sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well. okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, september 19th, 2024. when we

reach the item you are 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 seconds 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 disruption or outbursts of any kind. also, i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and at this time i'd like to take roll commission chair more present. commissioner braun. here. commissioner campbell. here. commissioner. imperial. here. commissioner mcgarry. present. commissioner. so. here. and commissioner williams. here. thank you. commissioners first, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2024. hyphen 0064388135 kissling street. conditional use authorization is proposed for

continuance to october 10th, 2024. items two, a and b for case numbers 2023 hyphen 003652 coa and var 3901 noriega street. conditional use, authorization and variance are proposed for an indefinite continuance. i have no other items proposed to be continued, so we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on either of these items proposed for continuance. again, you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners commissioner brown, move to continue. item move to continue. items as proposed. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to continue. items as proposed. commissioner campbell. yes, commissioner mcgarry. yes. commissioner. so i. commissioner williams. i. commissioner braun. i. commissioner. imperial. i.

and commission chair. moore. i so moved. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator would say i will continue indefinitely. the variance item to be. thank you. commissioners that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing item three case number 2015. hyphen 000332 kua. hyphen zero two at 1531 through 1581 howard street. conditional use authorization. item four. case number 2016. hyphen 012474 coa. hyphen zero two at 118 through 134 kisling street. conditional use authorization item five, case number 2024

hyphen 002215 coa at 565 south van ness avenue. conditional use authorization and item six, case number 2024 hyphen 007906 gpa for the central soma area plan and transit center district sub area plan. initiation of general plan amendments. as it relates to item six, we've already received a request from commissioner imperial to have it removed, so we will take that up through the chair at the beginning of the regular calendar. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of the other items on the consent calendar be removed and heard today, or a later date. again, you need to come forward. seeing none. public comment on your consent calendar is closed and it is now before you. commissioners, with exception to item six. commissioner bell, move to

approve items number 3 to 5. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to approve items three, four and five on consent. commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner mcgarry. i, commissioner. so i. commissioner williams. i commissioner braun. i commissioner. imperial. i and commission chair. moore. i so moved. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. placing us under commission matters for item seven. the land acknowledgment commissioner williams will read the land acknowledgment today. thank you. the ramaytush ohlone acknowledgment. the commission acknowledges that we are on unceded and ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this

land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the typekit caretakers of this place, as well as for all the peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests. we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item eight election of officers, commissioners, i'm sure you'll have some deliberation, but for though there are several fairly new commissioners, the way the election works is the chair will

open the discussion and then, accept nominations. it's up to you how you want to do the nominations, and also, i'll leave that to you, but we accept nominations. the chair then closes it and we take up those nominations in the order received. if the commission so desires or has questions, we can talk about the procedural interpretation of our rules. if there is no, request for having that discussion, we should take public comment first. i assume either way, we can take public comment. we'll take public comment. very good members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, if you're in the chambers, you need to come forward. we're giving what i'm sorry, what are you suggesting? i'm sorry. what

are you suggesting? i'm asking you, do you want to give them three minutes? give them three minutes, please. that seems to be appropriate. you have three minutes. and please line up on the left side of the room. and please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bruce bowen. i'm from the dolores heights neighborhood, using what appears to be only the flimsiest tissue of a pretext. we're facing this unnecessary vote for president. the plain language of the commission's rules leads to the simple conclusion that in the absence or inability to act of the to act of the president, the vice president shall take the place and perform the duties of the president. vice president moore, who has been unanimously elected four times to be vice president, has been and should continue to be acting as president for the few remaining meetings this year until the regularly scheduled vote in january. i'll admit that i'm driven to this point of view

because of the glaringly obvious fact that vice president moore is so clearly the right, fully qualified person for the job of president. during her tenure, commissioner catherine moore has provided invaluable service to the planning commission and our city. she consistently has demonstrated extensive knowledge based on her decades of experience as an architect and planner and integrity, fairness, perspective and commitment to the planning department and the planning commission and the city and our fellow residents have benefited from her participation and passion. this commission has many new members. we continue to face challenges in our city with great respect. we should prefer that the commission be led for the time being by a president with many years solid years of experience rather than days, weeks or months. and i hope that president moore would use the position of president to set a strong course for the future. we all know the commission's role is being increasingly narrowed. if this vote goes ahead and the mayor's muscle flexing pays off, it will further undermine the

relevance of the commission. and one wonders about the importance of remaining on as a commissioner. thank you. next speaker, please. thank you. hi. my name is jan chong. i'm a long time resident of the west side of san francisco. i live in district seven. i'm also a member of the west side democratic club. i'm here to express support for commissioner lydia. so the planning commission is a tremendously important commission when it comes to the future of our city. i hope you guys agree with that, one of the reasons i'm here is because i want my kids to be able to afford to live here in ten, 20 years when they have a choice around that and the decisions that the commissioner on this board have such a big role in making that a possibility. commissioner. so is relatively new to the planning commission, but she brings many, many years of relevant experience from having worked and served on historic preservation, sfmta and the arts commission. she's also an architect that's personally worked on projects across the city. she has a track record of thoughtful, inclusive engagement and decision making. she gets

stuff done under a lot of heat and frankly, i think she's the kind of leader that good governance looks like for the city. i also want to note lydia is a leader in san francisco proper, but she's also a leader in the asian community here, and having someone like that in a leadership role in planning is huge, both in terms of what she represents, the perspectives and lived experience that she would bring and the engagement and language skills that she would bring to the job. thank you, thank you. next speaker, please. good morning, commissioners. my name is doug chan. in addition to concurring with the remarks of the preceding speaker, i'm here to express my strong support for your election of lydia sosa, next president of the san francisco planning commission. she brings literally years of experience in government, city commission experience, including on the arts, historic preservation and the sfmta board. she's been deeply engaged with communities and professional organizations.

i can speak from personal experience as a former four term president of the chinese historical society of america, lydia's advice on matters of historic preservation in the legacy chinatown, including our own building at 965 clay street, has been invaluable. with over 24 years experience in architecture and development in san francisco, lydia knows the market's challenges firsthand. she's passionate about transit oriented planning and housing, public safety and climate change. these are critical issues we need to address to make our city more livable. we need a forward thinking leader such as lydia, who listens, adapts, and continuously strives to improve the spaces in which we all live, not the least of which she, is her fluency in cantonese and mandarin, combined with her ability to read and write chinese, represents a powerful asset and representing nearly 34% of san francisco

residents. she's been a voice for the community and a connector between the city and all of its residents. so lydia's soul is the kind of leader who listens, learns, and leads with integrity and creates solutions. i urge you to elect her as the next president of the planning commission. thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is carol ito, just in terms of perspective of why i'm here today, to speak on behalf of your choices, i wasn't clear, since the nominations and the particulars of your choices haven't been yet discussed. but based on what the other speakers are referring to, i imagine you are trying to make a choice. who your leader will be, who the president of this commission will be. i have 21 years of service to this city as a

commissioner, president and the commission on status of women for nine years, over a period of nine years. and i served on the san francisco airport commission for 12 years. so i bring with me experience what the demands of serving this complex city is, and especially from some of the one of the smallest commissions to one of the second largest departments in this city, the airport. what i want to speak to is i've known lydia since she got involved with the art commission, and she moved on to historic preservation and mta, and now with planning, and i think i don't believe in if president more and lydia are the two competing candidates to chair, they bring different things to you as a body, and i can appreciate the new members. what it would mean to you, however, i think and this is i don't believe in dividing and conquering women i support. i've

been to many of your hearings in the past. i know commissioner moore has been very respectful to historic preservation and community input because i've worked with west westwood park historic preservation issues and japantown historic preservation issues. on the other hand, i've also worked with lydia. so on a very personal level, because i've known her over the period of time. while she has provided service as the expert on the art commission, as the architect and the historic preservation, and i think many of you already know, i don't need to say this. women today are still struggling to be recognized as professional architects. you look at the major firms, how many partners are women? and she had the early experience working with giddings, owens, moore on the first apple stores that were opened in north america and canada. so she made her mark early as a skilled, experienced architect. besides that, my experience with her in

japantown, she's been very open and willing to meet and bridge your work with the community, and i think her voice is really important on this commission, and i think she's ready to lead. and like i said, no disrespect to commissioner moore. i respect all the years of service. i know she's been here over 18 years. i think fresh new ideas we so-called oldies believe in today, and i wish you all the best in your selection. thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. joseph smook, with the race and equity in all planning coalition, we call it rep on behalf of reps. more than 40 community based organizations representing nearly every vulnerable and marginalized community across the city. it's

imperative that we remind you that one of the most consequential and complex matters facing this commission and facing the city will be back on your agenda starting in november. president moore is the only person on this commission with the experience and extensive knowledge of the issues to skillfully guide the commission and the department through the process of considering and evaluating the zonings and related aspects of housing element implementation. we support today's election. if the intent is to select a vice president to support president moore. if however, the intent is to replace president moore with a new president who will see that as an attempt to politicize the issues and as an attack on our communities and as an attack on the city. thank you. next speaker, please. good morning,

commissioners. my name is catherine petrin. i'm not speaking just on my own, but on behalf of san franciscans who really care about process and governance and integrity at city hall. and my thoughts that i'd like to share with you are not specific to any particular commissioner. i know you all have a very difficult and challenging job, but rather i'm speaking on behalf of a number of people who care about effective governance in san francisco. so my comments are in a city as complex and diverse as san francisco. effective governance relies on the expertise and judgment of those tasked with critical decision making. your role in guiding the future of our city requires a deep understanding of planning principles and appreciation of the long term needs of the community, and steadfast commitment to making decisions

that transcend politics. at this pivotal time. it is crucial to underscore that good governance is rooted in professionalism and expertise. san francisco's planning landscape demands leadership that is both knowledgeable and forward thinking. appointments to leadership positions should reflect these values, prioritizing competence and dedication over political allegiances. when the balance tips towards loyalty over expertise, the consequences can ripple through our entire city, hindering progress and undermining trust in the system. it is our collective responsibility, our collective responsibility to ensure that every decision made is grounded in what is best for the city and not in political expediency. the planning commission must continue to uphold its reputation as a body that values

professionalism, integrity and a thorough understanding of the intricate, intricate, intricate challenges our city faces. this is the foundation of public trust, and the key to shaping a future that benefits all san franciscans. thank you. thank you. are there any other speakers here in the chambers? please come forward seeing none will go to our reasonable accommodation. requester this is sue hester, last week when you had this discussion opened on commissioner matters, commissioner moore asked that there be a presentation and scheduling of the rules because there are so many new planning commissioners. i am asking you, and i've sent a email to the commissioners individually that you calendar the defer this

issue, take it off the calendar today. do not vote on electing the president or vice president. basically have the presentation next week on the rules that govern this commission, including election of officers, because you jumped right ahead to electing officers without a presentation of the rules. you are not grounded in them. that's what you should be. you should see what you say, what has been said over the past 20 years on your rules. and so the change in the presidency to the vice president is part of the rules. you should have a discussion of what are the rules right now and have that discussion first on the calendar. and if you want to elect officers right after that, you after you are granted it,

you can do it next week. this is going backwards. you should defer the issue of election of no one has been nominated. so having this has been a very weird presentation because the people mostly have assumed people are nominated. they're not. no one is nominated. no nomination was made or indicated for a commissioner. so last week or commissioner moore is the vice president and she is the acting president in the absence of commissioner diamond, who was originally a resident, please defer the issue to next weekend's calendar for an open hearing. a discussion of the rules. i think that would be indicated as a light in incredible topic, timely topic right now. thank you very much.

okay, last call for public comment on this item. seeing none. public comment is closed and this matter is now before you, commissioners commissioner mcgarry. good morning. i would like to nominate lydia. so for president. she has extensive experience on city commissions, having previously served on the arts commission commission, the historic preservation commission commission and the sfmta board of directors. lydia has many strong ties with the broader community, including the asian american pacific islander community in particular. lydia is a life aligned with my vision for the city that grows, but retains its special character. i recognize and appreciate vice president moore's experience and her amazing perspective. i look forward to continuing to work with her as vice president. thank you, commissioner mcgarry.

excuse me, but those members of the public who are holding conversations, if you could do so outside of these chambers while these proceedings are occurring. sir, if you need to have a conversation, you could take it outside. please apologies, commissioners. commissioner williams, please. thank you, i'm having a real problem with the legitimacy of these elections right here. i read the planning codes, rules and regulations that govern this commission. and, i'd like to read just a portion of what is obviously states that. and i'll just read it that the elections are to be held in january of each year, and so i'm wondering how how did we get here? how is it that we are having elections now, when in the rules and

regulations, they state that we're supposed to have these elections in january of each year, and so i'm i'm very confused as a new commissioner on how this, commissioner brown made a motion and all of a sudden we're having an election. is this is this so you know what? what's what's the deal? what? does this have any precedent, what the rules are on the rules and regulations address the annual term. so every year we do elect new officers in january, however, currently we have a vacancy within the officers of former commission president sue diamond has stepped down. and so we have a vacancy, and we need to fill that vacancy, as far as if this has ever occurred in the past, i mean, in 2022, then former

commission president tanner's appointment lapsed. and so, commissioner moore happened to be vice president at that time as well, when commissioner tanner was reinstated, commissioner moore at the september 29th, 2022 hearing, directed me to place election of officers on the next agenda. and when i asked if there was any opposition or if there was consent, no one, no other commissioner voiced opposition. and through consent, i placed it on the october six, 2022 hearing for the election of officers and at that time, commissioner tanner was reelected president. that was the most recent example of where it was sort of not in january, where we held an election of officers. secretary

iron, and i do respect your perspective and recollection of this. i think it is really important to tell commissioners who were not there what happened. first, i think i'd like to clarify the choice of words, the position of vice president is open. that is just the interpretation of the rules that they read. the second thing is, commissioner tanner made a professional move by which he stepped off the commission, but she had 60 days to return. and there is something called acknowledgment of experience and acknowledgment and respect for somebody who had done a really good job, which she did. and i did not see any reason other than following secretary syonan suggestion that we just need to get her back in. and that was the reason to properly ask for a reelection of commissioner tanner, who had proven herself

