked for your approval of this item, uh, with no change to the additional criteria in section 303. um, see , see. and a modified condition use process for businesses. under 5000ft!s. uh, of course i am open to the discussion about a temporary outdoor most uh, but that is with the hope that you also consider for the modified conditional use for business under 5000ft!s. and i'm happy to answer any questions you have, but i'm sure that your staff has better answers than i do. thank you. thank you, supervisor chan. um, i'll go ahead and just dive into first a briefly, the one public comment we received, and then i'll spend time describing the recommended modification

ones. so the department did receive one public comment from someone in the cannabis industry , and they had expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance would increase black market activity. um, i'll move on to the recommendation now. so staff recommends approval with modification of the ordinance. um, we really support that. this does align and respond to the environmental justice framework within the general plan. introduction. uh, requiring the ceo for the parcel delivery services could, could, could help ensure that these uses are and their impacts are more evenly dispersed, routed throughout the city through this public hearing process. yes. so um, going through the different recommended modifications, the first recommended modification is, is to eliminate the additional criteria and conditions as proposed under section 303, subsection c, c. so

the ordinance would already require all of the parcel delivery service uses to appear in front of you through the full coa process. and there would be the opportunity to learn more of the project specifics. um, some of those details may include the business, the user, the number of employees, these how they're getting to the property. so we would still have that opportunity to learn more and ask the project sponsor more details related to the proposal and specifically the first three criterion are already reviewed under sequa. so some of this relates to impacts to traffic patterns and vehicle miles traveled. greenhouse gas emissions, public safety, public transit, emergency response. all of these are already reviewed and having them listed with been

an additional criteria under 303 cc would be would be redundant here. sequa also does take a look at the cumulative impact of uses. so if there are a number of different parcel delivery services within the area, or a number of projects in front of us that would also already be considered under sequa, the fourth, fourth, additional criterion is related to an economic impact study, with both an employment and fiscal impact analysis is the planning department does not have the expertise to fully conduct such economic impact study. and even if we were to hire a consultant, um, we really don't have the technical expertise keys to determine if it has, um, if we have all the information, what other information we need. additionally, the proposed ordinance requires the applicant

to cover the costs of hiring, said consultants and any required materials. so this does raise a concern for adding further financial burden to the applicants, especially if it is a smaller business or minority owned business. for example. and the supervisor did go into the additional cost additions under the proposed ordinance. the first condition relates to electric location. the department certainly wants to encourage more electrification, and we recognize we are headed in that direction. um, just from a big picture here, that there are state and federal regulations that already require electrification and full electrification in the future. so we are moving in that direction. um, what we don't want to see is the ordinance to require any of these conditions under the planning code. um, again, we want to encourage but

not require here. so part of that or part of that work is already going on in, um, outside of the planning code, um, including the efforts through sf environment and sf mta they are working on incentivizing and encouraging electrification. there are a number of electrification goals that are part of the city climate action plan plan. and again, that's housed within the environment code. so um, part of the concern is including such technical electrification requirements within the planning code, when there may be more appropriate other codes, for example, environmental code, the second condition relates to limiting the idling of vehicles to no more than three minutes. um, we we've shared that we don't have

staff out there 24 over seven reviewing all of the user fees throughout the city. so we don't really have the capacity to proactively enforce such requirement. additionally finally, loading the vehicles for the parcel delivery service does usually entail the driver to turn off the engine exit, go do the loading and unloading, then come back so there would be no greenhouse gas emissions during that time. and then the greenhouse gas emissions during the travel time would again be reviewed under sequa. um, the proposal also includes requiring signs for the truck access points, loading docks, etc. on the adjacent streets within the vicinity. um, this is outside of the project property, so that would need to be vetted more with mta. but it's beyond the planning codes purview. so that

was just the first recommended modification. so i will move on to the second recommended modification. and that is to incorporate. the 5000 square foot um co exemption that are currently in place from currently in place in the existing interim controls. and i do want to clarify that this is for all parcel delivery services. it's not targeted just for, um, cannabis retailers, the cannabis industry, but they are one of the industries that would benefit from this exemption. but again, this would apply to all different types of uses for parcel delivery service. this um, and this also would further support small businesses to waive the q a requirement under the proposed ordinance. and the third recommended modification

is to um it relates to amending the accessory use prohibition to exclude cannabis delivery. so the parcel delivery service s specifically calls out cannabis and cannabis products within the definition, which does make it a bit more complicated and confusing. other uses are not similarly called out or mentioned in the parcel delivery service definition. in that definition is really intended to include facilities that are truly sorting, distributing, delivering parcels. but it's not meant for the direct to consumer interactions or direct to consumer deliveries of the product, but because because the parcel delivery service definition specifically calls out cannabis and cannabis products, it means that any any cannabis retailers or any other uses with cannabis delivery would then be required to establish a parcel delivery

service as a principal use, and that would require the coupé um through this proposed order. science. um even if recommended in number two related to the 5000 square foot exemption, is incorporated, and this would still require the cannabis retailers or those with cannabis delivery to go through the seaway process. um, again, when other types of uses are not unintentionally impacted by this portion of the proposed ordinance because only only the cannabis products is called out in the definition. moving on to the fourth recommended modification mission, um, we have two parts here. this is related to technical corrections to really follow the existing planning code structure. so it's still important to include this

in the ordinance. the first relates to the seaway control goals. the proposed order science currently lists requiring a coa within section 1 or 2. so within the parcel delivery service definition in the way our code is structured, all of the controls. so the siu specifically really should be within the zoning control tables themselves. and not in the definition. um, and there was a lot of efforts in the recent, um co planning code reorganization. so this is a technical correction to remove the seaway controls from section 102. and um, correctly have them within the zoning controls as the proposed ordinance lists them. and the second part of this technical correction is related to the accessory use controls. as the supervisor mentioned.

and, um, this proposed ordinance would prohibit parcel delivery service from being accessory to any other use. so um, staff understands that and that's fine and appropriate within section 102. however we do need to mirror the this, um, access re use provision in the actual accessory use code sections. so those would include. sections 204.3703, subsection d and 803.2 subsection d. again this is to match the um existing code structure for and lastly, i did circulate a revised resolution to you earlier this week. um, highlighting one additional recommended modification. one the supervisor already spoke to this item as well, and this is to incorporate the temporary

parcel delivery. exception from the interim control is currently the interim controls waive or exempt the coa requirement for the temporary parcel delivery services that are up to 60 days within 112 month period. and this was something that the staff had collaborated on with supervisor walton for the original interim controls and carried through to supervisor dorsey's um extension and modification of the interim controls. so this really targeted the holidays. um, really the biggest example was with the increased online shopping, online deliveries. um, the post office, for example, often has to expand their facility is surrounding the holidays. so they may open up an additional temporary facility to be able to accommodate the increased deliveries. the increased parcel. these additional packages. and so without this exemption, the post

office in this example would have to go through the conditional use process in order to have this temporary or the 60 day parcel delivery service open. so that is something that we wanted to make sure it gets incorporated from the existing interim controls. and fully incorporated into the proposed ordinance in front of you today. and with that, i will conclude my staff report here. again, um, we're available for any questions. thank you. thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. please come forward. line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. good afternoon, commissioners. i am apollo wallace, representing teamsters local 2785. we represent. parcel delivery

drivers in san francisco. we greatly appreciate the efforts of supervisor connie chan and her office, and support her legislation controlling parcel delivery use. we are opposed to the staff recommendations before you. the staff's recommendations would allow parcel delivery services throughout all of san francisco regardless of impact on the community. please reject the recommendations by planning staff and require for controls on parcel delivery services. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm john bouchard with teamsters local 350 and teamsters joint council seven workers in the industries we represent and the neighborhoods we work in depend on planning controls that anticipate the impact of rapidly expanding commercial uses. we strongly support supervisor. chan's legislation, which recognizes and memorializes the special review for parcel delivery service. the planning code acknowledges the impact of large

scale and formula retail entertainment venues, which run throughout the day and evenings. wireless and internet service, and the entire hospitality industry. parcel delivery service should be included as a similarly high intensity use for neighborhoods. for that reason, we ask that you approve supervisor chan's legislation as she presented it today. thank you. kim carvalho san francisco labor council um, i support connie chan's legislation as presented. um i think, but i also want to talk about. i'm the daughter of a small business owner here in san francisco, and i, i'm going to implore you to, uh, support the legislation as presented by connie chan, as a daughter of a small business owner. you know, let's face it,

parcel delivery is killing. our city. it's killing downtown town. it's killing our neighborhood kids. um it doesn't build community. we those are the things we need to save our city. and let's be real, lots of people can't afford amazon. the $17 a month is out of reach or whatever it is these days. i don't know, um, is out of reach for a lot of our resident. it's they can't afford that. they. need to be able to go into stores and purchase what they can afford. if you want a just and equitable city, a thriving downtown, you you need to support this legislation for the future of the city. it is really at stake. and your job as planning commissioners is to help plan for the future of downtown. don't look at this legislation in any other way

except this will, if you do not support this legislation, you will kill downtown. we all know it and we've seen it proliferate and we need to support the downtown businesses and support this legislation. thank you. good afternoon. commissioners i'm james long representing teamsters 853 we wanted to publicly thank supervisor chan for understanding the concerns of our members employed in the parcel delivery services. supervisor chan's legislation recognizes the parcel delivery has grown to a point where conditional use is required, as is for higher intensity and industrial uses. we oppose the planning staff's recommend action and urge you to accept supervisor chan's legislation as is. thank you.

good afternoon commissioners. my name is joe madewell. i'm with teamsters local 665. commercial uses are regulated in san francisco. uh, and parcel delivery needs to be regulated and carefully considered, especially in our neighborhoods. teamster members are engaged in parcel delivery service, which in turn provides for an expansive and thriving commercial sector for our city. our in our city. excuse me for a safe and fair work environment. we ask for special review when it comes to granting planning changes for parcel delivery service. we support supervisor chan's legislation and we ask that you approve it as she presented it. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. my name is jacob klein and i'm speaking

on behalf of the sierra club sf bay chapter, which represents more than 6000 members in san francisco. i urge you to support the parcel delivery ordinance as presented by supervisor chan with the interim zoning controls on warehouses ending in march, we need new rules in place to govern this growing industry that has a major impacts on local neighborhoods in san francisco. within less than a quarter mile radius of all warehouses, the coronavirus green score is in the 90th percentile for particulate matter 2.5, showing the already high burden of pollution on communities and public health. this is all clustered in southeast san francisco, which continues to experience the burden of air pollution due to the history of racist zoning policies. this overwhelming environmental injustice led to bayview-hunters point being selected as an ab 617 community for air monitoring and emissions reductions. the cca would give san francisco another tool to appropriately analyze the impacts of warehouses on nearby communities and greater leeway in deciding where a warehouse

may be built if it will be built. the continued reliance on e-commerce and the heavy traffic that the fulfillment warehouses bring jeopardize community well-being if left unchecked. in terms of public health and job quality. the ordinance as it was introduced, has necessary provisions to center community well-being, particularly through electrification measures that reduce reliance on fossil fuels and idling restrictions, and these are both a norm in many development agreements and air district control measures for these reasons, i urge you to support the parcel delivery ordinance with supervisor chan's amendments and the big thank you to supervisor chan and the teamsters for their leadership on this. thank you. good afternoon. my name is will roscoe. today i'm celebrating my 69th birthday. i came to san francisco in 1978 as a part of that generation of queer activists. inspired by harvey milk's vision of social justice

and participatory democracy. we today i live at 808 seventh street in san francisco, in a building that is 75% or so bmr units. it's, uh, 225 units. our residents are predominantly majority people of color. uh, there is a large number of, uh, uh, multigenerational families, seniors and children. uh, we have a one of the few open spaces is our hoa maintains where children play seniors walk, residents walk their dogs. and this is 100ft from the proposed massive amazon facility that, uh, would be constructed at the former recology site. so our residents with our neighbors at california college of the arts, historic businesses in the neighborhood are are the polite word is to say, concerned. but the real word is alarmed. we are very afraid of this project. uh

our neighborhood has evolved since i moved there 12 years ago as a vibrant, mixed, used area. um, uh, residences, businesses and so forth. but there's also a serious environmental justice issue here because with the lower income and people of color majority in our building, uh, it was sited, uh, quite across the street from caltrans and so for the past 12 years, we have been breathing some of the highest diesel particulate pollution in the state. uh, and so we are very sensitive to the health issues of the amount of traffic. we are very sensitive to the safety issues of the amount of traffic, the interim control that's in place now has given us an opportunity to try to make our voices heard, uh, and to have these issues looked at more carefully. and i feel that this kind of opportunity should exist in any area of san francisco where such a massive project is

being proposed. most of all, that the voices of those who are most impacted by these decisions are heard and meaningfully considered. so so i support the supervisor rosa's ordinance as it is written, and i thank you for this opportunity to speak. hi. um, my name is yoshi sato, and i also would like to speak to the community impacts of parcel delivery centers and why this these proposed, um, planning code amendments are so important. six years ago, i moved my 80 year old aunt to 88 seventh street. um, the building that will just spoke about, um, at that time. um, uh, uh, the growth of housing and businesses and arts education in the neighborhood, which guided by the eastern neighborhoods plan, promised that the neighborhood would only become more vital and livable over time. now amazon is

proposing to build a massive parcel delivery depot right across the street. a facility that would bring hundreds of delivery vans, uh, freight trucks and worker cars through the neighborhood. 24 over seven year round, 365 days a year. um, this project will significantly harm the health, safety and livability of our neighborhood. and for what purpose? ups and the us postal service are already fulfilling our delivery needs quite effectively. um thanks to the interim controls introduced by supervisor walton and extended by our supervisor dorsey, our building now has a voice in this project approval. um i strongly support the permanent planning code changes proposed by supervisor chan and her six six co-sponsors. so every community can have a voice going forward. the impacts of these projects are just too huge