24 over seven to be a good president for this commission. so it is a slightly different case that is not a precedent of what is happening here today. i am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of today. i just like to explain to commissioner williams the actual facts of what happened at that particular time. thank you for letting me chime in. thank you, commissioner moore. so i again, it feels to me like this is a forced election, i don't feel like, you know, gave enough time for the public to chime in. and, honestly, it was it was kind of it was surprising and it just it it feels like, it's not right. it feels like it goes against. i don't see anywhere in the rules. and regulations that says that we can have an election, just by having one of our commissioners put a motion forward, and so, and it says in the rules and

i'll, and i'll, you know, anyone could look this up. we have elections of officers in january. now from how i see it, commissioner moore, after sue diamond, our former commissione, left, she did not want to seek reappointment. she left because she wanted to be with her family and good for her vice president moore stepped in. that's why we have our vice president. so she's an acting vice president. we have 2 or 3 months until our elections. what is the rush and why now is my question why why the commissioners decided to do that is outside of my purview, i'm just going to speak to the procedures. you do have rules and regulations, but the commission also has the right to make a motion to add anything on

the agenda, not just election of officers. other things, topics to be discussed. and if there is a motion that is seconded and a majority of the commissioners, at least four of you, vote affirmatively, then that directs me to put that on the agenda. and similarly, even if your rules say, say something, you as a commission have the right to override them. and i think i'll let the city attorney chime in on that. but my understanding procedurally is that the rules state something, but the wisdom of the commission, and you get four affirmative votes to override them. you can do that, too. yeah, i'd like to i'd like to hear from the city attorney. what's your what's your take on this, sir? so deputy city attorney austin yang, the rules and regulations are adopted by the commission, and they're a document that the commission

puts forward to govern the conduct of the hearings. so the secretary is correct that, i'll also add that it's the responsibility of the commission to interpret the rules. they're a tool. they're a document for this commission. so the rules say that, the vice president acts as the president when the current president is unable to attend, the rules also say that elections are held every january after january 15th, but that doesn't prevent this commission from putting on the matter. that's set for today about the election of officers. it's not unusual for a commission to hold such an election where you're down one officer and you don't have the full complement of officers. so, you know, it's not out of the ordinary for a commission to hold an election and reassemble itself so that it

can govern with a president and a vice president. so one more. well okay. the other thing is, you know, has the public had enough time to weigh in because this, this commission, it it and that would be my next question. it's like, okay, so, commissioner braun made the motion to have an election. it feels like it's a special election or whatever you want to call it. but did we give enough time for the public notice and so that they can weigh in? because you know, this is obviously a big, big deal for this commission. there's a lot of responsibility, that we hold and in the, in the public trust. and so everything that we do here should be, you know, talked we should give the, the public a right and time to, to respond to

whatever it is that we're doing here. so did did we have enough time is what i'm getting at. did we have the proper public, notice and time for this? the noticing was entirely proper. if you feel it's insufficient, that's. i guess, your opinion, but that's fairly subjective. there's no there's nothing in the rules and regulations or in robert's rules of order saying that the public needs to be provided a certain amount of time prior to holding elections, with all due respect to members of the public, they don't get to vote. okay commissioner brown. so, as was just mentioned, the motion, the motion last week to hold this election was my motion. and i also wanted to have this discussion about the

rules. i'm glad we are now engaging in this discussion about the rules and what they say, as far as holding the election itself, i already shared last week, so i'll keep it brief. you know, to me, the way i see this and reading the rules and having spoken with the city attorney's office, you know, for me, those elected as officers, the commission hold those positions for one year or until their successors are elected, the person elected president, sue diamond, departed this commission, the vice president is currently taking the place of and performing the duties of the president. absolutely but i think it's appropriate, given the departure of the president just two thirds of the way through their their tenure, i think it's appropriate for the commission to exercise its discretion here to hold an open vote for the officers, now, there is already, commissioner mcgarry already made a motion to nominate commissioner. so for the presidency, i so obviously,

i think it's no secret commissioner, so expressed some interest in the position i've and has approached me to discuss this. and i know that commissioner sosa does not have a lot of experience on this commission, which was definitely a matter of concern for me initially. so i'm glad we had some discussions because i've gotten to know commissioner so better discussed her perspectives and her experience, i really value her years of experience and a diversity of commissions. it's been pointed out arts commission, historic preservation, sfmta board planning, and i'm finding that it is a fresh perspective. and when we talk our conversations have veered into these more holistic connections between all those different experiences, you know, transportation, land use, sustainability. to me, these are all tightly interwoven things. and with this sort of cross-section of these commissions brought by commissioners. so i'm finding that there are very there's a lot of connections being made. so i do support commissioners.

so in the election i'm also pleased that we will continue to have a slate of experienced planning commissioners, several of us with more time in this commission than commissioners. so and, you know, we will continue to fully participate in our deliberations, and we will be able to make motions which the president cannot do, and i will also say, depending on how this vote goes, i if commissioner moore is not voted as president, i you have my absolute support for vice president. i was happy to make that vote in january. i'm happy to make that vote again. i don't see why that would change, if commissioner moore is not president. thank you. thank you, commissioner imperial. thank yo. and appreciate the also. comments of other commissioners and also the comment to share what my interpretations of the rules and regulations, since we

are the commissioners that we will interpret the rules and regulations, the, the role of the secretary is to implement as based on what we have moved or what we motioned the second, and also what we all all deliberate here, so in terms of the i do believe that in terms of the rules and regulations, there as from the last week's conversation, there is that acknowledgment of vagueness in terms of the officers and appointments. however, it is very clear that there is a set date for election. and that is something that we're, you know, that i am interpreting as well in terms of the set election date, in terms of the you know, the role of the vice president in the absence of the, in the absence of the president. it's also clear on what the rules and regulations on what the vice president would do at at this

time, and there are more in rules and regulations that are actually pretty vague that i think leaves us the position like this when a term position is, when a position is, let's say, termed out, and usually it happens in the middle of the year. and so the rules and regulation doesn't address that when it comes to the appointment, when terms are, when appointments are termed ou, so those are the things that i think there are many issues in the rules and regulations that leads us in the commission to be in a debacle like this. and the vagueness of the interpretation leads us to do whatever we want to do without guiding the commission on what proper should be doing in terms of integrity and public trust. so, from how i'm interpreting the rules and regulations, if there is an election today, it should be for

a vice president position. since the vice president is acting as a president, we have a current president who is, acting president. moore. and so the position that is open right now is the vice president. and there needs to be a support in that in terms that the president is you know, maybe, you know, got sick or unable to do the facilitation of the hearing, but that's how i see that the voting should be is based on the vice president. on the other hand, i also, you kno, there are, you know, in terms of what the qualifications of officers those are things that are also not entailed in our rules. and regulations, if i actually agree with, with one of the public speakers in terms of the rules and regulations that i think we should really look into, and i think that the public should also try to

consider or start thinking of how the rules and regulations, especially on the elections of officers, since planning commission is one of the most complex, commission in the city, you know, i'm just planting seeds to people and, you know, see how they think of how the planning commission should look like. planning commission is a is a public entity that is in a way, we are in a democratic process and should be, you know, also be taken into consideration the public comments as well, so for me, you know, i also find it unfair that for the last how many years, vice president moore or president moore at this time, it has not been nominated or never been considered as a president with her tenure of 18 years, she has served the public thoroughly. she has a lot of expertise and express her expertise and beyond her experience also has taken out of the politics, out of things as

well. so there are also these kind of things that are not played out in the rules regulation, and perhaps it's all based on the interpretation of the commissioners as well. but we should all consider that. and i also you know, you know, i'm going to be frank, taking out of politics out of this election as well. there should be also, a tenure where there is a mayor appointee, president and a board of supervisor appointee as a president, as well, throughout the years, it has been based on, on cordiality. but i think at this point, it's becoming apparent of in terms of distribution of leadership. and, you know, and i'm and that's something that i think we should all consider as well in terms of leadership position here in the planning commission. i if we're going to take things in a more objective perspective, i think

there needs to be a term limit, not term limits, but there needs to have intertwining in terms of the mayor appointee and the board of supervisors appointee as a as a president, that's where i stand right now. and, you know, in terms of, you know, again, i also respect one of the comment that we don't want to divide women at the same time, and i you know, i also don't want to put two women in position to be divided, but you know, by also recognize the kind of work that has been tenured here in the planning commission and it's a very complex i don't want to undermine what commissioner moore has been contributed in this commission for the last 18 years. so that's where i stand. if i may, commissioner imperial, to your point, the rules and regulations of the planning commission were first amended in 1957. they were last amended in, excuse me, 2021. so maybe now is a good

time to revisit your rules, to maybe remove any ambiguity that you see exist in them. yeah that's also what i also would like to propose in the commission as well. but i think you know, there are new commissioners at the same time to that perhaps need to be well versed on the rules of regulation, including me. i'm not saying that i'm well versed, but i think we really need to take in consideration of what officers and elections should look like. thank you, commissioner williams. thank yo, president moore, just just to be clear, you know, for me, it's not about, commissioner so or commissioner, you know, any of the commissioners on here to for me, it's about the process. i feel that, you know, it it states in the rules and regulations that there is supposed to be an election on

january or in the weeks of january. now we're having a special election. it feels like it's a forced election. and i don't feel that that's fair. and so i'm going to just, you know, leave it there, but it's not about being against anybody. it's the process. and i think, unfortunately, if this plays out the way i think it's going to, you know, it diminishes this commission because, again, the rules and regulations say elections, which might happen now are in january. thank you. commissioner kimble. thank you. and thank you to everyone that spoke on behalf of the candidates here for this election. i i'll start with saying i support the election. i think obviously this comes down to an interpretation of our

rules and regulations. it feels to me like an election is inevitable. so it's either going to happen today or it's going to happen in january. so i think it's a great opportunity to talk about the candidates, that we've been put forward today as names. i think the public and the commission should be comforted by the fact that we have two incredible candidates that have been put forward, president moore, with your years of experience, clearly a wealth of knowledge that you're bringing 18 years on this commission is very commendable. and i think everyone here thanks you for the service that will continue going forward, commissioner. so i have had a chance to talk with i think has some really great ideas for where she'd like to take the commission. what i really appreciate about commissioner so is the breadth that she covers in terms of her experience. she has served, as you've heard, as on many commissions. she's been on the

sfmta board. she also is a voice and representative for the aapi community. and i'll just remind everyone, this is over a third of the population of our city, and i think it's really important that this commission reflects the people that we represent as commissioners. again, i think it's we're so fortunate to have two wonderful candidates and options to choose from, and i personally take comfort and i hope others do that. commissioner moore will continue to be a voice on this commission. i know we have a lot of things to discuss in november that will deeply impact the city in terms of upzoning, and her voice continues to be incredibly important for that, but again, i, i do also support commissioner. so thank you. last and not least, let me add my voice, this is not the time for me to make political statements

or state my position that i want to run for president, by succession of the way i understand the rules. i'm doing what i'm doing. and as a chair of the planning commission, my role has always been to ensure fair, transparent, informed and inclusive decision making processes for the benefit of the city and the residents. so i'm saying what i recognize that the political climate can, can become contentious, especially especially with the mayoral election on the horizon. my focus remains squarely on doing the job that i was appointed to do and have done for an extended number of years, and that is serving the public interest without bias or favor. and i will continue to do so irrespective of the outcome of today's elections. thank you. commissioners, i've only heard one nomination, thus far as the

presiding officer, commission commissioner moore. you should close the nominations unless there are a commissioner imperial's name, perhaps commissioner imperial has additional comments. i'd like to nominate, president moore as president. very good. are there any other nominations? if you would be so kind as to close the nominations, i'm not sure. there was a second to this particular in these, elections of officers. there is no second required. okay, then the nomination process is closed. okay. as commissioner mcgarry made the first nomination for commissioner. so as president will take up that matter first on the nomination of commissioner. so as president, commissioner campbell. commissioner williams, just ask

for additional comment. i i apologize, but i'm just a little confused. can you just run us by what what's what's going what's happening right now? sure. let me read the rules. yeah. so under article two of officers and appointments, section two, the election, the presiding officer takes public comment on the agenda item. then the presiding officer requests nominations for the office from the members of the body. no second is required under robert's rules of order. when no additional nominations are offered, the presiding officer closes the nomination. the commission then votes on the nomination in the order they were received. the first candidate to receive a majority of the votes is elected to the office. thank you. okay okay. if there are no further questions, call the question, on the

nomination of commissioner soto as president, commissioner campbell, i, commissioner mcgarry i commissioner. so i commissioner williams. nay, commissioner. braun i commissioner. imperial nay and commissioner moore. no. that motion passes 4 to 3. so it's up to you if you want to hold another election on the vice presidential seat. but as far as my understanding, through the city attorney's interpretation, that seat is still filled. so that still is filled. filled. you're saying it is still filled? yes. okay i'll take the seat. it's up to you how you want to interpret that. vacate my seat for commissioner. so to take or take a quick five minute recess and then we can shuffle this. that's a good way of moving. i'm sorry. thank you. when we called this question last week, when we added this to

the agenda, it was explicitly stated that it was an election for both officer positions. so that's right. we're totally sure that, we don't need to hold the office again. it's your interpretation, the city attorney advised that, his interpretation of the rules is that the vacancy was with the president's. if you wish to make it clean, you could have another nomination and vote for vice president. and then there won't be any question whatsoever. commissioner brown, if you would like to call a vote for vice president, please do so. i would like to call a vote for vice president. and i would like to nominate commissioner moore to continue in her role as vice president. is there any other nomination? i see mr. mcgarry as a name up. did you have a comment on that? yes. well, while a second is not required, i would like to give a second for commissioner moore as vice

president. very good. if there are no nominations, if you would mind closing the nominations, i will close the nomination process. and please call the. thank you. on that motion. then to nominate commissioner moore as vice president. commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry high commissioner. so high commissioner williams, high commissioner. brown. high commissioner. imperial high and commissioner moore high. so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. sfgov. we're going to take a you definitely. know what? okay. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, september

19th, 2024. commissioners, we left off under commission matters on item nine, commission comments and questions. if there are no requests to speak from members of the commission. yeah comments and questions. general plan central soma. right. okay i'm sorry, i'm just coming back. no, that's coming off calendar. we're on commission comments and general commission comments. yeah. okay okay. last call. seeing none, we can move on to department matters. item ten director's announcements. yeah just give me one. congratulations, commissioner. so i just let the commission know, how we work with officers to. because some some of you may not know is every two weeks, generally we'll have an officer's meeting, that i think

have been successful in, in productive in those will continue but it's with the both the president and vice president. so, we look forward to, to continuing those to talk about what's on the agenda and how we tackle some of the major issues we have. so looking forward to continuing that with vice president moore and with the president. so. commissioner moore, just to support director hill, said the officers meetings are indeed attended by both the vice president and the president. and in the end, it doesn't really matter. it is not about position, it is about participating. so i see the support that both officers have given in the past will continue to be equally effective. and i do appreciate director hill's explanation to that. so we will charge forward and do what we all need to do. thank you. okay.

we've got a request to speak from the reasonable accommodations requester. miss hester. no. okay then we can move on. commissioners to item 11, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission, good afternoon, commissioners. aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. it's been a while since i've been here, but the board is back in session, and they are doing work again, so this week at the land use committee hearing, they considered supervisor mandelman's ordinance that would expand the central neighborhoods large home, sued and delete the corona heights sued, the area of which would be added to the central neighborhoods sued commissioners. you heard this item on august 1st right before your break. and recommended approval with modifications. the

modifications included first do not include accessory garage space and calculating gross floor area. this was originally included to encourage people to use existing garage space to expand their homes. however, it has been used by some applicants as a loophole to obtain more space, and two specify that the proposed the purpose of calculating the units gross square footage in multi-unit buildings. shared spaces shall not be included, and this is because the ordinance expanded from rh to also nc and rm districts. during the hearing, supervisor mandelman asked the committee to add the two recommended planning commission amendments, which the committee did. there was only one public commenter, georgia, who's not here today. unusual, and no significant comments or questions from the committee members. supervisor mandelman then proposed continuing the item to the call of the chair, so that this ordinance could be paired with an upzoning. while he did not believe this was a down zoning, he proposed the continuance out of caution. so

as a result, it's not clear when this ordinance will go into effect, but it certainly won't be until at least 2025, and then there was nothing at the full board, so that's all i have for you today. commissioner star, i don't have a report from the board of appeals. i don't know if the zoning administrator is here, but the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. and among other item, considered several legacy business registry applications and adopted recommendations of approval for all of them. the first being fabrics on clement street, treasure island museum on treasure island. the ten ichi japanese restaurant and sushi bar on fillmore street, the new india bazaar on polk street, and sabella and la tour on taylor street. with that, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this

time, members of the public may address the commission. commissioner moore, one. if mr. star could quickly answer that in the case that a piece of legislation gets basically continued to be potentially adjusted, which legislation is in effect in the interim are the whatsoever in the code currently. so the constraints reduction ordinance added a sunset provision for the central neighborhoods. and the corona heights sued to get rid of the queue and placed at 3000 square foot cap in those districts. so that's going to happen on january 1st, but the expansion of it will won't happen until, upzoning comes along. okay. thank you. just for explaining that point. appreciate it. okay. if there's nothing further, 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. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing none will go to a reasonable accommodation requester, this is sue hester. i would ask that the commission put on the agenda a discussion of the rules and regulations for that, not the next meeting, because i think the rules should be sent. pardon me. please send out with the agenda for next week the rules and regulations link. so the general public can access the rules easily. that's the first request. secondly please, there is a cancellation meeting on the third. please put on the notice of the

cancellation. all the amendments that the planning department, including the planning commission and secretary, propose for the, meeting on the rules committee, and those should be given to the public as well with the cancellation notice. secondarily, the notice that goes out this week. pardon me for next week's meeting, should tell the public that there will be meeting at the next meeting of the planning commission. since the third is cast, that will be on the 10th, and solicit their comments in writing for amendments. so basically send the rules out friday when you give the rules agenda for the next week and the cancellation meeting, give the

planning commission secretary because he said there were commission rules that he wants to amend and other amendments that have already come in to the department for amendments and link to them on the third and set a hearing on the rules. adoption, consideration of presentation on the rules and consideration of changes to the rules for the second next meeting, which was october 10th. i would also ask you to put on the agenda very soon in october. the proposed agenda for 2025. this agenda, the dates that you're meeting in 2024, were set last year at the end of the year, and they should be set basically as soon as possible. sometime after and the end of

october. thank you. okay. last call for general public comment. seeing none general public comment is closed. and just for the record, i have no proposed amendments to your rules and regulations. i think that's a discussion you need to have and then direct me to make those amendments, commissioners that will place us on your regular calendar and item six for case number 2024, hyphen 007906 gpa for the central soma area plan and transit center district sub area plan. initiation of general plan amendments was pulled off of consent and shall be considered now. good afternoon, commissioners. aaron, star manager of legislative affairs, filling in for audrey maloney, the item before you is an initiation resolution for an ordinance that would amend the general plan. it would do this by removing the commercial development requirement in the central soma and transit center district. two separate policies in the central soma area plan and the transit center district

sub area plan require non residential uses on certain sites. policy 3.1.1 of the central soma area plan requires large parcels to contain at least 50% nonresidential land uses. policy 1.3 of the transit center district sub area plan directs development to reserve the bulk of remaining space in the district's core for job growth by limiting the number of non commercial uses on major opportunity sites. the proposed ordinance would amend these provisions by encouraging, but not requiring nonresidential uses within their respective plan areas. the proposed general plan amendment is being put forward in anticipation of an ordinance sponsored by my by mayor breed. this ordinance would amend the planning code to reduce commercial development requirements in the central soma. special use district. it would also amend the zoning map to remove the transit center, commercial transit center. commercial special use district. this ordinance is part of the mayor's larger downtown recovery effort. its central goal is to increase flexibility in the types of development that are

allowed in the downtown, making way for residential projects that would assist the city in meeting its rhna goals. the general plan amendment and the proposed ordinance adoption are both set for october 17th. at this commission, the department is recommending that the commission adopt the resolution to initiate these amendments. this will allow us to notice the item and bring it forward to you for consideration and action. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. thank you, mr. star. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner imperial. thank you. i asked to take it out out of the consent because i do have some questions in terms of the initiation process so that the public can also understand, i'm from my understanding is that this is

just the initiation to consider for adoption. and my question i, from now to on or october, on or after october 9th, as being proposed for adoption, what what is being what is going to happen? and also how is, how is the public can also participate or what kind of community engagement is going to happen between now and on or after october 9th, well, we'll be preparing the case report, adding an advertisement to the, the newspaper and our website to let the public know about it that way. we've also, started initial outreach to selma filipinas to have a meeting with them to discuss the item. my understanding is that we're still figuring out a date. everyone's schedule is very busy. and at the. then there will be a public hearing where you will be able to discuss it, and the public will be able to

come and comment on the ordinance to provide feedback. so i so i think for, for me, and the reason why i take it off consent is because central soma plan, it was a very extensive process when it when it was adopted or during the process of itself. and i would recommend and you know, suggest to continue the to reach out to the community stakeholders that were part of the original central soma plan as well. and, you know, and i think for me is, you know, as it's going to come on or after october 9th in the planning commission, i'd like to hear in terms of what the community think of the amendment should be in the central soma plan. and also, you know, in terms of like, what do we in terms of the reduction of commercial development and what's being proposed instead of other uses, and also, i'd like

to see as well as how it's going to affect the impact fees that were supposedly as part of the central soma plan. so that's why it's good to have this kind of conversation with the community as well, because those are critical issues during the time of the central soma plan process. so that's my comment, and i am, you know, i'm supporting for the initiation. it's the process itself that i'd like to make sure that the planning staff also be able to do. thank you. commissioner williams. thank you to planning staff, rich, because this is such a complex, you know, area of town and a lot of things happening there, i'm wondering if we can have, if, if planning and we're for new, newer commissioners, can planning, you

know, have some briefings or some, some background, on the soma, and transit district. soma in the central soma and the, the transit central district commercial development. sure we can we can send you information on the plan as it was adopted and give you background information. i mean, i, i caution a lot has changed since, you know, there's not been a lot of time that's passed necessarily since the central soma plan was adopted. but you know, in the amendments fairly targeted to large parcels. it mainly affects key sites that i think we all expected there to be office development. there was huge demand to build new office on those sites. clearly that's you know, we're in a different world now as far as, you know, the expectation that we will see office development happen on that site any time soon. we've got 30,000,000ft!s of vacant

office space in the city that we're looking at ways to convert that to housing. so what we wanted to remove here, what the mayor wanted to remove here, was a barrier that basically says if you wanted to build housing here, you can't unless you build two thirds of that, development to be office. and clearly there aren't there's not a huge demand to build office space. and i was on the commission when we took up central soma. there was a push, actually, to have more housing in the central soma plan. so this allows that to do that. i think it's relatively consistent with what we heard during the central soma plan, but we can send info and certainly talk about that history when this is before the commission. yeah, i think that would be helpful. especially, you know, given that commissioners are there's a lot there's a lot of history there. it'd be helpful just to know how all of this came about and so we can make a better judgment moving forward. and to be clear, there are no other parcels downtown in our office core where you're required to do a

certain amount of commercial. i mean, we kind of we've we've purposefully put flexibility in our zoning, especially in the downtown area, to allow for both housing and office. we were getting a lot more office because that was more economically viable. so we actually had done the opposite where we would require more housing to be built. so this is an unusual case, you know, that we wanted to limit this, this, this limitation that's on there. commissioner moore, i am in strong support and i'm actually delighted that we are having that discussion and that we are looking to put certain changes into motion. we had mentioned it before and commend the mayor for asking for that to move forward quickly. the devil is, as always, in the detail. obviously, both the central soma plan as well as the transit center district sub area plan were very, very thorough plans with a lot of physicality to it, emphasis on physicality and i hope that we will carefully

reexamine to full to provide credible, three dimensional implementation by which people can envision what these changes are. they're all correct in purpose and land use adjustments to repeat the word. the devil's in the detail is that is what i'm interested in, particularly as we are balancing the ever loud voice about affordable housing, which is difficult because this particular part of downtown was very much, set up for very high use, high tax, high value uses. so there's going to be a very careful balancing act. and i would second commissioner. imperials ask that perhaps those people who are directly affected by it are being briefed and asked about their own thoughts on this adjustment. i think that would be fair and help this commission greatly to move about it in a

rather rapid manner. october 17th, if that's the correct date, is literally around the corner. so i appreciate your attention to that. thank you. very welcome. and commissioner, more, we appreciate it. commissioner brown. yes, i do remember that process unfolding in the central soma plan. and i just want to echo, kind of second, all these comments about needing to fully engage the community that was involved in the initial creation of that plan and for us as commissioners to also have a thorough understanding of the plan itself, how it's changed and the implications of the shift towards housing. i'm appreciative of the shift towards the flexibility and potentially getting more housing there, but it does have implications for a lot of the impact fees and other benefits that were kind of contemplated in the central soma plan, so but we do need to initiate this. so i am moving to approve the initiation and consideration for adoption on or after october 9th, second, second. there's no

further deliberation. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate and schedule a hearing on or after october 9th, 2024. on that motion, commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams i commissioner brown i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner. moore i and commission president. so i so move commissioners motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us on item 12 for case number 2024. hyphen 006177 pca and map for the property at 758 and 772 pacific avenue for the new asia senior housing special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. good afternoon, commissioners veronica flores, planning department staff. again, the item before you is the new asia senior housing special use district or sd-758 and 772 pacific avenue. this was sponsored by supervisor peskin,

and unfortunately we do not have anyone from his office attending the hearing today. but as noted in the staff report, he does introduce to amend the title to rename the city to be 758 and 772 pacific avenue affordable senior housing and staff supports this anticipated amendment. so moving on to just a general overview of the ordinance. this new s u d would support the proposed 100% affordable senior housing project, which includes 175 units. the proposed ordinance would increase the height limit of the two parcels to 155ft, and this is inclusive of any additional height granted through state or local density bonus programs. so the maximum would be 155ft. here the project itself is seeking incentives, concessions and waivers for all

the other code requirements under the state density bonus and also through assembly bill 2011 or ab 2011. while height can be increased under those programs, the amount it can be increased, it is unlikely it would be able to reach this height of the proposed 155ft. so hence we have the proposed study in front of you today. while staff recognizes there are other potential paths to increase the height here without creating a new sud, the recommendation is you adopt a recommendation of approval today. the proposed ordinance supports several general plan policies seeking to create more permanently affordable housing, particularly for our seniors. it also provides a wider range of options for our low and very low income seniors, including those at the 15% ami or area median income levels. the proposed

project also includes restoring the previous banquet hall, which has been a community gathering space and tourist friendly destination for decades. i also want to highlight for you today that the developer has conducted a couple of years of community outreach for this project. they really want to better understand what the community wanted to see here, what types of units the community desired, and you've been forwarded about a dozen or so letters of support. and lastly, the department also notes the sponsor's efforts to provide temporary housing for the existing tenants during construction, and also that they will be rehousing them in the new development. this concludes the staff presentation. i am joined by a few colleagues from the department who are familiar with the project, as well as the project development team in case there are any questions. thank you. thank you. with that, we

should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. you have three minutes. good afternoon commissioners. my name is alan low of perkins county, land use counsel for new asia senior housing limited partnership commissioners. this is the most important project to chinatown in over 30 years. chinatown is the poorest neighborhood in the city and county of san francisco. up to one third of the residents live below the poverty line, and more than 60% of those residents are senior citizens. this project will provide the necessary housing and affordable housing for our most vulnerable population. this is not luxury housing, it is an opponent had suggested this is 174 units at

for individuals over 62, earning less than 40% ami this is an important project because it's going to be convenient for our seniors to access essential services for hospital and medical care, and to live the remaining years in dignity. but this is also going to feature a banquet hall, which is more than just a banquet hall. this is a place where traditions and culture is celebrated, where we have weddings and, baby parties and family association meetings and community gatherings. so in san francisco, we used to have five banquet halls in chinatown. we're now down to one. and this project is important to bring back and preserve those cultural places and traditions. as mentioned, we have 15 layers of

support from community organizations, including chinatown and north beach. there's been extensive outreach, and we urge the commission support of the 7.58772 pacific avenue special use district. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, i want to thank you for your time and attention today. as alan just said, this is a very critical project for chinatown and san francisco. i don't know if you know, but the city purchased this site seven years ago. oh, i actually didn't introduce myself, so sorry about that. my name is bohan. i actually work for chinatown cdc and we are actually working in partnership with mayor's office of housing and community development. so back to what i was trying to tell you. it's taken us seven years since the purchasing of the site to even get to today's meeting. so the

addition of 175 units, affordable units, i should say, are going to house our underserved seniors in the densest neighborhood west of new york city. this will be the first 100% affordable senior housing in chinatown in 20 years. since the international hotel. i'm not sure if you are all familiar with the i-hotel. 197 people were evicted in 1977, and it took three decades to build housing there. we have senior housing there and it was built in 2005. so this will be the first 100% affordable housing that we're building since then. and lastly, as alan mentioned, our banquet hall plays such a significant not just a cultural role, but it actually has an economic role as well. and political. so i want to thank you in advance for your support to help us realize this

project. thank you so much. all right. to hello, diego. mar chan sow, lin feng yun han cheng got while chichi. tonko san zhong ji fong peng youngman. you sing. high yat gao lin chu yat. temenggong okay. what did you guys get? you got one game. what uyghur uyghur. tommy chong chi peng. yuyun. coleman. moya tiktok guangzhou se ho. food fong. okay. we also, did you have lin cheng san? you got san diego fong homeland. tong got to

sing. tao lin chi i o fauci. how south fulton, zhangjiajie. okay hello, dolly. t.g.hartley hi to tang doi san ho ping pong ho. thank you. don't need to go to hong kong on my food. hey ho! hey, zamboanga to hong fong sangan. good evening. okay what is up? lin chong j&j. okay, okay. you can go home. okay don't forget janet yellen taichung. you go to my hotel. dew point. we saw you. how dying is dying. in south taguig. you got hong lin. you got hong kong,

taichung. katsuya yin. we are fabulous. okay the second one for ding dong. taichung dong zhongzheng south side. nautilus for you. my yin. pingtung. go san zhong ji fong d.o.j. okay. hi. i am here to provide translation. good afternoon commissioners. my name is zhao lin chang and i'm here today on behalf of peng yuan residents improvement association to ask for your support in approving the new asia senior housing project. pilot was established in 1967. in represents over 1000 public housing residents in chinatown. our mission is to drive positive changes through resident engagement to and to improve the living conditions for san francisco and penguin residents. as the president of pioneer and a long time resident

of peng peng yuan, i have consistently focused on community issues, particularly on the availability of affordable housing in chinatown. the majority of renters are seniors and how households live in single room occupancy units in. if the new asia housing project is approved, it will be the first affordable senior housing development in chinatown in 20 years. since i-hotel. for years, chinatown renters have been waiting in vain as many so-called affordable housing options in san francisco are totally not affordable for all of them. currently seniors live in shared space with multiple families, share kitchens and bathrooms. many have been waiting for ten or even 20 years without like without securing support in senior housing. this project will offer over 170

units for extremely low income senior households in chinatown. this will be life changing for many low income seniors in the additional following the pandemic. chinatown español banquet hall space has suffered greatly. only one left right now. this project will also provide a much needed banquet hall, which will serve a vital social, cultural, economic, and political functions for the chinatown community. considering all of this, we strongly urge the commissioners to approve the new asia senior housing project. thank you so much. thank. i hope, chang xu yang, welcome all to be a penguin. anyway, hi, we are lolita and cheng kawachi. tonko zhao chong kee hiong mok

ping pong peng yuyun. joy to meet you. so. penguin lin. we don't see tommy chong at all. penguin. coleman walking into a waffle. maker. sing. sorry for having all the hot and cutting. authority carpenter kang ho, you go san jose tong ko ko chong for isoprenoid i ho ho ho ho for hongbo doordash hunter biden jiha fufu tang toi. thank you all for the giveaway. san fancy ho food venmo josé yo yo todo