. thank you. good afternoon. thank you for accepting our comments today. my name is celia schumann and i represent a property directly to the west of the proposed amazon project, showplace east. we are one of the major buildings in the san francisco design center. um, and we are concerned about everything else you've heard so far. i'll try to maybe give some specific examples. uh, from our experience, yes. um, first of all, uh, to one of the your earlier comments about how does what does this bring to the neighborhood? um, and having been there for 20 years, i've had my position in my little office on alameda street for 20 years, and i'm not quite sure what all this traffic, potential traffic really could bring any benefit to our area. uh, in

terms of the environment, um, we're between two freeways. in addition to being close to caltrans, my windows, uh, have white shades that are now pretty much shades of gray. there's a lot of particulate matter. i cannot imagine. um, adding to that with the kind of density. um, another issue in terms of parcel delivery in general, as a building manager of a commercial property, we are the ones that are tasked with, um, communicating with delivery services, whether it's ups, fedex, ups or usps. um, if there are any issues. and we do find that when we are working with delivery companies that do not have direct employees, um, that have all contract actors as drivers, which is what i understand is going to be the case with amazon. there's no one that we can talk to if we have

concerns. um and in terms of enforcement, i, i'm aware that there is discussion about what pathways the traffic is going to travel. um, who is going to make sure that they stay on course? you know, if these are not employees of amazon, uh, and we're trying to perhaps issue a complaint or observation, who do we go to? uh, so in terms of having contractors as drivers, not employees, uh, the volume of traffic, uh, the environmental impact in terms of dirty air and just the character of the neighborhood. so i appreciate your hearing our comments and hopefully, uh, you can weigh them in in your decision process . thank you. uh, good afternoon, commissioners and staff. we're respectfully, we disagree with the recommendations that, uh, some of the team are proposing.

i think the legislation intact, not only enjoys a majority of support, uh, from the members of the board of supervisors, but i think it's an important, uh, moment for us as a city to think about how we're planning for the future and what kind of studies and factors need to be considered the parcel delivery space, um, is ever evolving. it's rapidly evolving and there's everything on the table, every thing from traditional parcel delivery that we're familiar with, with brands like ups, with brands like dhl that are both domestic and global in nature. but there's also this evolving, uh, business enterprise that's looking to redefine and disrupt what it means to have a parcel delivery service. i think that on its face, it may seem to be less commercial and less industrial in nature, but i worry that because there level of innovation and disruption really looks to deteriorate and erode and kind of the basic framework of employment in our city. and that's going to take us away

from traditional commercial uses and take us into this more kind of gig economy nature of things. i think we have to be very careful so that we provide ourselves opportunities to study those as they evolve, whether it's via an autonomous vehicle or it's via the model. they're kind of exploring right now where sometimes it's not actually a uniformed person. it's a vehicle of any nature. i've had very frankly, suspicious vehicles in our neighborhood and even by our commercial property that our building trades own on van ness that show up, um, and, and we don't know who's in the vehicle or what they're driving. so i think we have to be very smart and strategic about providing opportunities for community input. i don't think we can even imagine what some of the vision is for some of these entities that want to use us as, frankly, their testing ground for parcel delivery and parcel delivery, whether, uh, we look at current models deployed or what they're envisioning in the future, is a heavy commercial use, whether it's frequency of miles or it's

particulate matter based on just kind of the operation. i think we have to be very careful about what we know to have been true in the past, particularly in certain parts of our city. but be thoughtful about providing opportunities. you know, my workers, i'm usually here advocating for a project to build something. this is something i'm very afraid of, and it's something that the building trades are standing in solidarity with. the members of the teamsters union. it is not something that should be taken lightly to see workers who represent the majority of that industry come to a regulatory body and say, please regulate my industry, regulate my job or regulate my future, my health care, my retirement, please regulate them. i can't gloss over that. workers are coming to you who depend on this industry success. they're not saying ban this industry. they're saying, please be smart, be careful and regulate the future of this industry. so support the legislation. please. good

afternoon, commissioners mark gleason here. i'm speaking on behalf of joint council president peter finn and the rest of the officers of the joint council. we're also fortunate the joint council is very fortunate to have, uh, land use attorney, uh, peter ziblatt, who we've been working with, uh, to so we can navigate through this very complex issue that we have before us on online commerce. online commerce is changing the form and structure of parcel delivery service. the planning code ensures that we that use and purposes for industrial locations are well examined before approval. supervisor chan's legislation recommended recognizes fast paced changes in the parcel delivery service and the supervisors legislation complements the planning planning code as well. in our view, the planning staff's recommendation before you does

not accomplish that a point. in fact, if i could have the slide, i guess i can put it like this is put up face up. there's a there's a zoom on the top that that. all right. and what i have here is a slide that uh, was uh, submitted to the california puc. and as you can see that waymo is already applying for parcel delivery service. and in san francisco. and they haven't even come before our local bodies to talk about this amazon as well has submitted an application for parcel delivery at the 907th street location. uh, they did that as soon as zoning controls expired in november of uh, 2023. again we support supervisor chan's legislation and ask for your well, look at what she is

putting forward and if you can reject the staff's recommendation that is before you. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners peter ziblatt, land use attorney for joint counsel. seven teamsters. you know, i could be up here for 15 minutes if i had 15 minutes, which, of course i don't. nor would you want to hear from me for 15 minutes. but what i would like to speak to very narrowly is the staff recommendation. number one, which suggests that parcel delivery service use does not require additional conditional use criteria. now, i'm very familiar with the conditional use process. i've processed. conditional uses throughout the city for the last decade, and i know very well how section 303 of the planning code has standard conditional use criteria embedded in it, and i

also know that many uses in this city require additional criteria beyond the standard criteria to approve a conditional use parcel delivery service use is exactly one of those types of uses. it's a use that we've all identified have externalities impacts beyond, you know, more innocuous land uses. there's going to be 1,000,000ft!s or even 2,000,000ft!s of parcel delivery service use applications in front of this commission in the near future. and to suggest that it doesn't require enhanced conditions. use criteria to be to evaluate these uses is in my opinion, inadequate. the fact of the matter is that in this city, large scale retail formula, the retail nighttime entertainment all have additional enhanced criteria used to evaluate those land uses. parcel delivery service uses should be no different. you know, i mean, i quarrel, i guess, at the heart of my quarrel is with in

recommendation number one is twofold. one is that a traffic analysis doesn't need to be done when you look at a parcel delivery service use, because sequa does it. i'm not going to bore everyone here with sequa, but sequa is embedded in the public resources code. it has significant has levels of threshold, threshold levels of significance that are different than what a planning evaluation would be for traffic. large scale retail, uh, for example, also has analysis associated with it far beyond, you know, the traditional we'll just let sequa substitute for that analysis. it's specifically on on. i thought it was interesting because we were talking about tobacco earlier this, uh, meeting the tobacco paraphernalia stores. okay. when they seek see you approval. have to provide in their application the impact tobacco paraphernalia stores will have on congestion. okay. so that's that's required for that. how can it not be required for parcel delivery service use and economic study

is required for large scale retail and formula retail. okay that's that exists in the code right now. it's a suggest that it's onerous or it's in that we don't have staffing that's adequate. i get all that. i'm not you know, i work very closely with the planning department. i appreciate their concerns about staffing. but the fact is the planning code already allows for economic studies, in fact, requires them for certain uses and particularly large scale retail. thank you. thank you. your time. last call for public comment. so seeing none public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you commissioners, uh, before i turn to the other commissioners, i wonder if staff would respond to the last claim that sequa wouldn't adequately handle the traffic analysis. um, veronica flores, planning department staff. so the related

to the first three additional criterion is, um, staff. just noting that this is conducted within sequa. so it is going to, to um, be a part of the record when the conditional use appears in front of you. so we were looking to avoid the redundancy. there for and maybe you could talk about dobst and whether or not the combination of sequa with d lops would address the concerns that were raised around traffic and queuing, and you know, the congestion around the parcel delivery services. um, i will defer to my colleague, miss tam tran for this specific question. thank you. thank you. um, thanks, veronica. i apologize. we don't have, um, staff from environmental planning here today, but i do know if i'm able to speak for them. i do know that their traffic analysis impacts are actually pretty rigorous. we have a full transportation review team that has studied impacts for the 749 tolling

gateway project that you have looked at. so they have experience with these types of deliveries, um, kinds of traffic impact mitigations for this kind of, um, uses. okay. thank you. commissioner koppel. yeah, it must be important today if both rem. um, sorry. uh rudy and kim are here, so when you see kim carlone and rudy gonzalez here, we're talking about people. we're talking about jobs. we're talking about people that have families. uh, we're talking about people that live here in the city, uh, that need jobs to survive or go somewhere else. so i want to thank you, supervisor chan, um, for looking out for the people. um, the blue collar part of this society is very important. very important to me. i think it's what holds the city together. um, very big fan of keeping, um, construction workers low wage. um hotel and whatnot. workers first responders. i'm for keeping

those types of people here. uh, if and when we need them. um, so i am very in favor of, uh, connie chan's amendments. i'm especially in favor of the additional analysis. um, i'm seeing some areas in the city that just aren't doing so hot, and i think it's kind of evidence that shows they certain things should have been studied a little more. uh, before we have so many, um, merchant issues on valencia, uh, vacant storefronts, all up and down market street, vacant storefronts all up and down van ness. um what are we doing? um, if we don't have any businesses here? is this just going to be a city full of bars and restaurants? uh, hopefully not. so i am very in favor of all of, uh, supervisor chan's amendments. and thank her for being here today. commissioner moore. uh, thank you, uh, to the public and your eloquent testimony. without it, i think it would be harder for us to sit here and with full conviction, support the legislation as submitted and a modification that the commissioner will be

considering. uh, are not exactly what the department has brought forward. uh, uh, this is really about protecting neighborhoods. this is about protecting the teamsters and how we do things. i am not really ready for wholesale oil. uh, giving up on those controls, but to ensure that we have healthy neighborhoods, uh, healthy delivery systems that are fully supported by those kinds of checks and balances that are in place and need to be further, um, codified as putting the interim controls into permanent controls. i'm in support of what is in front of us without modifications. commissioner braun. uh, i'm i'm not in entirely clear on a few things. and so i have a couple of questions. um, with the with this, i'm just going to go kind of down the line with some of the staff recommendations and some of the other points made previously. um, so and also, i

just want to say, supervisor chan, thank you so much for being here today and for bringing this forward. i really appreciate it. um so one is the question was already asked by president diamond about the traffic analysis that would be used as part of sequa analysis versus what's this? um, you know, what's included in the conditional use criteria in this legislation? and i'm wondering, miss flores, if, uh, if there's anything else to say about the all the other analyzes included, i'm just trying to figure out where the intersection is between the sequa analysis versus what's included in the legislation. uh are they essentially mirrors of each other, or is there are there significant differences? because and i'll just as framework for this question, um, if they are exactly the same, i don't see the harm in having them in the conditional use criteria. uh, if there are slight differences, but they don't make a big challenge for limitation, then that's, um, then that also seems

reasonable. but if there are really big differences, i start to wonder about our implementation of that. yes thank you, commissioner braun. so the proposed, um, proposed ordinance includes as one of the additional criteria for consideration, um, the extent of the impacts to those different areas, such as traffic impacts, um, vehicle miles traveled. so it is a broad statement. um i, i am not, um, the expert on ceqa, but it is, um, a much more technical review. so i will say that a lot of it would overlap. um, and again, with the with all of the parcel delivery services appearing in front of you through the full coa process, um, you would still have the opportunity to ask maybe more specific questions of each project. so you'll have more of the technical aspect conducted through sequa. then you can really dive into more of the

community impacts through the process as well. so we do have that in place. and um, i also want to add that staff is um, um, you know, happy to collaborate with the supervisor on maybe refining any additional criterion, but just with what we were given, that's where the recommendation is to remove them, because we want to be able to avoid the redundancy and to also be cognizant of our of our staffing. so we can certainly work with our consultant pools to make sure they're aware, um, if this legislation is enacted as currently drafted. but um, again, if, if there is opportunity to be able to revisit this more closely or, um, refine the additional considerations further, we certainly welcome um, that so we're, um, the recommendation is just reaction to what we see in

front of us. okay. thank you. and actually while oh please, supervisor thank you. i just want to add additionally though like right now your large scale retail conditional use already we really require a very similar approval process. and this um, what is additional all through this legislation beyond of what typically come before you is the employment analysis fiscal impact and electrification and idling of vehicles. and i think your staff has articulated why they could pose a challenge for those additional analysis. and happy to work with staff to sort of figure out the implementation of it. and i think that for the employment analysis, um, there's office of labor standard enforcement that is within the city that provides then can provide us assistance when it comes to employment analysis. um, when it comes to the idling of vehicles, frankly, in the california air resource board

and really in san francisco, uh, from san francisco, codes, environment codes already really talk about idling vehicles specifically for off road vehicles and construction vehicles. those are there's already enforcements about idling in san francisco that's already in place that we can again mirror those enforcements that already exist. and then to be able to make sure that we apply those existing practices and, um, uh, that with current city departments, incorporate into the further analysis that is required in this legislation. thank you. thank you. and actually, could i would you mind , uh, i do have a question or two about your perspective on something. um, or maybe some things that you could just help me understand a little bit better. so, um, you know, there's the staff recommendation around, uh, exclusion of cannabis delivery, uh, from the accessory use. um, was it intentional to try to incorporate the cannabis uses as part of this? still uh, i think