chong team to 110 to go. chairman tong to sing yi yin yang yo go. so low yan. geylang to choi san fong. chong kong yong to fong chong wei. sunken taman tomo bay on gyokusen ji. hongkong london, hong kong. viva sao vicente, taichung to go back to tan y chong josé hato pfizer vaccine, choi ji ho, chong so tai sao typekit in josé singha jingfang hong daca, choi young yip, hong kong wong chong chong, taichung city. yan hui chang viva voce ko six ko man for king kai wan, taichung. chong yiu

cheong choong kong sourcing hong kong food, wine. hong kong san chong chee, hong kong d.o.j. okay okay, okay. good afternoon commissioners. my name is xiao yi chang and today i'm here on behalf of peng yuan residents improvement association to ask for your support in approving the new asia senior housing project. i live in central peng yuan, the building directly across from new asia. as a board member of patria and a long term resident of central peng yuan, i have witnessed the rise and fall of chinatown over the decades. china is home to many immigrants families, and i want nothing more than to see it thrive. if

the new asia senior housing project is approved, it will be the first housing affordable housing, first affordable senior housing development in chinatown in 20 years. since i-hotel for years, many chinese tenants have been waiting, hoping for the chance to move into affordable housing. in chinatown. affordable rental housing in san francisco is totally not enough. it's not sufficient to get one. requires luck in lottery and a long enough life to wait for it. many seniors who lack language capacity and who without high income, are forced to live in sro units in chinatown, where they must share kitchens and bathrooms. they are all hoping for this project to. they are all waiting for this opportunity, which will provide over 170 units for low income seniors in chinatown. many low

income seniors will benefit from this. additionally, since the pandemic, banquet venues in chinatown have been hit hard, with only one restaurant in remaining in operation in chinatown right now, this project will also provide a much needed banquet hall, offering an important space for social, cultural, economic and political activities in chinatown. community for all these reasons, i strongly urge the commissioners to approve the new asia senior housing project. thank you so much. hi. good afternoon. i'm sharon ly, a former planning department staf, former housing developer, as well as former commissioner for the city. i'm here as a community member, a longtime chinatown community member here in advocacy of this very unique

and special project in front of us. you know, as you've heard from other speakers today, this is really a one of a kind project. not only are we here to enable the desperately needed, affordable senior housing that our community members have been waiting for, so that they can age in place in and with community, but rare yet it's our opportunity to actually rebuild a lost or temporarily lost banquet hall location at new asia that, during the pandemic, had to be converted into a grocery store. and so, you know, you've heard from others describing the types of events that occur inside banquet halls. but truly, there is a very deep, cultural significance to the types of activities others before me have equated banquet halls as the chinese community's version of church, and i really do believe that it is true. it is extremely rare that we have the chance of a development, a

nonprofit that is willing to actually absorb the cost of redeveloping such a community space, banquet halls are low margin business that really should be regarded as community investment. and this is why this is warranted, because of the unique nature of this project, i will also, also underscore the amount of thoughtful community outreach that has already occurred through this last several years, many of which i've also personally attended. and there's been an overwhelming amount of support through the community for this project. lastly, i'll just mention that, you know, this is really not just a housing project. this is your opportunity to help enable the city to foster building, community building culture and building place. and i hope you will unanimously approve it today. thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing

none, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners, can i say something first? okay. would you mind would you would you want to say something? yes. please. go ahead. okay. i, as a chinese immigrant, this project warms my heart. i have been involved with our chinese community in chinatown and also throughout the city. but i also think that having learning from our history of how where chinatown become, where it is this thing goes really deep. and, for the first time, we have the first 100% affordable housing for seniors in the recent two decades. it is paramount that we should have this actually longer before than today. i also echo with a lot of the public comments about

banquet hall as a culturally appropriate way to celebrate chinese culture. banquet hall is not just a restaurant, we actually celebrate moon festival. you know, and also have celebration of life in the in the form of banquet hall. so this is a very important piece of programing that i would like to share with my fellow commissioners to consider is render this place a very special, and the proximity of this location is couldn't be any better because it really allow us to have our senior aging with grace and dignity in a culturally appropriate environment. is walking distance from the chinese hospital, chinatown community health center, local dim sum and bakery, and the chinese herbal medicine clinics. so that's my comment. and i wanted to open my

floor to my fellow amazing commissioners. commissioner moore, thank you. president. so for making your personal observations totally spot on. and thank you for everybody in the community for the real life testimony of what's going on here. this is one of the most remarkable projects. and jumping to the punchline, i fully, fully support this project. but let me say that there is something amazing here, and i'm going to be addressing with, thank you. a large number of people not necessarily in the in the order of importance, but the city was visionary purchasing the site the department laid in more than ever in an extremely creative way. mr. star, to come up with a project, legislation and description that far exceeds anything i have seen in a long, long time. and i wish we had more projects that have the same leverage that you are creating to create a project that not

only meets 100% of the community's needs, needs as cultural aspirations, has full community buy in, but also hits on the spot of where we need housing most. i happen to live up the block three blocks up from this particular project, and i've looked at this for a long time. there were many years when actually the planning department had its fundraising and community support functions in that particular banquet hall. i attended a wedding in that particular banquet hall, and indeed, it is the expression of the heart of the community, and i regret that many of the other banquet halls have already disappeared. i've lived on that hill for many, many years, decades, and so i'm very familiar with the changes and the stresses that have even surrounded this particular banquet hall when, during covid, it had to just simply become a grocery store. the planning and the architectural efforts that have gone into this project are so incredibly profound. and i have actually spent time with

the architect as well as with the project manager, miss bohan, who sits in the audience who spoke earlier to look at the details. if you have the time, please watch this project more close up. but i do think supervisor peskin for creating this should i wish we could create suds everywhere to create the appropriate housing and the appropriate responses to community needs? and i am in full support and i thank everybody. there are many, many people for putting their right foot forward and making this happen. thank you, commissioner brown, first of all, i also want to add my thanks to everyone who's been so involved in making this project happen. it has been, as some commenters noted, a very long process. and so i'm grateful to everyone who stuck with this. it's a really exciting project, you know, today we have the special use district before us, but the project itself is very exciting,

the deep levels of affordability, the housing that's going to serve the senior community in chinatown, this is this is the reason to wake up in the morning. want to come to planning commission? a project like this, i just to get into the technical weeds for a moment, as i tend to do, you know, there was a recognition, the staff report that there are alternative pathways to achieve the height that is achieved through the study. but i view the study as sort of a guarantee that we make sure that this is possible, that this can move forward regardless of what happens with any outside legislative actions over time. i am also very excited to see the banquet hall being included in the project, last time i was at a wedding and banquet hall, it was in south san francisco, and so i'd much rather be doing that right here in the city. so i am moving to recommend approval of the study, including the potential amendment of the title. second. by commissioner

williams, you would like to comment just to say that to, this is this is a project that that definitely, you know, is close to me, i have, you know, relatives and family members that were a part of the original fight for the i-hotel. and so, you know, this this is very special. it's great that this is senior housing, we need more of these everywhere in san francisco. and so thank you for laying the groundwork for us to, you know, replicate, hopefully, if we can and just, you know, the chinese community is just so special here in san francisco, you know, my grandmother, we

grew up in the excelsior, but my grandmother went to chinatown every, every weekend. caught the bus there because she liked to go, be in chinatown, and so, just want to say, definitely. i support this, this effort. and so glad that in the end, we're going to be housing our seniors, again, we need to do this everywhere in san francisco. thank you. okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval, including the amendment to the title on that motion. commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams i commissioner braun i commissioner. imperial i commissioner moore, i and commissioner. president. so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 commissioners that will place us on item 13 for case number 2024

hyphen 005931 pca. for the 2024 code corrections ordinance. these are planning code and building code amendments. good afternoon, commissioners aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. as jonas said, the item before you is the 2024 code corrections ordinance. this ordinance amends the building and planning codes to correct typographical errors, update outdated cross-references, and make non-substantive revisions to clarify or simplify code language. it also makes other minor substantive updates to various code provisions as you are well aware, the planning code is amended a lot. although individual ordinances are reviewed by the planning department and the city attorney's office, the volume of legislation, legislative actions, and complexity of the code ensures that errors will arise. so about once a year we put together an ordinance that compiles all of our known errors and bring it to you before for you for consideration and action. the planning department is recommending approval with modifications. there's a list of

nine modifications, which include additional errors identified during the time this ordinance has been making its way through the legislative process. there is some simple reference fixes, others add missing information, and some add additional clarity to recently passed amendments. i'm happy to go over or explain any of those proposed amendments. if you have any questions you also have received an email from john kevlin asking for an additional amendment be added to this ordinance. the planning department has not vetted this amendment internally and therefore we are not prepared to provide a recommendation on it. thank you. thank you, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, you need to come forward. thank you. commissioners john kevin here with ruben jason rose on behalf of the project sponsor of the entitled self storage project at 2270 mackinnon just stepping back a couple of years. this project was approved by the planning commission in november of 2022. late in the process, supervisor supervisor walton had introduced legislation to remove

the industrial protection zone, which which would have made self storage and not permitted use at this site. at the time we engaged with his office, worked on a grandfathering provision that would allow this project to be approved with self storage, but that committed the ground floor half of the ground floor to a number of different kind of industrial focused uses at the time that grandfathering provision was written somewhat quickly, and you'll see there's a bit of a grab bag of uses there. and so what we're proposing to the commission today is to consider, amendments that would open these, the permitted uses on the ground floor in this grandfathering provision, a little bit more broadly, specifically to open it up to just pdr uses in general, so we obviously we don't have a fully written amendment yet. we're working with planning department staff. we're working with the supervisor's office, we're working with labor, who is

we've engaged in a we have a project labor agreement. so they're supportive of this project in particular, we want to make sure that there are no uses that are allowed that are of particular sensitivity. in particular, parcel delivery service and fleet charging, none of which is what is intended to do here. what a lot of these entitled projects project sponsors have been doing over the last year or two is really tinkering around the edges to help make those projects pencil. not many of them are penciling today, and there's a lot of small things we can do here and there. some on the zoning side, and i would put this in as one of the, the, the, the minor tinkering we could do to help get this project out of the ground, and this is not going to, you know, turn the needle into making this a project that pencils yet. but this is one of a number of things we can do to get this project off the ground, again, supported by labor as well as providing ground floor space to a community group, the brown bombers. so a lot of folks

want to see this happen, like i said, we're going to continue to work with all of the stakeholders as we move forward in this project. and process, and we appreciate the commission's consideration of these amendments. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner more having reviewed the and been part of the 2022 approval of mackinnon street, i support, the applicant to work further with staff if that's what you are leading to, mr. star, and move to approve with that particular aspect being worked on further, is that a correct interpretation on my part? we just haven't, we got it on tuesday and, you know, for in order for us to analyze, analyze it, we just need a little more

time for that. so if you would like to include it as a recommended recommendation modification, we can certainly work with the applicant on the language of it. all. i want to do is see that you work together. ultimately, it's your call. we are not here to help legislate or change the changes you're making. we're here to support them. you're taking the lead with ruben and junior and mr. kevin working together, and that is what i support. and with all due respect, i think it is your call on what goes in this ordinance, i would ask the city attorney to perhaps guide me here. i'm in support of the request to examine this particular missing aspect further, but i am not here to say that it will be approved. ultimately, it will be up to mr. star to cross the hurdles that need to be crossed. sure. deputy city attorney austin, i think what you're saying, commissioner moore, is that, you are amenable to the idea that's being brought

up by the individual, but you are not ready at this time to weigh in on the specifics of the language, but that you have confidence that should the department work with a sponsor and that land use committee, they would be able to work out some language that would be okay with this commission. you eloquently summarize what i would like to say. i appreciate that, and that is exactly the thought i'm trying to support you in making a motion to approve with modifications. great. thanks commissioner brow, i'm likely willing to second that, but before i do, i just want to make sure i am fully understanding and so, despite the good explanation, so i the motion is that we do recommend approval of the code corrections ordinance, which is great. i am on board with that, the matter

of the direction is sort of brought an open ended right as far as the working to examine possible expansion of the allowable uses in the ground floor of that, that project project for that project, and ultimately, we, i guess two of the project to the we're just giving latitude for that exploration essentially. yeah. that's correct. and if you want it to be more specific, you could say that you were concerned about or you're interested in investigating the proposed use in a more limited geography. and the appropriateness of that use and whether that's necessary. and desirable. that could be the direction that this commission could provide. but if you're not prepared to make that, recommendation at this point, i think that's i think the direction and what the motion could say is that the commission is amenable to the additional amendment. in any event, once it gets to the land use committee,

the committee will have to make those amendments themselves. so someone will have to sponsor those amendments and the committee will have to vote on them. but correct me if i'm wrong, city attorney, this would at least avoid them having to review it again in the future as an amendment. yes to the committee. right. so in other words, this has already been put forward. you've heard it, the land use committee, if they choose to add it or not to they don't have to kick it back here. it can move on in its process. commissioner brown, if i may ask, city attorney, wouldn't it be sufficient to add the address of the project in question, together with some reference to grandfathering clause? wouldn't that would the triggers for the discussion? i think some of this may be what mr. starr was suggesting could be worked out, and that had not been fully vetted. but there are options that you could have in the legislative process to limit the application, whether it's the date of a previously approved use or otherwise. so it's less use, right? yeah. i, i don't

want to be specific about the address, but especially given that the, the legislation that has been requested to be reviewed, the prior legislation, goes to great lengths in a way to not give a specific address, but instead identifies previously approved projects and gives some specifics about it. well, if i can, what i'm hearing from you is we'll include all the amendments that are in the staff report, hold off on this one. work on the language and then have the board of supervisors add it at their discretion. yes, yes okay. okay. if that is the motion, i do second it. oh, absolutely. yeah second. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval with staff modifications giving consideration to the pros proposed amendment from a member of the public on that motion. commissioner campbell, high

commissioner mcgarry. high commissioner williams, i. commissioner. braun i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner moore and commissioner president. so i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 commissioners that will place us on item 14 for case number 2022. hyphen 010007 coa for the property at 34. excuse me. 345 spear street and two harrison street. this is a conditional use authorization. good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado, planning staff, before you, as a request to rescind the childcare condition of approval from conditional use authorization number, motion number 10501 to remove the requirement for an on site childcare facility that was provided as part of a mixed use development located at 345 speer street. that office development was approved by the planning commission on november 14th, 1985. the project site is located at the east side of speer street, between harrison

street and folsom street, and is located within the rincon hill downtown residential mixed use zoning district. the project site is developed with a 17 story mixed use residential tower. hills plaza, constructed in 1990, and a five story historic mixed use building. the hills brothers building, constructed in 1924 and designated as individual landmark number 157 per article ten of the planning code. the required on site childcare facility located on the ground floor of 345 speer street, began operating in 1992 and has operated continuously since the. the childcare condition of approval of motion number 10501 included the requirement that the on site childcare center be operated by a nonprofit childcare provider pursuant to then planning code section 314. while the original childcare provider at the project site was a nonprofit childcare provider, marin de schools. since 2003, the childcare facility has been operated by a for profit childcare provider, bright

horizons, via an agreement with marin de schools. in january 2022, marin de schools ceased operations. however, bright horizons has continued to operate the childcare facility. at 345, speer street, thus violating the childcare condition of approval. in order for bright horizons to continue to operate at the project site, the childcare condition of approval must therefore be rescinded pursuant to planning code section four 14.12. the project sponsor may apply to the planning department to eliminate the childcare facility or to reduce the floor area of the childcare facility in any amount, as long as the childcare facility has been provided for more than five years. after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. since the childcare center located at 345 speer street, has operated for approximately 32 years. the project is eligible to request the removal of the existing childcare facility and is not subject to any associated in-lieu fees. no physical modifications to the existing on site childcare center are being

sought in connection with the proposed rescindment of the childcare condition of approval, and there are no plans for the childcare center to close at this time. the san francisco department of early childhood met with a project team and submitted a letter stating that they do not object to the resentment of the childcare condition of approval. this agency is the only department solely dedicated to supporting families and children during their first five years, and provides funding for daycare centers across the city. in addition, the department has received one letter in support of and one letter in opposition to the requested condition of approval. resentment from members of the public, the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project would remove the requirement for an on site child care center at 345 speer street, it would also allow for the continued operation of the existing childcare center, which is operated at the project site for approximately 32 years 21 years, with bright horizons as the childcare provider. although the project sponsor has demonstrated that there is a reduced demand

for childcare centers in san francisco's downtown in the years following the covid 19 pandemic, they are not proposing to remove the existing childcare center. the removal of the requirement for an on site childcare center at the project site would not prevent the existing childcare center from continuing to operate, and would not prevent a childcare center from opening at the project site or anywhere else in the surrounding area in the future. based on the findings contained with the case within the case report, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions. this concludes my presentation. unless there are any questions, and the project team also has a brief presentation of the project. thank you. okay. project sponsor, you have five minutes. good afternoon to you. catalano with reuben juniors and rose representing the owner of the hills plaza property. so this is potentially a bit confusing request. so i want to be really clear about what we are asking. we are not asking to eliminate the childcare center

space. we're not asking to stop the operation of the childcare center. we are simply asking to eliminate the childcare condition of approval. from the 1985 motion. the condition of approval from the 1985 motion requires that a 5200 square foot space be provided for childcare facility to a nonprofit and free of charge. the construction of the project from the 1985 motion was completed by 1992, and the childcare center opened. operation. in approximately august 1992. marion day schools was the nonprofit operator from day one. however, since 2003, the daily operation and management of the center has been done by bright horizons, who had a separate agreement with marion day schools. so from 2003 to 2022, for more than 18 years, the center operated in full compliance with the 1985 motion and condition, with marion day schools as the nonprofit who contracted with pride horizons as the daily operator, and with the owner

providing the space free of charge. in january 2022, marine day schools dissolved. since bright horizons had operated the center for the past 18 years. at that point, nothing changed. operationally or practically. the childcare center remained open. no parent or child noticed any difference, and the owner still provided the space free of charge, but directly to pride horizons, which is a new york stock exchange traded company with over $6 billion valuation. however, technically speaking, we are no longer in compliance with the 1985 motion. bright horizons is not a nonprofit at any point. at and at any point in the last two and a half years, we could have been and we still can be subject to an enforcement action by planning. since the center is not being provided to a nonprofit, if that enforcement case happens, the child care center would need to be closed. we don't want that. bright horizons doesn't want that. i don't believe planning

wants that. and i don't believe any of the parents or children want that either. procedurally, amending the condition is not an option, as that would amount to a rezoning since the requirement originates from the planning code, our only option is to ask to eliminate the condition of approval, which the code does allow. so we all know that the office culture has changed with the pandemic, and with that, the need for related services, including childcare services, has changed. office workers do not work in the office five days a week anymore. the demand for childcare services, especially in downtown, has changed not only in the amount but also in fluctuations in the days and hours that are needed. marion day school is a nonprofit here was formed in 1981, but a few years into the pandemic, in january 22nd, they dissolved the company and all of their operations. so the purpose of the condition was to achieve an operational childcare center that has been accomplished. the hills plaza childcare center has

operated for 32 years and continues to do so. the property owner has also provided the space for rent free for 32 years, despite the fact that for the last 21 years since 2003, the daily management and operation has been done by a publicly traded for profit company. as mentioned by staff. we did also have a meeting with graham dobson at the san francisco department of early childhood regarding our request. and you do have a letter of no objection in your materials from him. in summary, neither the property owner nor bright horizons is looking to terminate the childcare operation. we are simply asking the commission to take action to eliminate the condition from the 1985 motion, so that the property owner is not required to subsidize a $6 billion company, but also so that we're not in violation of the 1985 condition and are potentially faced with an enforcement action due to the lack of nonprofit, an enforcement action would end up

triggering the closure of the center, which is something that none of us want. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and thank you for your time. if that concludes, sponsor presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. again, you need to come forward. seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner imperial, thank you. and thank you for the background explanation about this this request. i generally don't have a problem of eliminating the condition from the 1985, decision by the planning commission. but i think it's i do have a question in terms of staff, so that in terms of, i believe, tracking in where, you know, it sounds like the, the childcare became out of compliance in 2022. and, you

know, in terms of informing what is the process in terms of informing whether this project has been out of compliance and, you know, it's been it's i mean, it comes to us two years later that they've been out of compliance. so i think my question is around how the department track of it. yeah, sure. liz, director of planning in short, we don't actively track spaces like this as is the case with all of our conditions of approval and sort of planning code compliance in general. we're a complaint based system, we do always like it when people come in proactively as opposed to once there's a complaint filed, so i think that's the situation that's going on here. i think, practically speaking, although they were out of compliance, i think the punch line was that it wasn't being there was no rent being charged. so although technically not being, leased out to a nonprofit, i think the most important thing, you know, from that condition in terms of

compliance was that it was going with without rent payment, but again, to the, to your point, it's now being leased out to a company that i think folks presume could afford to pay rent, again, i have a feeling if they stopped having a childcare facility here at all, we may have received some complaints. but i think the fact that the childcare was being maintained, practically speaking, we never received any complaints. so again, they're trying to be proactive here to prevent a problem before one, becomes more severe. yeah. i appreciate actually the developer being proactive with it. and i, i think also as of now, i don't have any recommendation on how to track this kind of conditional use because it goes all the way back in. how many years, i think. yeah, we, we may need to create some tracking system, but as of now, you know, perhaps we, you know, so as of now, i don't have any recommendation for that. so, not sure it looks like commissioner

williams would like to talk, but i'd like to put a motion to approve. second. second. commissioner williams, thank yo, for the project sponsor. i have a question about low income residents in that community and how this this childcare center, how it addresses, that that population. thank you for the question. i'm actually not awar. so i represent the owner of the property, not bright horizons. however, they're not proposing any change to however they're operating. so and i do believe that the planning code itself does require that some portion of the spaces be provided for low income families. so if that is the requirement that. yeah, i don't think there's any. i'm just wondering because, it seems like that space was, was was given free of charge. and i'm just wondering now that that

that's going to change if the, the cost is going to go up for, for lower income families. so that's, that's where i'm concerned with. so the space was provided free of charge to marin de schools. and they then had an agreement with bright horizons. i don't know because that was a private agreement between those two parties. but i assumed there was some consideration being exchanged between those two companies. so for the last two and a half years, that obviously has not been the case since marin de schools dissolved and no longer in place. so it i don't believe and i and there has been no change as far as we know in the tuition that's being charged for the children or care before 2022 or after that. so and i don't believe there's any change happening. okay. thank you. is there anybody here from the childcare center? could you could you come up and kind of.

so, i mean, i, i see this is like a community benefit from 1985, right. and i, i'm assuming that those benefits were passed on to the children that went to the, to childcare. yeah. essentially nothing changed when bright horizons and marin de schools partnered together. so care remained the same. tuitions consecutively remain the same except for yearly increases, which normally happened. so nothing has changed essentially, for this program in 32 years, and so do you. do you have a program that, that, caters to the lower income? so in the neighborhood, many of our bright horizons programs do offer stipends for certain programs in the city. this program or in day schools at hills plaza did has offered it through the years. enrollment is very different right now. as you can imagine for downtown. so it really

fluctuates. but we continue to receive many interested families from different socioeconomic backgrounds that are interested in this program and looking for subsidies. and we've just recently applied for a stipend program for this program to increase enrollment to help broaden the structure there. but it's it really varies per program. yeah. okay yeah. any other questions i can help answer? that's it. thanks. okay. thanks commissioner brown. yes, you know, i look at this situation as being stuck a little bit between a rock and a hard place. just because, you know, we could enforce this condition as is, in which case, the existing child care provider would have to close. and there's no certainty that then a nonprofit child care provider would be found that could take over the space. or we can remove the condition which comes with its own risk, that at any point, the property owner could, you know, end the lease. the lease

could come up and there might not necessarily be a child care facility there. i would opt to support the motion because, you know, the sponsor has been a very good actor for a very long time, keeping the child care provider in place, including both the nonprofit for most of that time and then now, the for profit child care provider. and i would much rather keep the child care facility in place than risk losing it entirely pretty much immediately. so i do support the motion. thank god there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry, i commissioner williams, nay. commissioner brown i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner more i and commissioner. president. so i so move commissioners motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner williams voting against commissioners that will place us on item 15. a and b for case

numbers 2024. hyphen 01470q and v a are for the property at 740 sanchez street. you will consider the request for conditional use authorization, and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. good afternoon, commissioners john dacey, planning department staff, the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for the property at 740 sanchez street, the property proposes the construction of an additional floor and roof deck to an existing residence, expanding the dwelling from 2509ft!s to 3481ft!s of gross floor area. the proposed addition includes a new dining room, kitchen, living room, front balcony with an additional bedroom and bathroom proposed at the lower level. the new roof deck will be accessed by a stair

penthouse and surrounded by plant planter boxes. two class one bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the garage, and the one existing off street parking space will be retained. 740 sanchez street is a 2000 square foot development lot and is currently developed with one story over garage, single family dwelling. the project site is located within an r-1 zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district in dolores heights neighborhood. the project site is also located within the dolores heights special use district and the central neighborhoods large residence. special use district. the project requires a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section two, 49.92 and 303 to allow a dwelling unit with a gross floor area in excess of 3000ft!s within the central neighborhoods. large residence, special use district. the total increase in gross floor area is greater than 15%. additionally, for consideration by the zoning administrator, the project seeks a variance from the rear yard requirements under section 241. under section 241,

the minimum rear yard depth shall be equal to 45% of the total depth of the lot on which the building is situated. the project proposes to maintain the approximate 30% rear yard depth of the existing building footprint. on december 29th, 2023, the project sponsor held a pre-application meeting at 740 sanchez street with one attendee present. the attendees concerns were primarily over the construction process and duration, but they were generally supportive of the design. the department has received one inquiry from a neighboring property regarding the stair penthouse and privacy from the adjacent property. the department finds the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the size of the project and single family dwelling is compatible with that of surrounding buildings. in a neighborhood of 2 to 4 story buildings, the subject property retains its existing footprint while adding an additional story that is significantly set back from the street, minimally impacting neighbors existing view corridors and mid-block open space. with the expansion, the building will remain within the 35 foot height envelope from grade, which is the maximum

height permitted by code and appropriate for the site location. the proposed project has been significantly set back from the public right of way, and would not change any character defining features of the property. therefore, a categorical exemption was determined to be appropriate. the property is mostly compliant with the planning code and residential design guidelines. as i mentioned, the variance requests can be supported given the site's short depth of only 80ft, and given the proposed addition would utilize the existing building footprint without further obstructing mid-block open space, the project is necessary and desirable that it will expand an existing single family dwelling unit in a manner that's generally consistent with the prevailing pattern of development, and allow for accommodation of a multigenerational household. therefore, the department supports the proposed project and recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. i will now turn it over to the project sponsor team to present. thank you. indeed. project sponsor. you have five minutes. can you

make your. and abc news you have a little bit longer because there's actually quite a few issues with this. that is up to the chair. how much time do you think you need? would you like to have the ability to also? i'd like to seek my secretary. advise is it consistent with i mean, again, it's entirely up to you. i'm not sure this is an overly complicated project, but we've handled conditional uses combined with variances within five minutes, we always provide commissioners who seek clarity. the opportunity to ask questions if they need to. if the presentation wasn't sufficient, would you mind making it eight minutes? okay. thank you very much. we appreciate that. so

good afternoon, members of the commission. my name is barbara wolkowsky and i am the homeowner at 740 sanchez street. i've lived in and i appreciate your taking the time to review these issues today. i've lived in san francisco for nearly 30 years. i moved here right after i graduated from school. i love this city. i have built my life here and i have served on several nonprofit boards for over 20 years in the city, and i continue to do so. i bought my house in dolores heights in 1999, almost 25 years ago. it's a lovely small house that is really only about 11 or 1200 square feet of interior space, two small bedrooms and one small bathroom. i've been thinking about improving the house ever since i first bought it, and in fact, it was. it had approved plans on it that the previous owners had gotten a variance for in 1999. so i knew that i when i did this, i wanted to do it in a way that is consistent with the feel of the neighborhood. i love the dolores heights, liberty hill neighborhood, and so i've

been working with my architects at huang and eboshi for the last year to do so in a way that preserves the character of the neighborhood, the character of the house, and takes account the impact on my neighbors. and my neighbors who've voluntarily approached me, have told me that they think it's a good project and that they appreciate that we've been doing the things that john mentioned in his introduction, that we've done the setback reciprocal light well, and that we're not building up in the back any further than it already is. so, i think that as a steward of this building in the city, i feel like this is the right thing to do. we've been trying to put these plans together the right way, and it will enable me to continue to live in a neighborhood that i love, in a home that i love. so i appreciate your consideration of the project, and i hope that you agree that the variance and the conditional use permits are appropriate. thank you again. thank you, good afternoon commissioners. my name is gregory boschee, and this is matthew kelly. we are the architects of record for the project. i'll try to make this brief and skip some of my

introductory comments. if i could discuss a little bit about the context of the of the property, is it possibly make it bigger, zoom it out, it's on the north east slope of dolores heights. and, so the immediate environment you can see the, the, the project site located right in the middle, the hill slopes up behind that to the south and really, the focus of all the properties in this area is to the northeast. and the, the development of larger homes on that upper side really creates a backdrop which cast shadows, whatnot, on those lower buildings. the buildings on to the south, or, sorry, to the north, slope downwards and are about 2 to 3 stories in height, and many are about the same, excuse me, built also over

garages. so as barbara had noted, even though the building right now, as calculated or reported, is over 2500ft!s, the actual size of the building is more in the range of 1100 to 1200 square feet, so our design strategy for that, for the property, you can see that to the south side just behind it, there's a large home that has a blank wall. we are proposing to add massing that pushes up against that side wall and steps down to the north, we're doing that to maintain the existing views, the view corridors, we're also maintaining this our setting back from the street to maintain the historic facade. this all allows us to again, try

to conform to some of the objectives of the dolores heights special use district. let me see. so the variance. is required because of this 45% lot depth. setback and this is the existing building that you can see the footprint if we were to conform to the 45% setback that that reduces that area of, of buildable area to 44ft in depth. yeah on top of that, we are setting back from the front facade. per our request from the planning department, which reduces it again down to or another 14 foot nine inches from the front facade, which makes it only 29ft, three inches deep. and then we also have reciprocal

lightwell that's required, which takes up another 18ft!s. once we put this together with how much square footage would be required for exterior walls and circulation, we're really only talking about about 550ft!s that would be allowable under the current conditions, on top of that, we're on a slope, steeply sloping site, and you can see the area that's shaded in blue is really all below grade. it's there's no really any access to light or air. there's a garage at the front of the building. and so it's primarily just utility space. the proposal again is primarily above grade. there so, i'm going to skip over this. we also did some shadow studies just to take a look at