that when it comes to, uh, cannabis industry and then allowing this as accessory for them to receive the exemption to allow this accessory use, uh, we're fine. i'm fine with it. we're we're open to it. what i'm trying to say is about the exemption for the 5000 square foot, uh, and under and in the combination of temporary pop up, which is understandably so for someone like, you know, postal service. but it's just that once you have the combination of just a blanket exemption for 5000 and under, um, which is, uh, and with the temporary pop up that creates may create impacts, that is, we cannot have any analysis. so what i propose is that instead of giving a blanket exemption, like your previous interim zoning control is to create a community process which you already have exists to expedite it. for anyone that is 5000 and square feet square foot

and under, instead of just exemption, but is to allow them to go through a more simplified queue conditional use process. i see, and that would apply to the 60 day temporary uses as well. is that the idea, or would 60 day use this still be so i'm open to the temporary pop up. that's understandable, but that's the reason why if you are willing to contemplate the 5000 square foot, um, simplify my conditional use instead of an exemption, that would make a lot of sense for a pop up. uh, instead of allowing someone to use a loophole is what i'm trying to say for a pop up. and as long as they're under 5000, they can just do a rotation in a neighborhood of pop up so that that's all i'm trying to, uh, trying to prevent a loophole. for that. i am open to definitely provide exemptions for cannabis to use for accessory use, but then again, like i said earlier, when you

have a moratorium already for cannabis store fronts right now in the city for the next 2 or 3 years, um, that that exemptions can, can provide, uh, use. but i'm open for discussion for that . okay. and sorry, one last question. um while i have you. so you also mentioned that supervisor dorsey asked for the conditions analysis to include a secondary education institution. i didn't quite catch what that was. no problem. and that, if i may, this is very again, uh, in the interim, zoning control was very site specific. and you have heard from public commenter provided you a very specific location and a neighborhood impact. when should a company that come in, uh, and starting to have a parcel delivery service, uh, for facility and this is also, again, i want to say it's very specific to the neighborhood impact. but in supervisor dorsey's district that clearly there are, uh,

secondary education institutions which i am not going to name, but, you know, institution that is also in those districts that will be impact should should there is a facility put in place that that is upon his request, not mine. but i want to i want articulate that and have this conversation so it doesn't have to be reefer. yes. thank you for that. thank you. it of course, and yes, miss. thank you, commissioner brown. i just wanted to, um, come comment on the moratorium that the supervisor had mentioned earlier so that that ordinance that went into place, um, last, last july, i think. um, so that prohibits the office of cannabis from accepting any new, new applications as the staff report noted, we currently have five, eight, maybe nine referrals in front of us already. so those would all be impacted by this proposed ordinance. addition

only the office of cannabis has, um, maybe six, at least six that we're aware of that they are currently in their queue but have not been yet referred to the planning department. so we cannot speak to, um, the size, um, of those proposed, used, um uses. so we don't know if those would be impacted by this ordinance. um or that proposed recommend modification if those would be impacted at all. but there are um, a handful or two handfuls of applications that would be directly impacted by this as of today. um they are exempt from the, um under the interim controls. i believe we have the 5000 square foot already within the interim controls that expires next month . so it's kind of, um, a fine time for them to be able to pursue. but, um, we are still working through that, um, caseload, so i just wanted to

note that for you that that is going to be a big change for those applications that have already been in the queue. they, um, they, they're paying rent for this for their property as they're waiting to go through the process. so that's something that i just wanted to clarify for the department, for the commission today. one other question. uh, it's my last question. so that actually raises something else for me. so i'm curious about i know that the 5000 square foot exemption has been in place. uh, i'm trying to kind of put that in context. so you just mentioned that some of these cannabis delivery businesses have been falling under the 5000ft!s. what i'm thinking is, you know, a lot of the requirements, uh, for the coa and for the businesses, uh, the conditions of the businesses, they make a lot of sense for really large parcel delivery services. um, and, and i understand that targeting, but i, i, i'm trying to understand the extent to which there are smaller parcel delivery sites

for which the expense of preparing the required studies and the meeting the electrification requirements and etc, that that might be a very substantial expense relative to the size of their operation. and so, you know, and if it's a large corporation, then fine, they can pay that. but still, i'm just trying to get a little bit more context around the size of, uh, size of these sites. and then also maybe some of the types of users. and i know you don't have a full picture, but i appreciate any guidance you can provide. um, sure. i can try to respond to the question. um, just from a high level. so as you know, the parcel delivery services, they do range in size. you just had an informational item in front of you. i think two weeks ago for a project at toland. and, um, there will be additional provisions for that specific project. but the economic impact study, like i said, we can make sure our consultant pool, um, flags that

this may be coming up to make sure we have capacity in the consultants to be able to work with on this. but the concern really is for, for the just the disproportionately larger impact this would have on the smaller businesses. i imagine for a larger corporation, they may already be conducting such analysis or be going through similar efforts. so for the larger parcel delivery services, um, it's not as much of a concern for the department, but it, um, just to require everyone to have to go through this, even if it is a smaller parcel delivery service. that's where we had some, some concerns and noted in the report. okay. thank you very much. uh, you know, i'm curious to hear, as always, what my fellow commissioners also have to say before taking, you know, a final take on this. but um, you know, i think in terms of the first staff

recommendation, uh, it's sounding like a lot of the analysis will be done anyway. and so i'm pretty comfortable with the enhanced level of analysis, the employment and fiscal impact analysis is, uh, it is doable. i actually do those for other cities when they're looking at general plan amendments for industrial uses. so, um, i think that is possible . uh, my one, i think my one general concern is, is the expense for smaller operations in order to meet all of the requirements. um, so i would suggest potentially considering, um, or just making a statement to reexamine the 5000 square foot limit and consider whether or not it might be a or the 5000 square foot, whether we do exemption or whether we do the community. um permit processing priority processing program that we might increase the size a little bit, just out of consideration for smaller operators. but i don't feel like i have enough information right now to say that concretely what

that should be. um and then it sounds like there is support for changing the cannabis, eliminating, um, cannabis delivery from the accessory use prohibition, um, which is recommendation three, and i'm in favor of that. uh, and i am in favor of the idea of, of, um, creating the, uh, some process for those smaller users to have an expedited process. yes. but, um, yeah, yeah, those are my thoughts right now. thank you. i think before i call on and commissioner imperial, i want to offer a few thoughts and ask a bunch of questions. first of all, i really want to thank supervisor chan for showing up in person. it is really helpful to us when supervisor users were proposing legislation actually come to the commission. so we have an opportunity to ask our questions, um, and understand more about the rationale and where there may be flexibility. you know, in for future revisions as it continues to wind its way through the process . so thank you very much. i also

want to thank all the people who showed up to testify. um it is really helpful when people actually come here. um, and we feel the passion with which you, um, raise the issues. so i see three issues that were raised that seem to be driving this legislation. one, one is concern about the impact of the amazon facility, which several people mentioned. the second is concern about what's happening to storefront retail. um, with parcel delivery services and the third is expressed by the teamsters, which is their jobs. um, and what this all means for the future, um, of how they operate and that the there may be other factors, but that's what i heard today. that seems to be, you know, driving this legislation and i understand, um, based, uh, on testimony

today. and i had had a prior conversation with mr. gleason and the attorney about what was driving them. and in, in coming up with this legislation and i understand why looking at the code and how prior other issues are treated like formula retail that this would seem like a sensible approach. you know, on the other hand, i feel like staff did a terrific job, um, of really diving deep into the legislation and pointing out concerns that they think require a modification and so i want to just touch on those a little bit, because i find myself pulled in multiple directions, um, that, you know, neither the legislation as proposed or all of the modifications you know, seem like exactly the right place, you know, to land at the moment. so i just want to share thoughts, um, because whatever we vote on today, i am sure this will be subject to additional

discussion and revisions as it heads to the committee and board of supervisors. so what i what i keep in mind is we can't build a wall around our city and that no matter what we do with the conditional use permit process, um, all of these companies can still set up parcel delivery hubs, you know, in marin and the east bay and the peninsula and their trucks are still going to be circulating around our city so that, um, the queue process just feels to me as only part of the way of dealing with this. and it doesn't really fundamentally, um, get to the heart of what's going on. secondly whether we like it or not, the pandemic has shown people how how easy it is to order online and to find the least expensive of price they can with a few clicks. and i don't see the citizens in our city moving away from that convenience. i actually see them more likely to, you know, want to have more of that. um, third

is, you know, at the holidays, there is a lot of parcel delivery that goes on. and i feel like we need to be realistic. um and understanding what it takes to actually get all those parcels delivered. so as i go through the staff's recommendations, um, i have a lot of the same issues that were raised by um, commissioner braun and i guess i have a lot of faith in the conditional use process. um, it's how it's applied. um, and you know what? i sense in commissioner chan's legislation is a concern that it won't be adequately applied. and therefore, they want to reinforce certain issues that need to be taken care of. but having worked with sequa and, you know, seeing how hundreds of traffic studies over the past 40 years, i don't feel like any of these issues wouldn't be adequately handled by how our staff does. the sequa process, especially understanding the sensitivity of this particular use. um, and knowing that

there's always the possibility of challenge to the secret process if they don't, um, dive deep into these issues. and that combined with the san francisco approach to dlps, um, which is intense focus on what happens on the driveways and queuing strikes me as adequate tools to deal with the traffic concerns that were raised. and i don't like the idea of redundancy. it feels to me like, um, we don't need to say it. you know, say it twice. that sequa, you know, it has a long history. um of how it's applied in the city with very, very detailed regulations around it. and i have faith that the traffic studies that are done under sequa are up to the challenge posed by parcel delivery services. so i'm not seeing the need for an additional criterion in that regard. on the economic analysis , i am quite worried, um, without a lot more definition.

um, that simply saying we need economic analysis and the impact on jobs will result in, um, a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity about what the exact nature of the study needs to be. and that could end up, you know, being subject to challenge and more litigation. and i feel like, um, that that is, is and i'm also concerned about doing this on a one off basis with each project. i'm interested in the cumulative total of parcel delivery services and their economic impact, as opposed to each individual um project's economic impact. you know, amazon sufficiently large that, you know, that's an you know, that's maybe one exception. but for all these other smaller ones, um, i'd really rather step back and look at the whole then do it on a project by project basis. and so to that end, director hills, i understand we already did some of this in conjunction with setting fees. um, and came away

with, you know, the traffic fee that was going to be set as a consequence of the impacts, if i'm recalling correctly. and i think the staff report mentioned that it was extra ordinarily high, so high that this commission recommended that we needed to go a little lower. so i wonder if you could talk about the nature of that study or how you think about these studies, looking at it citywide? yeah. i mean, i don't have the details of the study. we did. somebody else might. but i agree with that. the notion we should do a study and maybe that maybe the project tear off that study. so we know from, you know, we have a citywide study that's done that knows the impacts on on our streets and jobs and whatnot, and we can use that as a base then to your project by project studies off of you know, if when this is passed, if that's kind of the ask that may be the approach we take on it. so if we're going to go down the pathway, i'll just say personally i would prefer to

look at this holistically at the economic impact rather than the individual impact of each project that comes along. um, and then we can design conditions that are designed based upon the holistic impact, um, on the i already expressed my concerns on the, um, temporary use. i really just think we need to be sensitive to the fact that a lot that the intensity of delivery around the holidays is so great, um, that we need special rules for that. i liked the exemption, ian. i don't think it's realistic to ask the same businesses to get a queue each year, even if it's the lower level that you were talking about, to have to come and get a queue each year for a 60 day period. so i'd be inclined to keep that exemption on. i also share the concern that commissioner brown raised about eliminating the 5000 square foot exemption. that's a pretty small space, and it is hard for me to understand, you know, that. why the impacts would be so great that they need

a queue at all. um, on the cannabis issue. so we have had many equity applicants in front of us that have made heartfelt cases about how incredibly expensive it is for them to go through this process so that, um, our, our, you know, they have to tie up proper fee and pay rent on it while they're going through a multi year cannabis approval process. even without, um, having to get a special queue with a different criteria for, um, the parcel delivery aspects. so i feel like we've got, you know, a number of projects in the queue there likely already paying rent on their properties even though they don't have the ability to put, you know, to generate any revenue yet because they haven't been approved by us. and to add a whole new requirement on top, um, when their margins are thin to begin with. um just seems like a very significant burden

to put on our equity applicants. so i, i just don't see the reason for singling out cannabis. um separate from the rest. i really like the idea of requiring everybody to do electrification. um, that makes a great deal of sense to me. i am concerned by the staff's issue, which is, is their, um, um, enough capacity out there. and i don't know how to, um, resolve of the desire on our part to have electrification happen with staff's concern on that based on prior projects. pg, pg, and e doesn't currently have the capacity, um, for everything to go forward. and so are we imposing a requirement that actually can't be fulfilled. and especially if it's being imposed on smaller projects, that is additional burden that, you know, i don't see yet how to resolve those. and then on the idling issue,

oh, i completely agree that idling is a huge issue, but but, um, i only like to impose conditions that staff feels like it can enforce. um, and the planning department has no ability to enforce that. so it feels to me like, you know, if you're trying to put that within the jurisdiction of planning, that's not appropriate. if you're trying to put that within the jurisdiction of muni, then i'm completely on board with that. but i, um, think that the approach on idling needs to be tailored to the agency that has the ability to deal with the issue. so i just raise all those issues. i don't know, you know, it's it doesn't seem to me as easy as saying i'm all in favor of commissioner chan's legislation without the modifications, or i'm all in favor of the staff's proposed modifications. so i just wanted to interject that we still have more commissioners to hear from, and i'll keep going. commissioner imperial, thank

you, president diamond. and i think you have brought up a lot of, um, points. points, um, and also other commissioners to, um, that have also asked questions and also thank you, supervisor chan, and also the, um, the public for coming in here. um it you know, there are a lot of points, um, and i think the discussions on here, but i would like to point out that, um, in terms of the recommendation on number two, i actually feel, um, it doesn't i actually feel different about this the way i see the 5000ft!s is a big, um, it's a big square feet. um so but at the same time, i'm echoing in terms of, um, commissioner braun as to, um, for us right now, the commissioners don't have the guidance or the study or findings in front of us to make sure if this 5000ft!s is actualy considered small business, or

what are type of businesses are going to be affected by this. so for that, um, you know, i would ask for the department to give us more, um, background on these 5000ft!s, because the way it wa, um, you know, in front of us right now, it's, um, it's referring to cannabis businesses . um, which or may not be true. um, but but i just also want to make sure to that that square that 5000 square foot, um, is, is what we're saying that it's appropriate for the maximum amount for a small business is that, you know, so that's something that, you know, as of now, we don't have that. and i cannot not, um, you know, again, again, inform for me personally, i do think the 5000ft!s is prety a huge amount. um, and should be not part of the exception. and i

would and i would be with the, um, supervisor chances to actually work with the department and the office, um, to look into that. what is the proper square footage for considered to be a small business and for what type of retail use is that? um, and also in terms of the, the sequa, i think that, um, you know, i am in favor of the supervisors additional criteria. um, and i also recognize that the sequa, um, gives a thorough analysis. um, it's, you know, it's usually a big book for us. um but however you know, as i have read sequa before, um, there are sometimes those that public brought up that doesn't necessarily address in the sequa analysis. um, and in terms of the so i that for that reason, there are, are, you know, the

economic impact, um, the, the impact on employment, what it would mean for parcel, um, you know, for parcel businesses, um, those are not necessarily me because usually sequa you look into the business in itself and that's it. or that land in itself. um, but as to the there are some you know, parts of it that would have the cumulative impact as well. but in that when you read the cumulative impact, it's always look into the kind of the same use of that, um, and doesn't really look into the thorough cumulative impact of that particular neighborhood. um, i mean, again, that's my personal, um, the way i read sequa sometimes, um, however, it is always thorough. um, but it may needed more for, um, criteria in terms of like how it's being impacted in employment. um and also not necessarily be, um, create a lot of, um, analysis as well in

terms of the, you know, there are these new emerging industries in terms of electrification. um, and that's something that perhaps additional criteria that needs to be, um, you know, that needs to be part of the coa. but you know, if this legislation is going to continue with that, you know, with additional criteria, i also want to make sure to that the planning department staff is willing to is going to work on this additional criteria with the proper people, with the proper consultant, you know, whether in conjunction with the supervisor's office or in conjunction with that, with that project. um, so, you know, i don't want to create additional criteria where the study itself is not going to create a meaningful study or analysis for the for the public to opine on. so that's also my concern on this is the staff, um, the planning capacity and, and also,

you know, the meaningfulness of this study that's going to be done. um in terms of the cannabis, um, the accessory dwelling is the accessory use. it looks i'm also concerned about that. i'm actually concerned about that. and it looks like, um, you know, when we're doing this legislation, i think it's good to look into what's going to be affected. and the small businesses and other businesses that might be looked into. so i'm actually in favor of recommendation number three. um on this, since there are going to be looks sounds like nine cannabis, um, retails that's going to be affected by this. and i think that might not be fair for them to be opposed to additional criteria. um, and sounds like this supervisor's office is also willing to accept

that too. um in terms of the additional interim control, um, to incorporate the coa, i think, um, miss veronica, is that to incorporate coa on, on um, the 6120 day. um, can you clarify that again? yes. thank you, commissioner perry. also, the existing interim controls in effect today, currently exempt parcel delivery services. the temporary ones for up to 60 days within a 12 month period. and they would not they do not have the opportunity to renew for another 60 days within that same 12 months. so that's what we're looking to also have and implement in the proposed ordinance. so continue the existing interim controls as they are today. and sorry if i may, i think i misspoke earlier when i used the post office as an example. i just learned that

the post office may have their own exemptions as a federal, um, federal all business. so that might not be the best example, but the idea of the increased holiday packages parcel, um, that still applies. okay. so i would thank you for that clarification. and i would support adding that, um, um, condition given by the, um, by the planning, um, recommend option. um also, i present diamond, um, proper and um, very important aspect in terms of the , the electrification or the future of electrification. um, and i think this is a bigger picture for us as a city to, uh, you know, to understand and also the infrastructure to, for us to have it because, you know, i think last year the pg and e also admitted that they don't have in or it was unsure whether

they have that resource. and so or enough power to actually so there are things i think that perhaps beyond the scope of the san francisco itself and the and the future of energy in this country. um, but, you know, i think the, the idea of electrification. and i'm referring to autumn electric vehicles or automotive vehicles, um, and it's and i agree with you, it you know, san francisco is not going to be just like it's going to be affected. um and it's going to be perhaps some how part of the future. but i think, um, how to implement that in the land use. i think that's something that we have to look into other resources, such as pg and e, whether they are actually capable of, you know, if you know of doing. of providing more of that square footage, um, for, for, for cars. um, so anyway, so that's, um, you know, those are my, my

concerns and opinions. um, and, and i don't know how we're going to vote on this today or what's the kind of motion we're going to put on. um, but i largely, um, support supervisor chen's letter isolation. um, and the planning recommendation number three. um, and other. yeah recommendation number three. and also the interim control, um, addition as well. um so my comments, i'll try to keep it short and maybe propose a potential next step. um, i just want to say i appreciate all the folks who came out to comment. i think that was really helpful. and there's obviously a need for this. um, i am supportive of additional analysis. i often feel like sequa leaves out analysis that's about people. el

um, and it sounds like supervisor chan is very thoughtful and has considered, you know what? what that would include what city departments we could work with. um, so i'm supportive of that. um, in terms of the 5000ft!s, you know, i, along with commissioner imperial, would like to know, you know, what are businesses under 5000ft!s under parcel delivery? what does that look like? um, i don't feel like i have that information. and, of course, we don't want to impact or burden small businesses. um, i'm supportive of excluding cannabis delivery. um, you know, president diamond mentioned the amount of equity applicants we've had here. i think that's really significant. and it sounds like supervisor chan is open to including that. um we also have some amendments around, some technical corrections. i think, you know, it makes sense. you know, if we're being redundant in the planning code to align ourselves

with the code. so i'm sort of supportive of that. and then i'm kind of indifferent with the interim controls. so it seems like we need a little more information on i don't know if we should continue the item or if we should approve leave without staff modifications, with the recommendation that supervisor chan works with the department to address all of the comments. because this seems much more new danced, and so it seems like maybe i've saw some head nods. so maybe maybe i would move to approve without staff modification with the recommendation. um, for the supervisor's office to work with the planning department to address um, you know how the additional analysis would look like something that makes sense and doesn't burden the department? um, and doesn't burden small businesses, as you know, in terms of, oh, go ahead. do you want to say something, miss flores, or i'll let you

continue your thought. and i just want to comment on, um, one of the items. okay um, and then, of course, considering the exclusion of the cannabis delivery, the technical corrections, the interim controls for temporary parcel delivery, and maybe addressing some concerns around whether or not we should exempt, uh, parcel delivery services under 5000ft!. that's a motion. that's a motion a second. that motion, i second the motion. commissioner braun, i was there. oh, i didn't know. okay. commission vice president moore. uh, i wanted to just briefly one comment. commissioner was for making a motion on, uh, i am very aware of the urgency and the timely delivery of us support that the interim legislation moves forward and becomes permanent legislation as suggested. so any continuance on our part would

not help the process. yes. and i think the public particular supervisor chen herself, has clearly some arised the pressing nature of what is in front of us. so uh, so i agree with yeah, i agree with the recommendation. i'm sure we'll be recorded here and since the supervisor is here to clearly understand the subtleties of commissioner questions and concerns. so i'm assuming, uh, director hylis and supervisor chen, you need a decision from us today, not a continuance, in order to keep with the schedule you need because of the expiration of the interim controls. yeah so i think we, you know, either need to vote, we need to vote for something or deny something, um, one way or the other. um so, um, i will say, um, as proposed, i, i can't support that personally.

i would have, you know, hoped that somebody would have made a motion, which i can't as president that would have said, um, yes. yes. but with these modifications that we all agree on and these other ones that need to be considered, and if this motion goes down, which i suspect it won't, then i would, you know, ask somebody to introduce a different kind of motion. but what i heard was, um, you know, in articulation by , um, commissioner ruiz that she would like to go with what you propose, but with further work done on all the areas that we have identified, commissioner braun. yes. um, just. one question about the motion. so just to clarify on the, uh, revisiting the 5000 square foot or considering was that reconsider exemption, was that or reopen the process for, um, those uses? well, it sounds like

supervisor chan has proposed an additional like compromise in terms of how we can address that. and so i'm hoping that the supervisor's office can work with the planning department to discuss the modifications. i just don't like. i would have loved to have made a motion that included concrete modifications. it just sounds like there needs to be more conversation with the supervisor's office and with the planning department about what makes sense and i don't know if we can make that decision here today. so i don't know if that answers your question. that does. yeah. so i just want to make sure that i'm in agreement with that. um, and then i, i am curious as the motion maker, if you would be open to, to additional maybe recommendations that are still in the spirit of something staff said on their first recommendation? one is, um, exempting uses from the off site signage requirements for about around idling because

that's the one that in particular we don't have. you know, much control over. and then the second would be, um, um, just khoneh considering exempting small uses from the electrification requirement at um, and not like firm, you know, must do this. but just consideration on its. yes um, so just to touch on that last comment also related to the motion on the floor, um, one potential compromise regarding the electrification is to move it from the conditions subsection into the um, criteria for consideration. so it could still be as part of the additional criteria in front of you for the qr. but then in the case that they don't have an electric fleet right now or in the case that they they know there is no bandwidth, then, um, there's not that, um, kind of

scenario where they're stuck as, um, president diamond had mentioned earlier. so it would still be, um, as part of the project analysis, still disclose and discuss gus during the hearing, but it would not prevent the parcel delivery service from not moving forward if there was no bandwidth. so as a, um, criteria not a condition. um, that's one potential, um, one potential solution to offer here. and then also, i just wanted to comment on the, um, potential idea to in to still require the small businesses, let's say 5000ft!s under to stil go through the coa, but maybe have it in an abbreviated see way through cb £0.03, for example. um, there would still be the added concerns for really the financial burden put on those small businesses. so um, potentially as a part of that, could the commission consider

the, uh, modification that, um, maybe just to address some of those concerns there? um, so if they're already going through the cb £0.03, they would appear in front of you. maybe they can share some of those details. anecdotally but, um, waving that economic like an official economic impact study could, could further support them. so that's just, um, something i wanted to share offer in response to some of the discussions today. okay. and i see miss wadi also has something to add. so i think just to maybe summarize what you just said, if the recommendation is to move to still require a icu for the 5000 square foot or less, just no longer require those, all those various studies so that it becomes sort of a simple queue rather than this sort of more complex with in depth analysis. um you know, my big concern on cb £0.03 it's a, it's a 90 day shot clock for our staff. um, i'm really concerned about our staff being able to do an in

depth amount of analysis when in reality that's actually only 30 days of analysis when you do the front end and the back end of packet preparation. um, but if it's a regular old queue where we have a two page staff report and we just get it to you like normal, we can do that. so it still gives checks and balances, but it eliminates that additional analysis. so maybe that's a way to thread that needle a little bit. um commissioner braun. uh, well, so yeah, i think, um, i'm just curious to hear what the motion maker thinks about this. i would advocate for, as i said, i would advocate for, um, uh, exempt the off site signage requirements. i do like the idea of moving the, um, the, the condition for electrification to a criteria considered for the ceo and then the alternative pathway for q for smaller uses. makes sense to me. so i'm open to those. recommendation and i think if the supervisor i mean, it sounds

like the supervisor is open to including a simpler q process for those businesses. it makes sense to remove the analysis to me. absolutely thank you, commissioners. being so thoughtful today, i really appreciate. and as you have, uh, said that, you know, it is good to be here with you to hear your conversation and to hear all your thoughts and feedback. um, it's all please know that it is all in consideration. it is truly that. the reason why i propose that as a compromise is with the thought that, you know, perhaps for a business. clearly i agree with commissioner rose that we don't really know what they are, but what we do know is they are going to be parcel delivery services, facilities. that is what we know. that is a prime use for sure. so with that thought is that if they were to go through a queue and, and that in my opinion, they should, but not really in the record, like i'm just going to name a name, a company like an amazon, like, you know, a very large retail, uh, facility that will end up,

uh, subject to that type of analysis that, that a large scale retail ceo already does, which is what we do here already. so then for a 5000ft!s and under, perhaps it's to subject them to still a queue, but without the type of in depth analysis. thank you. and i'm happy to continue to have those conversation. i'm open to it. i appreciate the conversations today. um, it's just that having this conversation allow us to refer back to your comments at the committee. thank you. supervisor chan, while you're there, can i ask you one more question while you're up there? of course. so how would you feel about a more holistic economic analysis piece that looked at this issue comprehensive, as opposed to business by business? i think to both can be done. i think that you're absolutely right. i think, in fact, i have made some notes for myself, both on the electrification as well as economic impact analysis,