how we impact the neighbors, from these a little bit hard to read, but you could see we took three different times or four different times a year. winter, spring, summer and fall. and it's a little hard to see at this level. we had some presentations on the computer that i don't think are available, but there are very small areas of new shadow that are actually cast on any, adjacent properties. really only during the very minimal times of the day. in the afternoon, the existing buildings that are surrounding it to the, to the north, to the south, and west shadow the buildings all around that area. so and one other. so those are those are the different shadow studies. one other point to make is that, under, other similar zoning

districts, rh 2312 rto districts where historically they had deeper requirements for 45%, rear yard setbacks. they were allowed our rear yard averaging and in this case rh one. but we are now being in this case required to have again an equivalently deep rear yard. if we were to be allowed to do to do the averaging, we would actually be within the requirements. i have more to say, but should i just leave it at 25 seconds? okay, so on the conditional use permit, just to say again there's a huge portion of the house, more than one third of what's going to be at the resulting, size that is below grade and is not accessible to light and air and is either garage or utility space under the as we just heard earlier today, under the new

regulations, this this house wouldn't even come up for. see you. so thank you very much. any questions? we're happy to answe. thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. again, you need to come forward. thank you. good afternoon, bruce bowen heights and the dolores heights improvement club, or dick, the long standing neighborhood association in this neighborhoo. the dolores heights special use district was created more than 40 years ago in order to, among other things, preserve and provide for an established area with unique character and balance of built and natural environment to conserve existing buildings, plant materials and planted spaces, and to encourage development in context and scal. this project respects the existing building and the streetscape in ways that are consistent with the spirit and letter of the special use

district. we appreciate the preservation of the facade and the significant setback of the proposed vertical addition. in addition, the required variance is not due to an increase in depth and intrusion into the required rear setback on this short lot and due to the slope and arrangement of the adjacent neighbors, the variance is reasonable. also, dick has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of the new large residence since its inception. because of the relentless pressure of large and ever larger mansions on our narrow streets, this project is not the kind of development that the city was put in place to prevent. the proposal is for a sensitively designed, reasonably sized addition to an existing lovely and modest home that exceeds the thresholds for the coa by only a small amount and will allow the long term resident to update the home as it is preserved and its useful life extended. i should also note that the short lot, steep slopes and configuration preclude, in my opinion, the

addition of an adu real increases in density, not the cynical charade of sham adus that we've seen in other projects are appropriate in other larger projects. but not feasible in this case. we believe both the coa and the variance meet the standards for approval, and are consistent with the intent of the two suds. it's so refreshing. not that this is not a demolition and an existing home, and its contributions to the neighborhood will be preserved. thank you and thank you to the sponsor. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. mr. t, thank you. first of all, i believe this is my first hearing back with our new newest commissioner. so welcome. it's good to see you all, and i think mr. bone kind of expressed a lot

of the things i wanted to say as well, which is, just speaking on the variance issue itself and not not the conditional use, what's being proposed is not kind of a request for additional floor area than what would otherwise be permitted. it's really just shifting the massing in a way that's very contextual. i think it's clear there's been a lot of care and thought put into the design, i agree with the limitations on the lot. it's a smaller, only 80 foot deep lot up sloping. it does make it difficult to do an adu on a smaller, on the lower four floors, i think the, the design is very contextual. you didn't point it out, but even just the detail of the kitchen portion that's in the required rear yard, having a lower ceiling height than the rest of the new floor. is a, i think a really nice nod to, that that massing being within the required rear yard, i think that's all appreciated. so, i think for all

of those reasons and a lot that was already that were already mentioned, i'm supportive of the variance for this case. thank you. commissioner brown. yes, i do want to clarify one thing that was mentioned toward the end of the i think it was the sponsor presentation that just a just a note that if the legislation does get approved for the amendments to this large residence, special use districts, then a project of this size would actually just not be allowed. starting in 2025. if that legislation does go through. so, just pointing out that it's not right now we're on track for this to actually be disallowed in 2025, but having said that, right now, it is this is permissible. we do have the ability to grant the conditional use authorization. historically, in my time on the commission, you know, we've had a perspective of trying to seek opportunities to add housing units to large single family residential projects like this.

there was a mention that in one of the public, in the public comments, you know, there are a lot of projects that have come in with sort of vestigial accessory dwelling units that are just trying to satisfy the requirement, but at the very least, that means we do get an extra housing unit that perhaps a future property owner might see fit to rent out or use for relatives or what have you. so it is still adding to the housing supply. my take on this project is that adding a unit to it seems very challenging, given that 483ft!s of the. from what i can tell, the new space appears to be at the basement level, and that leaves you with just the 489ft!s in the or whatever the remainder might be. i might be doing the math a little wrong here, but, would be on that that new upper level, so i am curious to hear the opinion of my sort of more architecturally and design oriented, experienced colleagues on the planning commission. but for me, this doesn't read as a project that, i see a clear path for

potentially adding another unit or potentially taking a different direction with it. and i'm leaning towards approval, but i would like to hear more. thank you, commissioner moore, this is a remarkable project, given that we continuously fight with mega mansions which seem meaningless not only in their size, but also in their layout of space. this, i think, is an extremely sensitive design project, and there couldn't be anybody better than mr. bruce bowen testifying as an experienced participant in community and diamond heights and aurora heights. housing on this project, i compliment you as an architect. i compliment the owner as having chosen somebody who really understand what needs to be done. and i'm in full support of this project and move to approve it and actually put it on the shelf for an exemplary response to a specific circumstance. commissioner imperial. yeah, i

would second that, i first, when i read this, you know, this, this project and also thank you, commissioner braun, for giving context on what the planning commission has been seeing in the last four years. and, you know, i mean, i mean, in the past, i have been, i would say not in favor in terms of going, going more than the 3000 square foot that is central in a way, of the central neighborhood resident in a way that it looks like it's a mega mansion. but at the same time, you know, i think to have a public comment or a public support from the community as well, in terms of putting it in a way that is sensitive in the context of the neighborhood, as well, or also in terms of the design. i'm also wary of adding an adu in a way that is not feasible or habitable. and it does not. and

we've seen that here in the commission where there's a 300, 300 square foot and, you know, and you're putting it in a 5000 square foot. so it's, that's something that, you know, we here in the commission really worry about, so i also think, commissioner moore, in terms of your perspective about this design as well, because, in this way, you know, since the, the legislation is we're we're still in this, you know, it still allows us for doing it. but also just, you know, next year, these are the things that as we are trying to get into the housing element, you know, project goals. anyway, i'm not going to go on, but i do support this project. thank you, commissioner campbell. great. thanks, thank you for the presentation. i actually know this building. well, it's far enough from my house, but not too far from my house. so i walk by it often,

and i walked by the site this weekend to remind myself. i think generally speaking, this is a very thoughtfully executed design to really stay within, you know, the adjacent the scale and size of the adjacent buildings. so i commend, i commend the team for doing that. it's visually compatible with the neighboring properties. to answer your question, commissioner braun, i think, you know, in analyzing the drawings and the section, an additional unit would be very challenging because the house is built into a hillside. and so i would say it's not a great candidate for that. also not in keeping with what the owner would like and the project sponsor would like to do, i think it's also worth noting, i think somebody said this that spoke earlier is that there's a 45% total depth requirement for the backyard that was initiated in the 1980s, which is after this house was built in 1929. so when it comes to the variance, i think that's just worth noting. okay,

commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell, i commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams i commissioner braun i commissioner. imperial high commissioner more i and commissioner. president. so i so move commissioners motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. zoning administrator would say i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant with the standard conditions. thank you, commissioners, to place this on item 16, case number 2023. hyphen 011105 coa at 1830 ocean avenue. a conditional use authorization. good afternoon, commissioners joseph zaki, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a health services use, specifically, a kidney dialysis

center operated by fresenius kidney care, operating from the hours of 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. within a vacant approximately 16,900 square foot commercial tenant space at the ground floor of the subject property at 1830 ocean ave. the parcel is located within the ocean avenue neighborhood. commercial transit zoning district, and so the conditional use authorization is required for both the health services use and the 5:00 am opening time, which is one hour earlier than the principally permitted hours of operation in the district. the subject tenant space is currently vacant and was most recently occupied by a target which closed in june of 2021. the project proposes interior tenant improvements that will create 36 treatment stations, exam rooms, staff offices and other support spaces. the project also proposes exterior changes, including the installation of new windows along the ocean avenue facade and new mechanical vents along the dorado terrace

facade. there will be no expansion of either the tenant space or the building envelope. the project would relocate an existing dialysis center clinic that currently operates out of an approximately 8000 square foot space, with 24 treatment stations at 1738 ocean avenue. the hours of operation for the existing business are 5 a.m. to 10:30 p.m, so the request for the conditional use authorization for the hours of operation would match what what is already occurring as a change of use to a health services use that would occupy more than 10,000 gross square feet. the project required a consistency determination verifying that the proposed use supports the recommendations and guidelines of the health care services master plan, in consultation with the san francisco department of public health, the planning department made that determination issued a consistency determination in july of 2020 for the planning department has received four letters from members of the public regarding the project, including one received

subsequent to the publishing of the staff report. two of the commenters expressed objections to the project, with one voicing a strong preference to retain the storefronts availability for more traditional retail uses, and another citing concerns regarding potential mechanical noises from from mechanical systems. the other two letters didn't expressly object to the project, but did raise concerns about the potential impacts. excuse me on traffic congestion related to patient pickup and drop off activities. the subject property is well served by public transportation. there is a parking garage that the space has access to, but for patients who aren't able to self transport, some do rely on paratransit services, which the existing clinic utilizes a bobin passenger loading zone. and there's historically, i think, been some some conflict due to its location. the project sponsor, i think, has

visualizations and details that will make that more clear. in my staff report, i indicate that the existing loading zone would be continued for use, but subsequent to the publishing of the staff report, i got in touch with the district supervisor's office and they pointed me to sfmta, who has an approved, k ingleside rapid project, which proposes to convert the existing passenger. loading zone. excuse me to commercial loading and install new passenger loading directly in front of the new tenant space. and so the supervisor's office has put the project applicant in touch with sfmta staff to talk about the phasing of the implementation. and i think that resolves a lot of those concerns. the department has found the project to be, on balance, consistent with the general plan and necessary and desirable, and recommends approval. the project will activate a commercial space that has been vacant for more than three years, providing necessary medical care to the

community. that concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. the project sponsor team will follow. very good project sponsor. you have five minutes. to give it. go. good to go. good afternoon commissioners. thank you for the time. my name is justin chung. on behalf of fresenius medical care, we put together a little presentation about, effectively, what we're trying to achieve. i think from

our perspective, it's relatively straightforward. so we do have an existing clinic on 1738 ocean avenue that is highlighted in red on this slide here. what we are proposing is to move two doors down to 1830 ocean, and take a bigger footprint, but maintain the same operating hours that we've already done. we've been in this clinic for 31 years currently. however our challenge is we are facing a forced relocation. landlord will not renew our lease beyond 2027, so we have no absolutely nowhere to go, our specific request to allow us to go from 5 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. serves multiple purposes. principally, it will allow our working patients to come in at 5:00, get dialyzed, and then be able to go and make work on time, anecdotally, we have like a pe teacher, so she comes at five, she gets her

treatment, she's able to make work, another key consideration for us is it allows us, just due to the nature of treatment, it allows us to run enough shifts in the day to get enough patients through, another key consideration for us here is we are expanding from 24 to 36 chairs that will increase our capacity in the market, allow for us to take in more patients, over the years. so, we'll run through this relatively quickly. what you see here on the right here, this is our current patient map. the blue triangle. that's sort of white boxed right there. that is our current facility on ocean. all the dots you see, green, yellow and pink. those are where our patients are. as you can see, there is a very dense, conglomeration of our patients right around this clinic, the red black dots that you see are other providers in

the market. black are non-majors, red is davita, which is another big player in this in this industry. if you look directly south of our clinic, you'll see black and red, that black, clinic, they only do what we call home therapies treatment. so our patients can't go to that clinic. even if we were to shut down. right. the red one you see there, that is a davita, according to 2022 census data, they were at about 67% capacity. we suspect it's closer to 7,580%. all that to say, if we lose this clinic in 2027, there's nowhere in the immediate market for these patients to go right, even given to our competitors. et cetera. so our our main concern here is access to care for these patients in this market. again, we've been there for 30 plus years. we intend to stay here, we've had it took us several years and tries to find the right real

estate for us to stay in this market, and so this was our solution to that problem. now, we do understand the community has certain concerns, one would be sort of traffic congestion and noise. let's just call it nuisance, again, we are asking to open at 5 a.m. i get it, most of us are sleeping, what we proposed. and actually what is encouraging for this is. so we're going right across the street, the k ingleside rapid project has already been approved and is in, in works. what they are intending to do and we're going to work with them in partnership with hopefully relocating this clinic is our current loading zone, which we said is a bulb inlet, which is probably easier to see on the next slide, but, that will be eliminated. we won't use that anymore. instead, the space right in front of our relocation clinic is going to be white passenger drop off. and that is where current street parking

already exists. so you'll see a visual here, this parking this is the target. it's been dark for three years. this is where the white stripe will be, and so that's where we intend to be our ambulatory meta transport drop off. you'll see on this slide here, this is the current, drop off scenario. and so i think there was concerns, you see, it's sort of narrow. we you know, again, they're not just passenger vehicles. there are these many transport ambulatory vehicles. so a little bit wider. so occasionally we would get some congestion in there due to narrow passageway. we feel that will be eliminated because now all drop off is going across the street. you know go to the previous slide but it's going to go in this area here. so we feel like there's going to be enough width for everyone to be happy. no double parking, no congestion. does that mean i'm good? any questions? please let me know. thank you. with that, we should open up public

comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. please come forward. yes. good afternoon, my name is adrian kincheloe. a little about me is, i'm a local officer with the salvation army. ray kroc center, downtown center. but i'm also a dialysis patient, and i'm here to speak on my experiences with this dialysis center, since i started dialysis about five years ago, i didn't know what to expect. i just knew that my life had changed, and i really didn't quite get exactly how that change was, with the help from the dialysis staff, i was able to adjust my lifestyle to what i eat, what i'm about to drink, what what can and cannot do, even what time i should go to sleep because of my time at at

the chair. i want to speak on how important all of this is. i'm sure you, all of you, know that without dialysis, it's a death sentence. so there's no questions about how important, the task that this staff and everybody at ocean center and every other dialysis center provides. it's something that we need, something that. i hope that's an effect to much the community of it inconvenience. but, got to realize it's a necessity for us, we already feel different as dialysis patients. we already have a very low self-esteem, we have every almost emotional scar that can go with anything, with these treatments, i don't i don't recognize my body. but the one thing that gives me. i wouldn't say hope, but i would say some kind of peace is having a

dialysis center. and the staff that they have here at our studios with us, they not only work with us, they go above and beyond to schedule us to, like the gentleman said before, be, you know, to arrange it so that we still have a life outside of our dialysis, that our schedules are still, flexible enough for us to actually enjoy some time with the family or at work, or like me, volunteering at the for the community, so i would please ask that you guys consider really strong, the petitions that we're asking for us to move and be allowed to have our center thank you. good afternoo. i'm adrienne liefer. i live in the condominium complex on top of 1830 1850 ocean avenue. we