which the board can and will do separately. frankly and apart from a queue. um, i think that in this case, again, we're talking about something that is a very large scale facility that in the land use and planning in city. let me also, if i may take a step back outside of this conversation about parcel delivery service, we are seven by seven. san francisco is a very small city in reality, but. very, very dense. um, to think about a 5000ft!s of any land in san francisco, it's actually quite competitive in its use at this moment. i think you already heard time and time again, perhaps too much about housing and there's many other potential mixed use of both housing and others when it comes to a parcel delivery facilities. that is all there is. if that were to go through and take up that piece of land. and so for it to go through queue and come before

you and allow that in-depth analysis is, is really not just for you, but really for the entire city to think about this piece of land. is this the best use for this neighborhood? but also the best for this city? when we are in need of housing, when we are trying to figure out a way to do mixed use that has other usage and housing when it's actually just for a parcel delivery service facility, that's that. so let's really be thoughtful about, in terms of holistic approach of land use. that's all i'm asking. it's the reason why we end up asking for you to actually have that consideration when it comes to a icu authorization, instead of just permitted principal use, but allow all of us to have a discussion and a chance. parents process to say this piece of land rather large is this what we want to do with it? that's this is how we want to use it. so that's my ask. and it's really the really the policy goal here. so i think you heard, you know, unanimity on the need for a conditional use. um, i

don't think i heard anybody disagree with that. the question is what are the criteria for granting it? and you know, there are all these other issues that need to be worked through. but i don't think anybody here, even those of us who may just be me, who end up voting against this, um, i am not at all opposed to i'm absolutely in favor of the queue, but i, you know, i would vote for this motion if it was an economic analysis that was done citywide. that individual projects could tear off of that sounds valuable to me and would produce information that i actually think would be valuable and meaningful. um it's the individual ones without the holistic one that i just think adds a great deal of expense and may not produce much meaningful information. and that's what's getting in the way of my wanting to vote for commissioner ruiz's motion as she drafted it, you know, or proposed it even with some of the changes she may incorporate or not from any of my if i may, though, and in

reality, because i have worked with many to do all different kinds of analysis, and actually when in reality it is through this type of icu individual analysis that cumulatively we gather that information that we can actually do a citywide without that, that to just it will become fairly vague. this actually help us capture some of the data that may be actually necessary in order for us to do a precise, uh, and, and fact based analysis citywide. and this is, this is how we probably going to have to start either way. otherwise they would just be hypothetical hypothetical with the icu process that bring us those data on an individual project by project basis. it actually gives us a lot more concrete information to really do an analysis citywide. so that's how i want to have to convince you to, to see if you will consider that. i really appreciate it. thank you so much

for being so thoughtful. okay. uh, vice president moore, i'd like to make a generic comment. and that is if every legislator would spend the time listening to us and really giving us answers by which we get more guides to how the legislative process really works. i think collectively, we would all do significantly better. and so i personally believe as we are allowed to fully lay out every comment and concern and again redirect that also with the planning staff witnessing, it will be between the two of you, the supervisor and planning staff to work out subtleties where we have sufficiently expressed our nuances of how we understand it. i personally believe that our responsibility ultimately is to support the larger task of supporting this legislation, which is already in effect. still, as an interim piece. and so i'm prepared to

move and support, uh, uh, commissioner rosa's uh, motion and ask that we call the question. commissioner ruiz, do you want to stay with where you were originally? commissioner braun made a number of changes, and i'm not sure how you're resolving that. um, so i believe his changes were just also recommendations, right? recommendations around the signage and the electrification and then was there also an additional recommendation about potentially excluding the analysis for businesses under. yeah. so i, i am happy to fold those recommendations into my motion. would you consider recommendation that said, um, consider doing a citywide economic analysis off of which of the individual ones could be tiered? i'm not saying don't do the individual ones, but i feel like the citywide one, um, would be important. well, i mean, i, i am supportive of what supervisor

chan has stated, but i mean, it's just a recommendation on. so yes, let's include the recommendation as well. if you add that recommendation, then i could see yes, yes. okay. let's add the recommendation. and who seconded the motion? i seconded it and are you okay with all those modifications. yes. yes i am. and i'm also looking for the department really to stay current with antifa updating that economic studies further environmental detailed review, etc. happens with anything that is signaled signaling a large change in the city as we move into the future. sooner or later it will be a robots or drones. delivering. we got to stay on top of it, and that means we need to be ahead of the curve rather than only reacting what may come in. i don't want i don't want to say we we'd always do a main study and tear off it. i think that was for the smaller projects. but as you've seen, there are million square foot or 600,000 square foot projects that are being proposed. i mean,

i think we may want to have an economic study or or a more detailed study on those proposals that stand alone. you know, that have more local impacts discussed. so i think it's kind of giving that flexibility to do either. right. although i think what commissioner moore said was a point i was thinking about during the presentation, which is staying ahead of where parcel delivery is going, seems really important. um you know, we as we move to drones or driverless cars doing deliveries, you know, instead of doing ketchup, you know, that we are out in front and thinking about these issues and that, you know, this piece of legislation is one piece in getting there. but thinking about this more comprehensively feels like that's part of our job as planners. um, anyways, i just wanted to second that. that thought. that includes the sierra club looking at regional distribution where they are, what type of other network constraints there cause together with environmental impact, which definitely will be increased unless we switch to a different

technology of how all of these things operate. commissioner braun, just a very quick comment or idea for you know, like i said earlier, i actually prepare similar kinds of studies for cities from time to time. and what i've found, you know, there's a comment that fire department staff might have the expertise to fully interpret or lead some of that work. um, i actually have found that those studies can be more effective when department staff are collaborating with people in economic development. uh, so in the city, mo cd or or the city economist even might be a path to figure out what's most effective through those studies and what should be examined. okay. mr. ionin, and i think we have a motion and a second. oh, and yes, thank you. i just wanted to there was a lot here. so i just, um, for myself on to

clarify, um, commissioner braun, you noted removing the idling signage as part of the first recommended modification. so we'll go forward or the motion is to go forward with the additional criteria and conditions. since. the idling signage. but can i clarify what was the other recommendation you had for that? was it related to the electrification? i want to make sure i, um, understood and fully. yes. and so let's check each other on this. i believe it's, uh, changing a recommendation to consider changing the electrification requirement to a criteria rather than a condition as, as you would suggested. is that right? yes um, the supervisor inquired. is that only for those 5000ft!s and under or, um, just across the board? i think i don't know, maybe we don't have enough information to say what's appropriate. i would say just

for maybe 5000ft!s, but, um, we could how about the smaller uses and we'll just say, yeah, to examine the appropriate cut off. staff also raised an important point about the technical amendments and the structure of the code. and i feel like they've worked really hard over the years to get a particular structure. and i wouldn't want one piece of legislation to go off of that structure. so i, i are you including that recommend, you know, that is one of the things they should consider is working with staff to make sure that, yes, i think i mentioned also including a recommendation on addressing the language within the code and making sure it aligns with our code. so let me try to wait. commissioner moore, did you have another comment? miss flores, i have one quick question on, uh, there is an idling requirement already in the city that pertains to tour busses and large vehicles, etc. are we trying to strike that or are we

trying to reinforce that here we are trying to leave that outside of the planning department and planning code, and defer to the other respective, um, codes that require it? um, do you have, um, i can follow up with which codes there are, but we don't want that to live within our, um, review as as we've noted, we we're not outside at all the businesses 24 over seven to, um, you know, time the three minutes of idling and, um, as we noted in the hearing, the idling signage that's not in our jurisdiction as well. so um. oh, go ahead. it's kind of interesting. uh everybody's theoretically knows about this part of the code, except nobody's does it? i live nearby major hotels where busses who are picking up their, uh, guests for going to the casino wherever they're going, idling along. 1015, 20, 30 minutes. and when

you ask the driver, he doesn't know anything about it. so perhaps mr. starr should weigh in on that one. i believe idle is covered under the bay area air quality management district, baaqmd and they set regulations for diesel trucks and idling. so there is another agency that does deal with that. and it's not something that we're prepared to enforce. and we normally do not reference those kinds of things. i mean, i can imagine that we can't enforce it. no, the planning department is not going to go out there with a stopwatch and so but i assume it is generally known that it any kind of delivery service would fall under that type of regulation. yeah. i mean i'd have to check with baaqmd, but i'm pretty sure they're the ones that control the air quality in the bay area. and idling of diesel trucks is one of those things. okay so we'll leave that aside as being not part of our own jurisdiction. yes. okay. thanks. so let me try to capture the motion. um, as

articulated. so the motion as i heard it is to approve as proposed with a recommendation on the supervisor. continue working with the department on their proposed modification. so this captures the technical corrections, the cannabis delivery, so on. and so forth. uh, including an exemption for off site uses from the idling signage requirement at smaller uses from the electrification on condition to a criteria and a simpler coa process. removing the analysis requirement for the smaller uses and a citywide economic analysis. yes. correct. very good. commissioners on that motion, commissioner braun i. commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. 6 to 0 commissioners that will place us on item nine for case number 2023 hyphen 010074 crv for

fiscal years 2024 through 2026, proposed department budget. this is for your consideration to adopt. do you want to take a break before and after? maybe after? after this? hello, commissioners. it's nice to see you all again. i'm katie lee, um, budget and grants analyst at the planning

department. and today i'm just going to do a quick review of the budget that i shared with you all in greater detail about two weeks ago. as a reminder, on the revenue side, the department proposes to reduce fees by approximately $3 million in the operating fund from the current year, and this consists of reducing revenue by $4 million and assuming a approximately $1 million in consumer price index adjustment for a net reduction of $3 million. the grants and special revenues budget is expected to stay relatively high in the budget year. the outyear shows lower amounts because we don't yet know what the grant funding opportunities will be yet. the department will receive a small percentage of anticipated development impact fees to cover recovery, to recover costs for various development impact fee processes and programs, inter departmental services are expected to remain relatively similar over the next

two fiscal years, and we always revisit these in the second year to determine whether or not it will actually happen. the general fund support reflects the $920,000 reduction in fiscal years 24 to 25 and 25 to 26, to again align with the mayor's office reduction instructions. and on the expenditure side, personnel costs make up the majority of the budget. the personnel costs listed here assume that some vacant positions will be removed from the budget. we see an increase in the out year due to upcoming negotiation on cpi, fringe and benefits hits the overhead rate is set by the controller's office and will likely change as budget development continues. non personnel services such as contracts were intentionally reduced to create savings and we increased our budget for software translation and interpretation services. materials and supplies were.

will increase slightly in the budget year compared to the previous year due to additional data processing costs and staff working in the office more. the majority of the project's budget is related to grant and ipic funded project expenditures, and more specific expenditures will be known once a grant is actually awarded to the department into departmental services will continue to change throughout the budget cycle as other departments share costs estimates for what their services will be in the next two years, and we believe we will be able to see some savings from this. some of the larger expenses, such as city attorney, rent and technology, will all be loaded after we submit the budget to the mayor's office. to follow up on commissioner braun's question about the difference in our work program this year compared to the budget year, the difference in ftes is 18.1. and in the memo we shared that we were expecting to eliminate approximately ten vacant positions and just to be more specific, the proposed

budget is actually eliminating 12 vacant positions. and there are also four temporary positions that were removed from the base budget because funding for these temporary positions and this fiscal year and we also made some adjustments to attrition, which is an fte value that the system calculates based on a dollar amount and attrition is a negative number that assumes some positions will be vacant for a portion of the year . once again, this is the budget calendar. yesterday we met with the historic preservation commission and they approved our recommendation of the proposed budget and work program. and today we respectfully request that you adopt the department's proposed revenue and budget for fiscal. years 24 to 25. thank you. 24 through 26. right. 24 to 26. yes. sorry about that. okay.

if that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. katie, i need to use your thumb drive up. yeah. thank you. i'm going to get a chair. maybe while he sets up. if anybody else has comment .

i need the overhead, please. the slide is up. i'm ready to go. thank you. good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler. i'm going to review three slides today. slide one shows the actual planning department revenue for the last five years. and this year's budget charges for services last year was 32.3 million. the current year budget is 35.1 million, an increase of 2.7 million, or or 8.4. is this assumption reasonable? other revenue last year was 18.4 million and is budgeted to decrease to $6.9 million. do these amounts include the

utilization of prior year operating reserves? is it reasonable to budget 10.3 million in general, fund support for this year? what was the general fund support last year? i'm having a little difficulty here. okay slide two shows the actual planning department expenditures for the last five years and the budget for 2024, 2025. is it reasonable the budget is $6.5 million. increase in spending. the slide also shows the net operating income and losses of the planning department over the last five years. the planning department is budgeting 2024 five to be a break even year? is this a reasonable assumption given? this next slide has three pieces of information. the slide shows