don't own. 1830 1850 ocean. they don't own us. i have to oppose this conditional use authorization. why? it's not about it being a dialysis center. the managers of 1830 1850 ocean. currently, the seligmann group are not up to the task of accommodating a health care facility. i'm particularly worried about mechanical system noise. the dialysis system is going to need mechanical systems and mechanical systems, require maintenance, need adjustment and sometimes they malfunction and make a lot of noise and disturb nearby residents. i have personal experience with seligmann group not taking care of their property. for the last several months, there has been a high pitched noise coming from the boiler used by 24 hour fitness. the other tenant in the commercial building. the noise is intermittent, too high pitched to be blocked, and it occurs day and night. d.p.h. environmental health branch actually paid a visit. they took measurements and they found that

the noise violates city noise ordinances. but the property managers have not accepted responsibility for the problem, let alone fix the boiler. the noise continues day and night. i actually wouldn't have a problem with a dialysis center at 1830 ocean avenue if i thought the property would be cared for. you are right, the hours are long, but the hours are similar to 24 hour fitness. it's not a nightclub. an ocean avenue is noisy anyway, but the seligmann group has not been a good neighbor this year. they can't or won't take responsibility for mechanical systems, or at least work with their commercial tenants to make sure those systems are in good order. if the dialysis center moves in, i fear that what it means is twice the mechanical noise to torment the neighbors. what i ask the planning commission to do is don't approve this just yet. please don't approve it until the boiler noise is abated and until the seligmann group and maybe fresenius come up with a service level ingredient agreement with the residents of dorado terrace. residents should

be able to report mechanical system noise coming from the dialysis center, be heard, and have the noise abated in a timely manner. thank you. good afternoon. my name is doctor tom blair and i live in or i own one of the condos on top of the dialysis of the proposed location of the dialysis center. as the lady previously owns also one of them. i support the move of the dialysis center because my father died of kidney failure some years ago. and i understand the importance of dialysis to people. i think that the proposal will take at least two years to develop. and so i think that some of the complaints of the previous speaker can be arranged in the meantime, and we

won't even know for two years that anything is going to happen down there. as far as patients, that area of ocean avenue is frankly rather economically depressed. a lot of empty storefronts. there's been a former blockbuster location across the corner there, vacant for 20 years, and people broke into it and squatted it. so i think having the dialysis center underneath our condos will be a big asset to, to having from keeping us and getting a squatting or a situation that's worse than it is now. so i hope that you will consider this and allow people that need dialysis. for example, my understanding is about 25% of the people in that area of san francisco may need

dialysis, and they would have to go to daly city or central san francisco to get the service. so please consider helping them and approve this proposal. thank yo. good afternoon. my name is ramon sam. i'm a nephrologist, kidney doctor at san francisco general hospital, and i'm the medical director of the dialysis unit at ocean avenue. currently i just wanted to support this bid for a new dialysis unit at ocean avenue. i think dialysis patients face a lot of struggles. they have to go through dialysis. they have a lot of health problems. they have. they don't feel well after dialysis. and i think anything we can do to help them would be a great plus. and, you know, having a new dialysis unit, that dialysis unit is currently there is more than 30 years old. and,

you know, the design of it was designed at a time that is different than what we were designing. the dialysis unit is currently the unit is divided into parts. there's not a central nurses station where all the patients can be observed and i think moving it to a new unit with new design is going to be very helpful for patients. and there has been a trend nationally of a lot of dialysis units closing in recent years, in the last five years. and there's been literature on that, including one dialysis unit in san francisco. and this causes problems for patients that have to travel longer distances to go to dialysis unit. and i fully support this new unit, and i really encourage everybody to vote yes for that. thank you. good afternoon. i'm doctor

harini sarathy. i'm actually colleagues with doctor ramon sam at san francisco general hospital, with ucsf as well. and i also see patients at fresenius on ocean avenue just highlighting several things that they have said. but i really want to bring attention to the idea that, you know, kidney disease especially, is emblematic of disparities to healthcare and disparities to access to healthcare. and you've seen from the map that in that particular part of san francisco, this is probably the only clinic that is able to take care of several patients in that part of san francisco and, and loss of this clinic will significantly impact our patients. i speak as a nephrologist at san francisco general hospital, affiliated with d.p.h, but i have i know that there are patients who see doctors at the ucsf healthcare system in kaiser. in literally every health system, health care system in san francisco. so this is this is going to affect all

residents in the city, this clinic has been at the forefront of taking care of our patients for three decades, has been at the forefront of innovation in, dialysis as well. so i it heartens me to know that the time is not a problem. the 5 a.m. to 11 p.m, because we do have patients who lead extremely productive lives despite coming to dialysis. so i'm very grateful to the residents. i understand what their concerns are. i hope the commission is able to work with them to sort this out. but come 2000, come 20, 27, if we lose this clinic and don't have a space that would really impact the life of citizens of the city. thank you. okay, last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner

brown. i. do you have one question? i want to explore a little bit that came up, so in the packet for today in the staff report, it was mentioned that there are the new windows or ventilation rather along dorado terrace, could, could you just. i'm sorry if i missed this in the presentation. i stepped out for a moment, but would it be possible to kind of, further point out where those ventilation openings would be and more information? sure. let me actually, the architect is here, and i think they could speak to it. sure. yes hello, commissioner. thank you for letting me talk, to answer the lady's comments. first of all, the building will have the

mechanical system within the building above the ceiling. it's basically those, constant volume units. so it's inside and also the mechanical units within the garage and is never the noise will never get out of there. even the noise of the car will definitely take over. that it you're not going to hear anything. it's a type one construction. so it has a 12 inch concrete slab. all the buildings on top. it's you're never going to hear anything other than the traffic possibly, which is part of the parking structure. so the noise is never will never be an issue. so you're not going to hear it. and also there will be three, outside air intake on dorado terrace. so that will be the intake. and the exhaust. it's at the front, blowing, blowing air

. so there's no there's noan impact to anyone, so. okay. yeah. so to basically to it should be pretty happy that should have no noise. what what to keep in mind is those units she's talking about is 30 years old. so maybe you can reference a plan when describing the locations. actually you can use this in the place it. is that's an elevation. yes you go. yeah this is a proposed three. inlet for the air intake. can you speak in the microphone,

please? in the microphone, please. oh. i'm sorry. yes so the three air intake, it's right on dorado. this is the slope. and these are the intake. so there will be no noise there because their intake the exhaust at the front which is right here on ocean avenue and it's blowing down and you're not going to see it. and it's under the soffit. so yeah you're not going to be able to see it at all. okay. thank you for the response. all right. thank you. so as far as the mechanical facilities go, i'm personally satisfied by that. again, if other commissioners have further questions, i'd be interested to hear, but besides that, you know, in this space, i think there were some letters received as well that kind of mentioned that it would be more ideal to have a retail use in this space,

and i do. i agree with that. you know, the space, it would be my preference to have if the target was still there, for example. but there's been a lot of challenges in this space. i there's been turnover. i think this was a rite aid and then it was a target. and then nothing. and there was a cvs across the street and that's vacant now too. the and so, you know, we're entering this era in retail, with the transition driven by e-commerce, where we have to start thinking about sort of nontraditional generators of foot traffic and visits to places. and so for me, you know, that's exactly what this represents. people coming for dialysis, maybe not at 5 a.m, but people coming in the middle of the day are also potential, shoppers at businesses, small businesses, locally owned businesses that are located along ocean avenue, and so i do view that as a positive and sort of this can serve as a new attractor of people and foot traffic and energy. the, hours of operation seem reasonable

again, because the existing facility has similar hours of operation. it's not been causing challenges to based on anything that we have received and also it's not as if this is a loud or disruptive use even at 5 a.m. and i really take to heart the point that people need to be able to plan around their jobs and the rest of their lives, and family and childcare. when also receiving dialysis. so i am in favor. but also curious to hear other commissioners comments before making any motion. commissioner campbell, i actually agree with a lot of the comments you just made, commissioner braun, i think this is this obviously represents a growing need in the community, i really like the idea of activating a vacant storefront, and i agree, it's always nice when we think about that. we think about cafes and restaurants. but what this represents is footfall that will support those adjacent future

retail locations. so we can think of it as a catalyst for future change, which i think is really positive. i also am satisfied with the mechanical equipment. answer. my one question is around kind of future proofing the patient drop off. and i know we've got the white striped passenger loading and that we're in dialog with sfmta. is that confirmed happening or are we hopeful that will happen? so the k muni forward plan i may be misreading the name, but that plan has been approved by the sfmta board and now it's moving into the implementation phase. the implementation hasn't begun yet, but with the supervisor offices, assistance, i think sfmta staff are now in touch with fresenius or with the project applicant. and so if they're given a timeline for when the business may open, they can coordinate their implementation to roughly, roughly align. right, so that

would be thank you. that's all my comments, commissioner. more appreciate commissioner brown's reflecting on use of space and land use. the message i hear myself very clearly is the human message. and that is indeed a large number of dialysis patients hanging on for dear life to find a reasonable location that can indeed be open is large enough. and the space here in front of us is indeed 16,900ft!s, which rarely meets the kind of dream ideas of ground floor activation of cafes, etc. because it is far too large, it's far too large and far too deep to be useful, other than for an institutional use that this particular project provides here, it is sometimes hard to face a mortality in the way that it requires accommodation of spaces within the texture of a neighborhood

that is sometimes not easy, because we often have restrictive codes which do not allow for medical uses of a certain kind, which is this one is to operate within under certain criteria of neighborhood codes, etc. we all know that we have all been there. this particular location, because it is close to what users have used for years, as i think the most important thing we can support, given that people arrange days early in the morning when they perhaps, perhaps have to move on to a job, be in a similar location and equally accessible. and in that sense, i think i think it is a blessing that we have this vacancy to be absorbed by this use literally three doors down. i do believe that sfmta and everybody else in the neighborhood will make every effort to have parking and drop off be effortless and without

creating impediment to others. so one thing i do think is, and i suspect that that is already being practiced, whenever you have residential above, no matter what the use downstairs is, there is a mutual need for consideration of each other. residents are sleeping and i'm sure that the operator is used to that. basically being adjacent or within a residential neighborhood. so i encourage strong cooperation. i consider i ask for strong monitoring of actual implementation. we're going to make this work together, and as far as the hoa is concerned, i have to believe that the noise of this boiler will also be extremely irritating for patients sitting in that chair getting their dialysis. so i think it's a mutual interest to be proactive. if there is indeed a landlord or an operator who does not attend

to what are basically impacts that affect everybody. so i kind of try to i hope that you together can work this out. but in the meantime, i offer my very, very strong support to what i consider to be a life saving essential facility in this neighborhood. thank you, commissioner williams. i want to thank everyone who came out and support, and even those who didn't support, i live close to here and i frequent, ocean street, and i've seen different iterations of that corner, i used to go to the gym right down the street, and so, but i also know san francisco general dialysis ward, and been there as well frequently. and seeing the patients, and so i just want to

say, like, you know, it, they, they go through a lot, and i've seen in their early, early hours of the day, and so, you know, very sympathetic, to, to that, you know, that challenge that, that folks that are receiving dialysis go through. so i just want to, say that, and i'm very i'll be in support of this project. thank you. motion and i'd like to add my comment, thank you for indulging me, fellow commissioners, first, i'd like to thank you for all you come forward today. i understand dialysis care is a much needed facility that we should have more in san francisco, and no one shall have a disparity, access to quality of care. and i also like to thank supervisor melgar's office in continuing being a champion with sfmta and

also with project sponsors to really connect our small businesses, local businesses, and the community with our forward thinking transportation plan, which i actually did approve it on my serving on the board of director of sfmta. so i am really in high confidence that with supervisor melgar and collaboration with all the different city involved agency, it will deliver a safety environment for patient loading and offloading, i am pretty confident that traffic calming solution are in place in that whole ocean avenue corridor. with regard to the concern of the tenants above, and also the care for our landlord of the overall general of the building, i do want to mention that perhaps with since we have the architect here, there are, thank

you for explaining where the ventilation intake and out output is. there are ways to, provide adequate and maybe, perhaps more state of the art sound attenuation system that may be perhaps achieve higher than code, require stc rating, which is stand for sound transmission coefficient. i think it is part of the building code requirement, and i hope that you will take into the tenants and homeowners consideration and consider if not just doing the code minimum, but also do a little bit more. i do echo our vice president, commissioner moore's comment that neither the homeowners or the patient would like to endure noise and noise, including vibration of the equipment, in addition to sound. but, all of

that, i am in full support of moving this project forward, and i hope you can get this thing built and resolve all your tenants and landlords and owner occupied condo concern and work collaboratively to deliver health care for all the patients. we need. commissioner campbell motion to approve with conditions. second. commissioner there is no further deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry. i commissioner williams i. commissioner brown i. commissioner imperial i. commissioner. moore, i and commissioner. president. so i so move commissioners motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 commissioners that will place us on the final item on your agenda today. number 17 case number 2024 hyphen 001579qa at 200 capp street. a conditional use authorization. for the.

give me this way. to lift up th. it must be too small. good afternoon, president xu and members of the planning commission. eduardo oropeza, with department staff. before you is a conditional use request pursuant to section 754 of the planning code for the property located at 200 capp street, the project is for the replacement of a legacy business. kato's bar is proposing to occupy a commercial ground floor which formerly housed the legacy business known as uptown bar for

the last 39 years. commissioners, this is not a change of use. this is a change of occupant per section 754, where an immediate prior use was a legacy business. any new nonresidential use must obtain a conditional use authorization. the uptown bar left the premises in january of 2024 and remains on the legacy business registry. commissioners. public comment on the case has been significant, both in support and in opposition of the case. opposition. to date, 24 written letters have been received in opposition to the proposal, including from unite to save the mission. residents of the mission district, along with the prior owners of the bar and its patrons, highlighting the bar's historic significance and community ties and advocated for its preservation. additionally comments were focused on the relationship between the prior owners of the bar and the building owner, which was fraught with challenges, culminating in a non-renewal of

a lease, and many expressed concerns about the property's poor management of properties. in the neighborhood. support. to date, the department has received correspondence from 58 members of the public in support residents of the mission district and multiple business owners and workers expressed support for the proposal, noting an opportunity to eliminate a commercial vacancy. continue. a longtime use of the site as a bar, the opportunity for new jobs in the mission district. the project sponsor collected letters and support from the mission language and vocational school, moby dick, monkey brains, isp, mnc inspiring success, and a petition signed by 40 other local businesses, commissioners. the department finds that this project is, on balance, consistent with the zoning district and the objectives of the policies and general plan and the mission area plan. while the proposal will not retain a legacy business at the site, the project will continue the use of the site as a bar, serving as a

gathering space for residents and visitors to the neighborhood, reducing the commercial vacancy and contribute to the vibrancy of the mix of uses in the mission district. the department also finds that the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to the persons of adjacent properties in the vicinity. the department therefore recommends approval for the conditional use at 200 capp street. this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm available for questions on the item. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. good afternoon commissioners. my name is kevin ortiz, project representative for 200 capp street dba ketose. i have with me today mr. kaushik dassani who is here the owner operator as well too. i wanted to give him the opportunity to speak really quickly. and before i go into my presentation and slides, which were prepared, mr. dosani. good afternoon. members of the board. my name is kaushik dattani and

i'm the managing member of the wobbly wheel llc, hoping to do business as kito's bar at 200 capp street. in my years in san francisco, i have worn many hats. i'm a cpa by profession, a landlord, a real estate broker, and dabbled in running a restaurant business in my younger days. i was also a bartender during my formative years as a student in london. i do not believe the focus here should be on any landlord tenant issues regarding the former tenants and business owners at 200 capp street who decided to cease operation of prior bar. rather, i'm here as a business owner trying to open a bar at the location where, to my understanding, there has been nothing but a bar since the building was built in 1910.