204 full time planning department employees last year. in 2022 2023, we. why is the planning department planning to budget an additional 14 ftes in. 2024, 2025? and where and why are the new ftes being budgeted? you can also see the seattle planning department has 110 ftes in their planning department. why is the san francisco planning staff almost 50% larger than the seattle planning staff and the last measurement point is the san jose planning and building code enforcement department, which is really the equivalent of combining our dbi and planning only has 299 ftes. merging. the san francisco planning and dbi departments would generate sizable operating

operational savings and enable both departments to have common operating policies and a single computer system, which is long overdue. the proposed planning department budget does not address the city's current budget crisis. thank you very much. thank you. last call for public comment. i see no additional persons coming forward. public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner koppell yeah. what do we do when we, um, have to spend our resources for an on another department? like what? how many people and how many hours have we, uh, expended working on the san bruno case, for example? all. like when we're when we're literally

having to do extra work that shouldn't necessarily have to be done because of a miss performance by another department. do we do we back charge them or do we just fit the bill? i mean, i can jump into that a little bit. i mean, i think the short answer is we don't track that specifically. i understand where you're going with that. um, on san bruno, i know i spent many, many hours on that project that i wish i didn't have to spend. um, but it's generally enforcement time, staff time. so, um, you know, combination of development review staff and our enforcement team, staff. so, um, but, yeah, we don't track that, but it is a part of our workload. absolutely we. commissioner braun, uh, i appreciate the follow up on my question about the ftes and the work program. so thank you for providing that information and clarification. um, but seeing no other commissioner comments or questions, i move to approve the

budget a second. very good commissioners on that motion to adopt the department's proposed revenue and expenditure budget. commissioner braun, i. commissioner ruiz i. commissioner, imperial i. commissioner. couple i. commissioner. more hi. and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. let's take a break. very good stuff. tv we will take a okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february 8th, 2024. commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar on item ten, case number 2020, hyphen 000805 hb for the property at 5425 mission street. this is a home sf project. thank you.

commission secretary. good afternoon, president diamond. fellow commissioners jeff horan, planning department staff item before you is a request for home sf project authorization pursuant to planning code sections 206.3 and three, 28 for the demolition of an existing two story commercial building and construction of a new 29 unit. mixed use project. the sf project authorizes authorization, would grant development bonuses, zoning modifications, and the project seeks exception to rear yard and ground floor use requirements. the subject lot is located in the excelsior outer mission neighborhood, commercial district, and within the amazon crocker neighborhood. the project is located on two corner lots, which together are approximately 7750ft!s in area. this is what the 105ft of frontage on mission street and 59ft of frontage along florentine street. the project site is currently developed with a two story trade office

building. the proposed project would involve demolition of the existing two story building and construction of a new 45 foot tall, approximately 28,000 gross square foot, four storey over basement mixed use building. the building contains 29 dwelling units, including 17 one bedroom units, 11 two bedroom units and one three bedroom unit at the ground level. the mission street frontage contains three walk up units with direct access to the street and on the florentine street frontage. this contains the main lobbying residential entrance, a 646 square foot commercial space. the garage entrance, transformer room and internal spaces containing the bicycle parking room, mechanical and building services, and a package room. the project provides common usable open space at the rear yard, uh, at the rear yard, on top of the roof deck, and then also on a roof deck. the true roof deck on the top of the main portion of the building. the project will remove two existing curb cuts

from the mission street and add a new curb cut on florentine. the proposal is pursuing a tier one more than 25 unit home project in exchange for providing 23% on site affordable units for the homeless. program provides benefits to projects that designate on site residential units, and this project would, uh. in providing the 23% or six of the units at 29. this project would receive again development bonuses, uh, zoning modifications, and the requested exceptions in addition to the form based uh density bonus, the project seeks zoning modifications for a 20% rear yard and for the eight units, uh, their dwelling unit exposure for the eight units that, uh, that have exposure onto that non-compliant rear yard. the project also requests exceptions from the planning code for active ground floor uses and rear yard. pursuant to planning code section 328, the commission

may grant minor exceptions. uh, only if the granted exceptions allow the building to mass appropriately and shift and respond to the surrounding context, and only when the planning commission finds that such modifications do not substantially reduce or increase the overall building envelope permitted by the program. for the ground floor use requirement. this project does not provide provide ground for commercial uses along mission street. um. it does provide residential all residential uh residences with with raised entrances, recessed entrances, uh porches, and direct connections to the street which all meet our qualifications for active ground floor residential uses except for they do not have the internal height to meet the policy requirement for the defined residential active ground floor use and for the rear yard request. this project is proposing to provide the 20

foot or 20% rear yard at all upper stories, but it does provide full lot development at the ground floor within the zoning, uh district of the excelsior outer mission. it does require, uh, an open ground, open rear yard to be provided at the lowest floor that does have dwelling units. so again, this project has dwelling units at the ground floor, but it is seeking the benefit of a project that didn't have units at the ground floor, which would be allowed to have a full, uh, full lot coverage at that ground level. uh, no comments from the public were received at the time of the publication of the case report. since the publication to correspondences have been received with concerns over the increase of density at the site and the related impact on on street parking opportunities related from the density increase at the site and the development. um, the commission received a memo from staff which

contained amendments to the motion. this included, uh, adding electronic bicycle language to condition of approval number ten, which is our final design, uh, condition of approval, and also included uh, additional language to the plan code section 101 findings to better describe the commercial nature of the existing building. but overall, the department finds the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. the project will maximize the use of a currently underutilized site and construct a 29 unit mixed use project project within close proximity to public transportation. commercial corridors and jobs. additionally, the project will increase the city's housing stock and provide six additional on site affordable units and of the proposed 29 dwelling units, 29 dwelling units, 12 will be family friendly units and that they contain more than two

bedrooms. this includes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. we should, uh, provide the sponsor with five minutes. good afternoon, president dimond and commissioners. tara sullivan from reuben jason rose on behalf of the project sponsor, um, jeff did an excellent overview, a detailed overview of the project . um, it consists of two lots down in the crocker amazon neighborhood that will be combined into one new residential, largely residential , with one commercial development, 29 unit home project that i just want to kind of do an a side note that we have been contacted regarding ev bike park charging and that the owner is committed to installing ev bike charging, uh, charging into the building and the bike room that all tenants can utilize. so we are happy to accept that new condition on, um, i just will quickly summarize and just say that we really ask you to approve the project, that there's significant project benefits to

this. it provides additional below market rate housing 23% or six units of the 29 will be permanently affordable, um, in exchange for zoning modifications, exceptions, and bonuses. it's a higher number than would be allowed under the regular inclusionary housing requirements. um, it's also providing a large number of family size units of the 29, 12 will be family friendly and contain two or more bedrooms. and lastly, it will revitalize this underutilized corner down in the lower mission district, um, which consists largely of a small two story building and a large parking lot that's surrounded with large metal gates. not very friendly. um, it will utilize that putting in residential units in one small commercial unit as well. so i will conclude and keep it brief. i'm here to answer any questions as is the owner as well. thank you, 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. please come forward. good afternoon.

commissioners my name is juliana. i am one of the two that emailed in opposition for this proposal. um, mostly because the community is overcrowded. if you drive down florentine street, you will know that it is overcrowded. there are multiple generational families in this neighborhood. cars parked on the sidewalk just to let you know that's how full it is. i minimally have to walk at least five blocks from my home just to find parking. um, homes on mission street don't have garages, so we are forced to park on other streets. mission street has street cleaning every day from 5:45 a.m. to 7 a.m, including after holidays, so increasing and bringing this proposal will just drive parking. it'll just cause a lot of issues when it comes to parking. um, florence street is a one way street. i'm not sure why the entrance would be on florentine street. this is. this street is heavily congested. um, it could cause serious issues if

there are medical, um, concerns on on florentine street. so that's an issue there as well. um this proposal includes a 30 foot commercial loading zone, which will remove parking directly on mission street. as folks that live on mission street, like myself, we rely heavily on these parking spots. so this would directly impact us as well. um, not to mention the shadow that's being casted over more than ten homes and businesses. we live closer to daly city, so we value our son and this building is going to cast a huge shadow over our backyards. this will also cause privacy issues. um i'm not sure you guys mentioned it's a four story building. when i was looking at the proposal, it looked like it was six floors. i definitely want some clarity there as well. um, i know there's also a basement that's being proposed with this project . and so demolition and excavation of a lot of dirt in this area is going to severely impact homes that are built in the 1920s like my own. so so

quite frankly, i'm not happy or excited about the foundation impacts to our homes and so these are the concerns that i'm raising with this proposal. please kindly take them into consideration. thank you. okay last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak. public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner koppell, uh, move to approve second. just to clarify, that is as amended by staff. yes. very good commissioners on that motion. one second, one second. commissioner, commissioner moore for the for the benefit of the public. and those people in the room, i believe that that is actually the type of densification that we are

supporting. it is a four story building for those people who were questioning that it has a size and the kind of delivery of affordable units that i consider to be very much in keeping with the basic idea of creating a better balance between market rate and affordable. 23% at nine is far better than what we see in similar projects when we use, unfortunately, state density project. um uh, in terms of how it utilizes a site, the exceptions are reasonable. the building actually is a nose, primarily north facing building, so it shadow impacts will be on the street. mission street itself, and not as much on adjoining owners to the south. and i think that needs to be made clear. i believe the massing is fine. and, uh, animating the street with the exemptions that mr. horn explained, it is very, very well achieved by using these walk up small walk up ground floor units

, which i think is more appropriate than providing too large of a commercial space, which most likely in this particular part of town would be vacant anyway. so i am in full support and um. call the question. that's it. that's it. yep. okay. sorry, i didn't really hear an ending. um, on that motion then commissioners to approve with conditions as amended on that motion, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and place us on item 11. case number 2023. hyphen 006894 cour for the property at 1571. schrader street. conditional use authorization on. good afternoon , commissioners matt dydo, planning department staff. the

project before you is requesting conditional use authorization for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit, or udu, on the ground floor. the subject property is legally a two dwelling building, with each dwelling unit being a residential flat on the second and third floor. the udu is behind the garage, converted from storage space. the unit was constructed by the previous owner sometime prior to 2019. the exact construction date is unknown as the previous owner perished in an accident in 2019. he's believed to have been the only occupant of the udu at any point. the department searched various methods to verify occupancy history and found no evidence of any other tenants. the project sponsor has submitted documentation demonstrating that the cost to legalize the dwelling unit would be approximately $430,000. the cost is generally associated with foundation work and a change in occupancy triggered by the addition of a third dwelling unit. this cost is significantly more than the average. the project sponsor also submitted two appraisals confirming an increase in the valuation of $50,000 to the property. if the

unit is legalized because that increase is far less than the construction cost, legalization is deemed not financially feasible based on current planning code criteria. the department has not received any public comment on the project, and the sponsor has elected to pursue conditional use authorization for this removal and not wait for the potential passage of supervisor melgar's ordinance amending controls for udu removal. had they waited and the legislation passed in its current form, the removal of this udu would have been exempted from the conditional use process as there's no evidence of an eviction and the dwelling does not meet our planning code requirement for exposure. the department supports the request to remove the udu due to the cost that it would to legalize the unit. the project is necessary and desirable as it promotes safety and supports property owners seeking to bring their buildings into code compliance. while also by now balancing financial reasonableness. the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and the department recommends the commission

approve the conditional use authorization with conditions. thank you. that concludes my report. thank you. project sponsor, you have five minutes. hello, commissioners. my name is seth brookshier and i'm working with the project sponsors on the design and legalization process. the uh, there may be questions as to why the costs are so high. um, the cost to legalize the unit is one item on the table. the other aspects that increase the cost so substantially are the numerous improvements that are required to the common areas and the building at large to allow the legalization of the unit. this includes the relocation of both gas and electrical service and panels to allow 36 inch wide, uh, clear

access to the building. it also would require the removal of a portion of a residential deck that is a three story balcony system that allows access to the outdoor area for both of the legal units of the building. the removal of the lower section of that would reduce access to the outdoor for the lower legal unit, and would require a seismic upgrade and structural improvement to the entirety of the balcony system. um, there also are substantial access requirements. the access of a legal entrance, which currently would require an expansion of the door area, creation of an exterior landing, um, allowing access to this door, which is currently a service access which is exempt from a number of these requirements. um, that would require also a encroachment permit from public works, because this landing would be required to be on the public property. um, the, the costs are

dramatically high because the building was not designed to allow a unit like this to exist. uh, we request your, um, uh, approval of this unit removal as as proposed. thank you. thank you. with that, we should open a public comment. please come forward, sir. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. vice president moore. oh, i actually hadn't taken my name off. thank you. commissioner braun, uh, i would say that, um, given everything about the circumstances of this project and given the high cost to legalize it and especially given that there's no record that we can see of this having ever been tenant occupied or any eviction

occurring. uh, i, i am in favor of approval. and so i moved to approve. second, second. thank thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. as commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz, a commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners a motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. placing us under your discretionary review calendar. item 12 has been withdrawn, placing us on the final item on your agenda today. commissioners, item number 13, for case number 2023, hyphen 002706 drp. hyphen zero four for the property at 72 harper street. discretionary review. to

good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application number. 2023 .0316. 3798. to construct an accessory dwelling unit and a rear horizontal and vertical addition to an existing two story, single family dwelling. the existing building is a category b age eligible historic resource built in 1905. there are four doctor requesters. the first, david garafoli of 58 harper street, the adjacent property to the north is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines to articulate the building, to minimize impacts, to light and privacy. uh to design the scale of the building to be compatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings. to design the height and depth of the

building to be compatible with the existing building scale at the mid-block open space, which all of which will result in loss in of light and privacy. his proposed alternatives are to one. eliminate the raised gable roof and provide a flat roof, and two to step back the massing at the rear for the second dr. requester david rizzoli, of 74 harper street, the adjacent property to the south is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines. similarly, design the height and depth of the building to be compatible with the existing building scale at the mid-block open space, and will also result in loss of uh air, light and privacy to his property. the third doctor requester uh doctor requesters michael lee and amy bricker of 70 1783 norway street. the adjacent property to the west, are concerned that the project does not comply with the residential design guideline guidelines for respecting the topography of the site. sorry

guideline single, which will impact privacy, um, and cause blocking of light into their home. and secondly, that the project did not undergo the appropriate process. review and analysis per sequa their proposed alternatives are to significantly lower the peak of the roof or use a flat roof. the fourth and final dr. requester, krishna ramamurthy of 76 harper street, a property to the south, is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the central neighborhood's large residents special use controls on floor area limits, as well as the residential design guidelines. and i'll repeat them here. respect the topography of the site, articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and privacy. design the height and depth of the building to be compatible with the existing mid-block open space and design the scale of the building to be compatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings. his proposed alternate lives are to remove the vertical addition. to

date, the department has received no letters supporting nor opposing the project staff supports the proposed project as it is code complying and meets the residential design guidelines as well as present criteria. the project seeks to add a rear horizontal addition to the first and second floor, and add a gable roof addition to the third floor, which is set back 19ft four inches from the building front. the resulting vertical addition would be two stories above grade at the rear. since this is an up sloping lot, uh, an accessory dwelling unit would be created at the first floor. um, according to address the issue with respect to the central neighborhood's large residence. special use district. according to the planning code section 102, which defines how, uh, square footage was calculated, which is critical to that should the existing conditioned area of the single family home is 2096ft!s, plus te existing unconditioned area of

about 1035ft!s, which adds up to a total of 31 31ft!s. the proposed gross square footage for the main unit. the proposed unit is 3033 plus 352 for the garage space, for a total of 3385, which represents. it's a 69 square foot reduction from the existing square footage. of hold on, my math is off. my math is off. it's not my math is off. it's my writing is off. i apologize, guys, bear with me. no, that's right, 3333, 85. um. my math is off. represents a 69

square foot reduction from the existing gross square footage. now, although the proposed gross square footage for the main unit exceeds 3000ft!s, the total gros square footage of the main unit is being reduced. and it does not trigger the need for a conditional use authorization per section two 49.92. in the for the central neighborhoods, large residents um special use district. while this block does have exceptional characteristics, the proposed addition complies with the residential design guidelines and preservation criteria. the angular street results in a stepped, staggered siting of buildings, which provides large front setbacks and corresponding staggering of rear walls. at the south end of the mid-block open space. additionally on this site, a five foot side, a five foot six inch side setback at the south, as well as a 3.5ft side setback at the north, augments the ability for the neighboring buildings to have

access to light and air on all four of their walls. the lot slopes up from the street, and the proposed addition, which is set back from the building front, is stepped up seven foot three inches to meet the guideline to respect topography. the back of the addition is separated from the uphill neighbor on no street to the west by over 75ft. the number in size is the number and size of windows facing this neighbor are diminutive relative to the neighbor's full height glazing, and the distance between them is a typical dimension found in development throughout the city. by virtue of the gable roof, the vertical addition both maintains the roof form of the subject property and adjacent houses, and sculpts the massing away from neighboring properties, and due to the height of the existing due to the existing siting of buildings, side setbacks, and the limited um extent of the rear addition, the visual access of the mid-block open space will remain essentially as it currently is. there for staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary

circumstances, and recommends not taking discretionary review. um, it has just come to our attention, though, that there is a direct connection in the plans of the adu, uh, between the primary unit and the adu, uh, plan and code requires complete separation between the units. and this is a code related issue. uh, we're aware of this, and it will require revisions to address, but does not require, doctor, because as staff is aware of it, uh, we will be requiring that to be remedied before the final approval of the plan of this project. thank you. thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, we should hear from the doctor requesters. each doctor requester will receive five minutes and the project sponsor will receive ten minutes as their for doctor request hours. and then each party will receive a two minute rebuttal. members of the public will be provided two minutes for their testimony. questions. will

they see this? are they seeing this? okay good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to present my case regarding the proposed development at 72 harper street. my name is david garafolo and my home is 58 harper street. the next door neighbor on the downhill side of the proposed development. i will be speaking for the four different neighbors who all submitted doctor requests and are standing here with me to protect the existing pattern of development in our community. the harper street slopes down to the north and east, which means that even minor additions next door can have exceptional and

extraordinary impacts on the southwestern sun and air that reaches neighboring properties. as given our geographical location in the northern hemisphere, the impact is quite drastic. during the major part of the day, i purchased my home in 1999 and i've lived in the community for some 23 years. in 2016, i completed a comprehensive remodel of my home, almost doubling the size of my home without going outside of the existing footprint of my home, i went down instead of up at considerable expense. to me, because i did not want. i wanted to be considerate of my community of neighbors. i did not want to impact their sunlight, daylight, air and privacy. we support the proposed adu and want to allow a remodel, but understand the scale of this proposed project both in height

and extent, into the rear yard will drastically reduce my sunlight and daylight, leaving me completely boxed in. please realize we are only asking that the sponsor take the impact to the neighbors into. consider option in reduce the peaked roof to a flat roof. next slide. what you see in this slide is the western side of my home. the most affected areas to my home are the kitchen, which, like most kitchens, is the most active part of my home, which is on the right side of this blue house. and then to the left are the two western facing master bedroom suites. they will be darkened considerably during the parts of the year that already experienced the most sunlight,

and daylight reduction. because of seasonal patterns during fall , winter and spring. here are the overview facts as shown in the sunlight report done by olivier pelletier, who is the principal at cea synthesis. what you see here is that between september 21st and march 21st, there's an overall reduction in light to my rear doors and windows of approximately 50. the folding glass door in the kitchen, where most of the light comes into the kitchen, will see a significant reduction of sunlight. hours of almost 80% at skylights g and h will see a reduction of sunlight by 271 hours, and 224 hours, respectively, for the year. during the winter months from november through january, much of the direct sunlight. to.

sam.gov. there you go. okay so during the winter months from november through january, much of the direct sunlight to window c in door d, which is in the top left hand side master bedroom suite, will be blocked. the lower master bedroom suite sliding door will see a reduction in sunlight hours by 50. those are the facts as demonstrated in the report that was done by mr. olivier. the next slide in the next series of slides, as we see the impact of the proposed project to the light in my lower master bedroom suite slide one here shows code minimum for a 270 17 square foot room of 8% glazing for an average lux of about 597. so

that's code minimum. next slide slide two shows the existing condition. you can see how much brighter this room is. it's a 16% glazing twice of what code requires for an average lux of 1500. next slide slide three shows the proposed condition as 16% glazing. but an average lux of just 320. thank you sir, that is your time. next to our requester, please. i'm sorry. next. dr. requester, that is your time. sir. that was five minutes.

good afternoon, commissioners. my name is brian o'neill, an attorney with patterson o'neill and i'll be. i represent, uh, doctor requester krishna ramamurthy, but i'll be speaking on the collective concerns of the four doctor requesters as the project will be most impactful to mister garafoli. but all the requesters will be impacted, including because it will destroy the long history of project sponsors in this community designing their projects to be sensitive to their neighbors. the project site is up upslope from mister garrett foley's house. as pointed out in this photo, and as you can see, harper street slopes down to the northeast and there is a clear pattern of two story over garage victorian homes. and this is not by

accident that although some of these homes have been renovated now, neighbors have developed down not up due to the slope and western facing sun. any vertical additions will have an outsized impact on neighbors light and privacy. we the proposed project breaks that pattern of development with a horizontal and a vertical addition. the vertical addition adds what looks like a fourth story that measures 44ft from the curb, which will tower over the existing facade and will plunge the downslope. neighbors below into darkness. the requesters have particular concern about the peaked roof design, which is the most impactful part of the project. if the project were redesigned with a flat roof for the rear addition, where the red line is shown, this would significantly reduce the massing of the building and its impact on the light and privacy of downslope neighbors. it's

important to note that the peaked roof does not actually add anything to the project, but as you can see from the sponsor's own floor plans, the roof is mostly designed to accommodate extraordinarily high ceilings above 16ft in height, requiring a flat roof will not reduce the proposed living space. one square inch. there is no habitable space in that area for the project can still accommodate an adu, and the floor plan can stay exactly the way the sponsors designed it, except with an eight foot ceiling. instead of a 16 foot ceiling. the sponsors have said that the peaked roof is necessary to provide an attic for storage, but as you can see from this, uh, the sponsors finally showed those attic plans and the vast majority of the original attic space is just labeled open to below. in other words, out of the 600 square foot area labeled attic in the original plans, the actual attic

space is only a small catwalk, leading to a seven by five, seven by seven 52 square foot storage area and some mechanical equipment, but again, no habitable space is in that attic . the neighbors have proposed a reasonable compromise that will reduce the overall massing by approximately 4000 cubic feet. without the sponsor having to give up one inch of living space . a flat roof design would significantly reduce the light and air impacts to neighbors, particularly here, where the steep northeast slope creates exceptional and extraordinary shading impacts from any vertical addition. unfortunately only the project sponsors have been unwilling to consider this option and did not even respond to mister winslow's offer to convene a mediation meeting with the requesters. the peak roof design is entirely inconsistent with the residential design guidelines, which require the

projects to respect topography and take into account how the project relates to adjacent properties. the flat roof design would would be much more compatible with those guidelines and with the existing pattern of two story over garage homes. instead of a peaked roof that looks like a fourth story towering over and mimicking the original facade, mr. garofoli, who lives next door, has a flat roof, and he did that to appeal to help limit the impacts on his neighbors. so the requesters therefore respectfully request that the commission grant the daca requests and require that the sponsors incorporate a flat roof design for the rear addition. thank you. next, dr. requester. uh good afternoon. my name is mike lee. i'm one of the

dr. requesters um, this is my wife, amy, who's also a doctor requester. uh, we know it's been a long day, so we don't want to take any additional time, but we're happy to cede our time to david. if he would like to continue his presentation. great . all right. uh good, good. keep going. yeah. uh, no, no, we're done with that. yeah. in slide one. what you see is a daylight study that was done for my kitchen area. the three localized areas shown in the dark blue show a daylight reduction of approximately 30% from the proposed project. next. these are the areas of the kitchen where we generally

congregate and spend a considerable amount of time. the far left is a kitchen table with dining chairs. the center is an island. people always congregate around an island in the far right is an open area of the kitchen, so you can see the dramatic impact to my kitchen. the most used part of my home. next slide. these slides are views from the sun position from . september 20th 1st to december 21st at 230 and 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. these slides are semi transparent so that you can see through and see the windows and doors that are being blocked by either the increased height of the building or extension into the rear yard. what you see here is september 21st, and you can already see that the height of

the building is taking one of my skylights out, and it's also taking out the sliding glass door. it it's the backyard addition is starting to encroach on the lower master bedroom suite. next slide. and this is a progression as we get into, you know, the winter solstice. so. here october 21st, you see that the height of the roof is now taken over both of the skylights in the kitchen and the. sliding glass door in the kitchen. and and it has the rear addition has, has now started to block the upper and lower master bedroom suites. next slide here again in november. what you see is that the increase in height of the roof is dramatically impacting all the skylights in my house, there's a center skylight and there's two skylights, one over the stairs and another in the bathroom. and

it's obviously me. um, continuing with the blockage of light to the kitchen and the rear addition is blocking completely the two master bedroom suites. next slide. and so here. this is december 21st. you can see that basically, you know, there's really not any sun coming into the house at this time. so in summary, while the rear extension will cause dimming at sunlight, daylight and quality of life to my property, i am okay with this rear yard extension in we are only asking that the rear roof be flattened, which is the most impactful part of the design. thank you. okay, fourth and final request for. if they are

not here, uh, project sponsor, you have a ten minute presentation. okay thank you. good afternoon. san francisco planning commissioners. i am dennis budd, the project sponsor and principal at gast architects. the project is located on an up sloping lot on the short upper segment of harper street, with terraced northeasterly views of downtown on this street. 72

harper is unique in that it is fully detached on all sides. the 1905 building plans for 72 harper illustrate a one and a half story cottage. the half story was common notation for gabled houses like 72 harper, whereby the steep sloped roof is directly framed to the top floor plate without side walls. the original elevation drawing illustrates queen anne style edwardian to have a second floor with a limited limited to a single center room at the front and back, with a pair of double hung windows. an additional third room exists under a roof dormer and no bathroom exists on this floor other than the excavation to add a garage. in 1971, this house has not undergone any renovations. when the owners my clients, tom and julie, purchased it in 2020, i started working with tom and julie in late 2022. it took them a couple of years of ownership and the cancellation of a prior

renovation permit to realize their intended long terme vision for the home design, running sensitive adaptations to existing homes in san francisco is our area of expertise. the project, as proposed, is a whole house renovation and including conversion of the garage level unoccupied space to an adu unit. we do propose to add square footage at all floors with a three story rear addition that aligns with the adjacent uphill neighbor. the method by which the top floor can be utilized for more than its original half story, is by elevating the roof to create new, habitable bedroom space where none currently exists. currently the specific dimension of the proposed vertical lift is not arbitrary. it's based rather on the design goal of maintaining at least seven feet six inches at the spring point or the low point of the rear. most bedrooms, as well as the bathing portions of two bathrooms on this floor. the

resultant height increase of seven feet three inches is well within the 35ft building height limit of this rh one district and set back 19ft three inches from the front facade, matching the location of the existing dormer and well exceeded a recommended guideline of 15ft. we are aware that designing an addition to an old home should be both compatible, yet distinctly different from the original. for example, all for the rear facade. the eave trim and decorative pediment are compatible in scale and proportion, yet the ornamentation is eliminated and in keeping with the residential design guidelines, we provide texture and visual interest to the updated back of this house with a design and material selection firmly rooted in the properties of the original home concern. number one of the dr. requester's is related to the scale, the size, the height of the addition. it's not compatible with its surroundings . this is a concern to all for four of the dr. requester's, and

the concern is not at the low point along the building's exterior side walls, but rather at its attic enclosure and its peak ridgeline. and the new massing proposes a gable roof form that mimics the existing nine and 12 sloped roof. the roof form, chosen as a resultant of the following criteria one. the building is set back from the property line on both sides, presenting a roof form contiguous and visible from the right of way, particularly on the south side, where it is set back 5.5ft from the property line two a preference a design preference for a rear addition that's compatible with respect to the existing building three positive feedback from the planning department staff with regards to compatible residential design. and lastly, a resultant attic space needed for mechanical ducting and upper unit storage that has been displaced with the inclusion of a new adu on the first level, it is this combination of factors that a flat roof or other minimally sloped gable roof, as suggested by the dr. requesters,

was eliminated as frankly a poor design option for this property. the positive feedback we received was that the vertical addition both maintains the roof form of the subject property, and the adjacent houses and sculpts massing away from the neighboring properties concern. two of the dr. requests is related to the mid-block space. the proposed project is code compliant, and it doesn't require a variance or any special circumstances. the addition adds a modest 4.5ft of building depth to an existing 50 foot, three inch building within the buildable portion of the lot, as defined by required rear yard of 30% lot depth. a one story privacy trellis structure over deck on grade is proposed beyond the rear facade, four feet of which extends into the rear yard as a minor obstruction permitted under planning code section 136. the mid-block space is the cumulative open area formed by the aggregate rear yards within a city block, yet

the proposed addition at 72 harper does not enter the mid-block space and remains two feet four inches shy of the required rear yard. additionally the existing mid-block space bound by the street facing homes along harper no laidley and 30th is unique. the bounding streets are not parallel, thus creating an irregularly shaped narrowing of the open space and too much existing non-conforming structures on nearby properties already exist, including a dr. requesters lot himself. the existing disruptive pattern of the mid-block space is not further exaggerated by the code. by our code compliant development design within the confines of this lots buildable area, the concern three of the dr. requesters is related to an increased shadow and decreased light to adjacent buildings. as the sun's path changes during the day and seasons, any project has this potential to increase shadows and decrease daylight to open space, doors, windows, skylights on adjacent buildings.

our sun studies have shown that one property is impacted at 58 harper, located directly to the north. our sun studies show an increase in shading to that building's roof skylights. however, we did not find the increase to be exceptional or extra ordinary. the increase is both expected and ordinary. 72 harper and 58 harper benefit from a 3.5ft side yard separation, a setback that exceeds the standard recommendation in the guidelines to address shading impacts of new additions. massing. massing on adjacent buildings. excuse me . in november of last year, director hylis informed the california department of housing and community development that as part of ensuring san francisco's compliance with our current housing element, action eight 310 was now in effect for code compliant projects. the impacts of light and air are no longer going to be assessed in discretionary review applications because us compliance with the code itself is enough to ensure that the light and air impacts of a project are neither exceptional

nor extraordinary. we do not want we do want to emphasize that 58 harper is a property with ample access to light throughout the house currently, and our project does not change that concern. two of the dr. requesters excuse me. the last concern of the request is related to privacy. um, specific privacy concerns have been expressed by the rear adjacent neighbor located at 1783. no local, approximately 80ft uphill and separated by the distance of two adjacent rear yards. 1783 no. is a newly constructed 2018 modern house with floor to ceiling rear windows that offer sweeping city views due to the glassy and visually exposed interior of this home, privacy is a mutual concern of ours and a predominant factor in the following measures. we have taken in the design of 72 harper, one. the room layout places the main bedroom suite to the building's front to the rear facade, upper story rooms, including, include standard sized double hung windows with

interior privacy treatments and. three. a privacy trellis has been added to screen the main level family room, glass doors. even so, there is no absolute way to design a code compliant addition that meets all the building code requirements, creates enjoyable indoor space with connection to the exterior, and completely breaks the line of sight between the rear doors and windows. of these two homes. given the significant distance between the properties, we believe the privacy impacts of the project are typical for renovation projects. and yet are also made more challenging by the glassy design of 1783. no in summary, our proposed project is a typical and respectful update to a beautiful home in glen park . it is a project that is rooted in the traditions of the building and designed to serve the needs of its third owners, julie and tom. the lot of 72 harper is the largest on the block yet. our project, as

proposed, does not seek to maximize the total square footage or size permissible even without a cour, for us to have something to bargain away at a doctor. our project converts the basement and to highly livable and well apportioned adu that the family and the city need this is not a project that has extraordinary impacts. this is a design and a project that the city needs. and the owners and i are excited and proud to see it to come to fruition. an um, i thank you for your time and i'm available for any questions. thank you. with that, we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review case. you'll have two minutes. thank you. good afternoon. commissioners my name is isabel perdomo. strap and my name is jason thrupp. and we are raising our family at 78 harper street, which is three doors up from the proposed project at 72 harper. we support our

neighbors, the applicants who are our in, uh, who are affected because of the cascading effect that we are very concerned because of the cascading effect that this project might cause to also our own home, raising the height of this structure will directly impact lighting in a adjacent units, and could set off a need for our neighbors to renovate their homes and as eventually being directly affected as well. all of this for 16 a 16 foot ceiling and extra storage is not really worth it to affect another five families in the block. i would also like to add add. we invest in the community and our neighborhood. we also care about the esthetics of the area and the block. our family has already experienced a massive loss of light from the previous renovation. directly in the back of our house. we are also extremely concerned about the domino effect. this build may

ultimately have. thank you. thank you for your time. okay, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak each requester has a two minute rebuttal. try not to take too much of your time. i think i'll speak collectively for the doctor. requesters and also wanted to note the fourth doctor requesters, uh, was not feeling well. was an older man. had to had to leave. he was here earlier but wasn't able to stay just quickly. i want to reiterate that that the neighbors are accepting some impacts here. they're accepting a vertical addition. there

accepting a horizontal addition. they're giving the project sponsors their whole floor plan. every square inch of habitable space will stay with what the requesters are asking for, for all the requesters are asking for is for the vertical addition in the back to be a flat roof instead of a peaked roof, and again, the project sponsors said that this was a design choice is essentially to provide high ceilings for their bathtubs and again, the projects the doctor requesters are supportive of the project sponsor and their plans. all they're asking is for the peaked roof in the back to be redesigned and as a flat roof and the only thing that the project sponsors are going to lose is a 52 square foot storage space. thank you. i heard him

say he's speaking collectively for them, but if any of the other requesters want a rebuttal , seeing not projects. oh come on, for. sure wait, are you the project sponsor? i'm one of the owners. yes got it. here's your two minute rebuttal. sefcovic we have the overhead. please okay, great. thank you. i know, uh, 58 harper showed some scary graphs here, but i do want to point out a few things. the reality is that the impacts of this, uh, shading are approximately less than 10 to 40 minutes per day, based upon the window. and that doesn't even include the aspect that many of these areas are actually shaded by trees. and things like that. that's not included. um, if you actually, uh, impact us on a yearly basis, approximately, the reduction in shading is approximately one and a half or 2. um based upon really, what is the change in

this overall? so we might be asking, what is this all about? the reality is, is that these houses all actually enjoy really great views from their windows in their backyard. and what we can see is that i think what our neighbors are concerned about is that some of these changes are going to obscure some of their views. um, and with that, um, you know, with respect to the final comment of scale, um, you know, this is a daca request, your three house, um, which i think is what we really look on to our backyard. um, and sfgate article from when it was completed a few years ago. so the reality is that this is actually a fairly modest addition considering the context of the neighborhood. with that, i'll turn it over to my wife, julie. thank you. tom uh, dear commissioners, uh, dear president diamond. hi, my name is julie park, and this is my husband, tom mcdonald. it's a pleasure to meet you today. uh, tom and i moved to the bay area from the midwest for school 25 years ago. we fell in love with sf, the people, the culture, the diversity and the open spirit. we bought our home in 2020

during the depth of covid, at a time when many people left the city, we wanted to double down at the time, we lived in a small apartment at 29th and know every night we'd walk the hills of glen park to escape cabin fever. it was on one of those walks that we discovered. 72 harper was for sale. it was love at first sight. the high ceilings, the backyard, the charm in approaching this renovation, we were excited to work with gasp architects because of their reputation honoring the past while evolving for the present. these plans reflect our hopes for the future. this is your time. thank you. commissioners may have additional questions. commissioners with that, this matter is now before you. if i could, jonas, i wanted to clarify something. for the record. um, because numbers are hard and i garbled them. so i want to make sure we are completely on board with the area calculations. so the existing area of conditioned and unconditioned space of the house, existing is 31, 31 plus

323 for the garage, totaling 3454ft!s. that's existing. the proposed new would. be 3385, which represents a 69 square foot reduction. so i just want to make sure that was absolutely clear before we proceeded on. thank you. uh commissioner, i have spent time carefully listening to the all sides of this project. uh, i understand the documentation of causing shadow. i'm not quite sure about the extent of the shadow as being actually the kind of shadow we all experience in a built up city. no matter where we live. existing condition itself is obviously wonderful. if we do have nobody

next to us and have full sunlight, uh, it would be wonderful. but that is often not the case. looking at what's proposed here, it is a lovely building, and i personally believe that the, uh, we model the adding of the adu, uh, and the vertical and horizontal extension are creating actually an admirable, admirably well designed building. and i would, um, i would suggest that from my perspective, a building with a pitched roof, uh, really. supporting and extending the traditional expression of this building for me personally is far more important than really devaluing the building with a flat roof that is my personal opinion. however i sit here as a commissioner to really reflect on the building and what we're

doing with buildings. uh, the impact i believe, is not exception and extraordinary. as life is a live light is in motion. uh sun and shadow days are what we all experience in various forms. and i am, uh, inclined. to not take dr. and support the project as it is proposed. thank you. commissioner braun. i would second that. uh, i agree with those comments. um, i think that the project is in many ways modest relative to what could be allowed under our code. the gable roof is very much in keeping with the current configuration and design in the historic nature of the building. um, you know, the threshold for thinking about exceptional, extraordinary circumstances is very high. and i think about this project in the context of the many projects that we see come before us for doctors and

other actions and the overall impact in terms of shadow. uh the open space, uh, the, the privacy concerns, it's just not rising to a level that exceeds what is what is typical. um, and as has been pointed out, you know, the sun shines moving in across the course of the day. we all get disappointed to lose some light. i take some solace in the fact that the skylight is on the northern property. um, although they will receive less direct sunlight at portions of the day, will still have clear views of the sky above. um, i so i also support generally the spirit of not taking discretionary review on this one. however, um, one thing that was not raised during the presentation is that the project sponsor, as i understand it, has been willing to at least reduce the roof gable by six inches and offered to have obscure glazing in the rear window and if that is a, um, sort of modest but but on the table concession, then,

um, i. would be inclined to take that just in the spirit of sort of neighborliness. uh, but i'm curious, is that still in my understanding that that correctly that that was part of the, uh, willing adjustment that was described in the staff report? you'd have. i'm sorry. would you mind coming to the microphone? we're happy to do the glazing on both our windows as well as our neighbors windows. and to cover that cost. given that my husband is over six feet tall, we do want to maintain the height. otherwise we will have to stoop down. i know it's a bathtub, but it is something that we do shower in every day. okay, in that case, uh, i don't i'm not sure if we need to actually take discretionary review just for that. i would say try to, um, please do do the glazing or work with your neighbors on this. um, but otherwise i'm not in favor of taking dr. commissioner more. i think commissioner brown.

correctly interpreted it. that is a private agreement, and we are witnessing the private agreement in the intent of that. and that is all we can do. we acknowledge it, but we will not take dr. in order to make part of this of this approval, all. if there's nothing further commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take to approve the project as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i, commissioner imperial i commissioner. coppell i commissioner. moore, i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing today .

[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 >> for us, we wish we had our queue and we created spaces that are active. >> food and drinks. there is a lot for a lot of folks and community. for us, it started

back in 1966 and it was a diner and where our ancestors gathered to connect. i think coffee and food is the very fabric of our community as well as we take care of each other. to have a pop-up in the tenderloin gives it so much meaning. >> we are always creating impactful meaning of the lives of the people, and once we create a space and focus on the most marginalized, you really include a space for everyone. coffee is so cultural for many communities and we have coffee of maria inspired by my grandmother from mexico. i have many many memories of sharing

coffee with her late at night. so we carry that into everything we do. currently we are on a journey that is going to open up the first brick and mortar in san francisco specifically in the tenderloin. we want to stay true to our ancestors in the tenderloin. so we are getting ready for that and getting ready for celebrating our anniversary. >> it has been well supported and well talked about in our community. that's why we are pushing it so much because that's how we started. very active community members. they give back to the community. support trends and give back and give a safe space for all. >> we also want to let folks know that if they want to be in

a safe space, we have a pay it forward program that allows 20% to get some funds for someone in need can come and get a cup of coffee, pastry and feel welcomed in our community. to be among our community, you are always welcome here. you don't have to buy anything or get anything, just be here and express yourself and be your authentic self and we will always take care of you.

good morning. and welcome to the january 24th, 2024 regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. today's meeting is live cablecast on tv two and live streamed online at sec.gov. tv.org slash ethics live for public comment. members of the public may attend in person or may participate by phone or the webex platform, as explained in our agenda daca comment and mr. clerk, can you please explain how today's remote public comment will be handled? public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. for those attending in person, opportunities to speak during the public comment period will be made available here in room 400, city hall for those attending remotely, public comment can can also be provided