after over 110 years, a bar at the intersection of capp and 17th street has become a fixture in the neighborhood. the bar has been closed since january of this year, nearly nine months, creating another shuttered business in the city and denying the neighborhood this long standing place for neighbors to gather and have a good time. i am fortunate that. let me go. okay, let me finish before we run out of time. so i'll just cut it short here. go ahead. great. can i use the slides if available? yeah. great. sfgovtv perfect. i'm going to actually use this a little bit over here because i'm short. so i just want to give a quick history of the project. this project is located on the corner of 17th and capp street. 200 capp street is operated as a commercial ground floor bar space with multiple bars operating in the space, and it's over 100 year

existence to. the building was constructed in 1910. quito's looks to continue operating as a bar. the existing use was a legacy business. formerly, the uptown quito's will operate as a local neighborhood watering hole, offering over 17 draft beers on tap, as well as mixed drinks and cocktails. quito's will offer billiards, darts and arcade games as some of his offerings to patrons. quito's will also host community groups for meetings free of charge. quito's plans on hosting entertainment that will include live music, drag shows and other performances. since quito's is not a full service restaurant, quito's will offer qr code, qr codes that patrons can order from food from nearby local businesses. i wanted to jump into really quickly the legacy business requirements, since we did hit three of the four requirements that are in place, number one, the preserve and enhancing the existing storefront configuration, size, signage, artwork, and other character defining elements of the built environment. quito's has worked tirelessly to keep much of the original bar facade and facade intact, as well as the original environment for prospective patrons, we're again offering darts, billiards and arcade games. there's been zero cost of new construction,

rendering the space almost entirely the same substantial cosmetic cosmetic upgrades have been made to the project, with new flooring, painting, refurbishing and restoration of the bar space. the upgrades have totaled $50,000 due to decades of deferred maintenance, as shown in the later slides. number three retaining and enhancing community involvement as mentioned as well too, we did comprehensive community outreach as outlined in our letters we've received over 70 letters of support from local businesses, including legacy businesses bissa baobab and moby dick, as well as nonprofit organizations like mission neighborhood centers. inspiring success, which is a child care center located a block away from the project as well, too. we've also met with, you know, united to save the mission mission merchants association, as well as other organizations fulfilling that requirement, and in addition to outreach to juntos and mission hiring hall, quito's has also developed a partnership agreement with mission language vocational school for local workforce hiring at quito's for bar managers, bar staff, and cleaning staff. i want to address some of the disputes that have been. place 200 capp

street has a complex history. yes oh, particularly regarding the relationship with the previous, tenant uptown, despite the challenges presented in a public forum, the project sponsor has been working to move forward with new plans for the property while addressing community concerns. i want to just let you all read here, particularly with the disputing the claims that were made. we tried to sell the property in 2022 to the uptown. they declined a year long attempt to renegotiate the lease with the uptown, hiring their own realtor. a year long commercial lease negotiation landlord was offered a rent of 7800, and you know, and that was the same rent that was offered in 2024 as it was in 2014. ten years later, you know, the landlord accepted the lease offered by the uptown team, i know i'm a little bit over time, you know, i just wanted to say very clearly that the uptown was not evicted, the uptown decided not. is your time. the commissioners may have follow up questions. great. very good with that, commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission through the chair. you each have two

minutes. this. thank you. good afternoon. commissioners. my name is my name is barbara attard. i'm a second generation san franciscan. my grandchildren will be fourth generation san franciscan. having grown up in the city and hearing stories of my parents, i know personally how important established legacy businesses are to preserving the culture, ambiance and character of the city. i've been a loyal uptowner since 1984 as my letter of july 18th states, the uptown has a long history and is known through the 40 year last 40 years as being a place where the community from the neighborhood, congregates, as well as the community that's been established through the many. the 40 years of uptown, of

uptown, being there as a as a love bar. the loss of this treasured bar has greatly, negatively impacted all who were part of this community. the landlord, mr. dattani, is renowned for being a being greedy and the opposite of community minded. some concerns about his history with the uptown, the founder of the bar, scott ellsworth, passed away of a heart attack during negotiations with mr. dattani. dattani. seriously overcharged the uptown for the space and during covid, gave the owners only a negligible break, resulting in a large debt. as a member of the group of uptown owner supporters who is working to restart the uptown, i want you to know that the uptown community is a unified group in search of a new home. if legacy

status means anything in the city, in the mission, the q a should be denied. thank you. good afternoon. my name is justin dolezal. i'm a small business owner in the mission. i'm the president of small business forward. i'm here today to oppose the conditional use authorization for dutton's application at 200 capp street. mr. dattani represents the very worst of san francisco landlords. he is a predatory, speculative, purely self-motivated individual who forced the eviction of a beloved mission nightlife institution. the uptown, based on nothing more than his own greed, one of the only protections that long standing community serving businesses have against the wave of real estate speculation hitting our city, our conditional use authorizations through the legacy business

program, making landlords justify what businesses will replace a previous commercial tenant, is supposed to give these landlords incentives to use the money and resources provided by the city to keep businesses as tenants. protections for legacy businesses will become null and void if detainees application through wobbly wheel llc for a conditional use authorization to open a new liquor serving establishment to replace the uptown is approved, a coa is required to open mr. dattani's proposed business because it was vacated by a legacy business within the prior three years, and the legacy business was immediately the prior tenant. it is offensive to many in the small business community that the proposed replacement bar is owned by a landlord who does not have community support or experience running a bar. he is purely self-interested and has zero regard or care for the community and his goals are completely antithetical to the

mission of the legacy business program. we are against the approval of kaushik dattani's application to replace uptown, because the conditional use authorization is designed to be conditioned on keeping the community whole. this landlord has evicted and sued many tenants and is pursuing this application purely to increase the value of his building. sir. thank you that is your time. time is. i didn't hear the bell. i just heard it. it went off two minutes. thank you. okay reject this application. keep our community whole. hello. my name is jessica jen psaki and i am one of the owners of buy your own damn bar, llc. that operated uptown on august 19th, kaushik reached out to me to meet about why we would be opposed to his opening a bar in a place where

we had our lovely place. i told him it was a loss of a dream, and that it was a breaking up of the community, and that is heartfelt. but it is not just that this is a business. so i'm going to approach this as the business. mr. dattani. excuse me, has put forward an opinion that the $285,000 that we secured in grants and loans would should have been significant enough for us to stay in business. does not take into effect that $400,000 was paid to dattani for rent during the time from the pandemic until our closure, on top of the $400,000 that we paid in rent. we also made payroll insurance, utilities, taxes, fees, inventory and finally maintenance. at the closing of

our business. we have absolutely no debt to anybody that did business with uptown, which i think is an exception to when a business closes because it's failing. when i met with dattani, i had expressed that i thought after ten years and $1 million of rent that we had paid, it had afforded us the ability to negotiate a lesser lease, at least temporarily, to stabilize the business. he said, quote, since i couldn't charge rent to renters that in tenancies he was going to put the squeeze on us because he was being squeezed, he realized that he what he had said was making him culpable for not being honest in his dealings with us. and he went on to say that we didn't know at my time. okay. thank you. i appreciate your time. good afternoon, my name is

shay and i'm the managing partner of uptown. i'd like to speak to some of the arguments that dattani and his handlers have proposed, first, his argument that we willingly left 200 capp street is false. we did not willingly leave. we were faced with an impossible lease. the rent was above market rate. there was no option to extend beyond our five years. and all the details of the lease hadn't been worked out. most notably, mr. kaushik weaseled in provisions, specifically one where he could take ownership of our liquor license, which is the major item of value for a bar. kaushik and his team also have

asserted that our legacy business status is not legitimate because we're closed, and he asserts that we don't plan to reopen. but that is false. we have a community member here who will tell you about plans for uptown to recapitalize and reopen elsewhere. and lastly, i just want to say that a vote in favor of this conditional use authorization is actually a vote for mr. detainees unscrupulous business practices, and it's a vote against legacy businesses. thank you. good afternoon. my name is keegan and i am spearheading, the future of the uptown. uptown in exile as we

are now. but i want to assure everyone that the uptown lives on. even though it was forced out of the space where it had been for many, many years, causing a lot of turmoil in the neighborhood and, no joke, a grieving process for the community and for the people who had worked there for years and enjoyed it for years. so just briefly, i have been in contact with the office of small business. i cannot speak highly enough about them, just quickly, my history, i was i was a bartender and eventually bar manager at the uptown in the 1990s. i moved to new york city, where i worked in the hospitality industry for 25 years, came back and bartended on sundays at the uptown again. and that's the kind of place that it is. so coming to san francisco from having worked in new york city for so many years, i can't believe i am just so

grateful that there is an organization like the office of small business. i have at least three contacts there who i have met with email and in person, and their support is, is just grand. it's not what you get in new york, let's put it that way. and also they were familiar with mr. dattani. they they know him. they quote call him notorious. so there's so much more we're going to do some pop ups, some uptown pop ups. so you have 25 seconds. yeah, i have 25 seconds. 20 now. oh, thanks. all right. so as, as as long as well as, you know, maintaining our client list with social media, we are planning to get people together doing little pop ups. i'm meeting with someone coincidentally tomorrow from the office of small business to figure out the permitting. and some of the other spaces that have that have been forced out. and we have nothing but support from the community. so thank

you. just for the benefit of the public, there should be a timer right on the dais right there that you can see how much time you have left. yep hi. good evening. my name is louise dawson and i am here to share a different perspective. i have worked on and off with mr. dattani for the better part of 20 years, i have worked in real estate, commercial real estate here in san francisco with vandermade commercial, one of the things that i've noticed about working with him, particularly through the pandemic, is a lot of the help that he gave to his tenants in order to help them, kind of muster through whatever that was, he has been a previous restaurant owner. he understands

the perspective, and, i think he goes over and above for a lot of his tenants. that's my experience, i have also, excuse me, i have also worked with, him with, not with this location, but i did speak to their broker afterwards because there was a liquor license available. so i had the opportunity to talk to their broker about the situation. and his quote was, i felt really bad. i really worked detainee over. i got the rent down to 7500, which is what they paid back in 2010. so i think that i'm just here to offer a little bit of a different perspective, i it's not often that you get to work with a tenant that will take a chance

on startups. this is a landlord that will take a chance with people who are starting their businesses. he he wants to be part of the community to help grow and foster that. so, that's my perspective. thank you. hello. good afternoon. my name is ivan reyes. i'm a local community member, lived in this city since i was a little kid. born and raised here. loved this city. always been a part of me. i believe the. i believe this bar will actually provide quite a positive things for the community. i believe it will provide many great benefits. it will enhance local life in an area which has been leading it for a while. it will provide employment opportunities, things that our community needs, especially in those areas. it

will address commercial vacancies. there's a lot of rundown shut down businesses in the area, and it will help bring some some vibrancy back to the neighborhood, which i feel is a good thing, it also will provide economic benefits to the area. it will provide more foot traffic. it will provide just better economic opportunities as a whole to the community, which i definitely feel is a great thing, especially for the latino community as a whole. it will help, it will help adaptive reuse of space. it will transform the use of space into a community asset, demonstrate community use of existing neighborhoods resources. it also help provide diversity in the area which which needs it as well provide some different type of businesses or options for locals wanting to hang out in the area. and i definitely feel it can bring a lot of positive aspects to the city or to the community. thank you. all right.

hi everybody. my name is iyad. i own two businesses on valencia street and my experience with mr. dattani is wonderful. he's a really nice guy. he deserves a chance, it will make the community much better. there's a lot of huge homeless moving in the area because the. a lot of businesses have been losing, places on valencia and mission area, there's a lot of sensitive issues with the old business and, and the, you know, they have, what they call emotional attachment to the place, but sometimes you just got to move on and get a new place in, and you get a new workers and get a new community and just give them a chance to prove himself and support the business instead of going against it, support it, and give them a chance to make the community better. let's not try to stop people from taking

over the business. a lot of times with the businesses they have, disagreement with the landlord and the businesses. but, you know, contracts are contracts and when my contract is over, i'm out. i don't expect the landlord to give me a new lease. it's just, you know, if he wants to, then we make an agreement. and if we don't, we just move on and go to the next place. thank you very much. i hope he gets the place. he's a really nice guy. good afternoon everybody. i am latino guy. i let you know a few few things. this is a latino area, you know, and the latino need to take a break after the hard work. you know? so we need to take a few drinks or food after the hard work. so this is a latino area. we need to open the bar. thank you. for high commission. my

name is bartolomeo magnani, and i am one of the possible bartenders for the location name kito. i don't know the past of, this area in san francisco, because i moved here two years ago, but they see a possibility to be there. and i'm a good heart. and i don't see why i cannot be the change of that place or that bad things. thank you for listening. have a good one. good afternoon. members of the planning commission. my name is luis avalos. i'm a 20 year resident of san francisco and i'm here to speak in support of the conditional use for coquitos bar. i believe this bar will help rekindle and revitalize a lot of the nightlife that has, unfortunately, gone into decline ever since the pandemic. the mission is always known for being a well-known hub for nightlife and approving this conditional use will continue to increase the economic benefits

of this neighborhood, and it will create local opportunities for employment for many people that live and work in the mission, not just newcomers that hopefully, don't just intend to gentrify and keep getting in the way of progress for the city. so thank you very much. hello. members of the planning commission. i'm chris calloway. i stood before you five years ago and nervously requested a conditional use authorization for a detainee owned property in hayes valley, and i've regretted that decision ever since. and i'm here today to vehemently oppose any conditional use authorizations granted to a detainee on property. and i apologize if i get a little bit emotional about this, but this has been like a five year battle to try to get in front of this commission to just to kind of tell you my horrible experience of dealing with this landlord and, i will say, the real estate agent that he had up here, she's been responsible for getting so many people into tiny properties that later on get go bankrupt.

they're in financial ruin, and then dattani sues them. he's in countless lawsuits, including m. so i will say this about this. i, i fully support activating vacant storefronts in san francisco in bars. i've done it ten times in the last five years. and so i would be up here in full support of this project if it was any other landlord, than kaushik dattani. what is going to happen here with this project is if you approve this one, you send a signal to all of san francisco that predatory landlord practices like this will be rewarded. right, the other thing that you're going to do is you're going to basically just continue this predatory cycle where mr. dattani will either sell this property with the business in it and make a huge profit, and you guys will be responsible for just padding his paycheck at the end of the day. but you're also, like i said, you're sending the signal to the rest of the city. this is what san francisco is now. we kick out the legacy businesses we don't protect these tenants. we allow landlords like this to use legal loopholes, legal loopholes to do things like this. it is unconscionable. i

can't imagine anybody here in good conscience could support this individual. there is such a clear, well documented history of just egregious tenant behavior. not only that, it's just how he treats his properties. drive by 500 laguna tonight. look at that property and tell you if. tell me if you think that property owner deserves a conditional use authorization from this commission. thank you so much. hello. hello, commissioners. my name is kenneth cohen, i'm with the ownership group of uptown, and i've written several letters. are you part of the project sponsors team? then no, no, i'm. no, i'm part of uptown's team. the towns team. thank you. byob i've written i submitted several letters, on this subject, which i think including some that i sent directly to you. so i think i've sort of said my piece, regarding the application, the main reason

i came up today is because i just found in preparing for the hearing, this letter that was submitted late, it was a submitted by united to save the mission. it was dated september 16th. so i'm not sure if you had a chance to review it. there was an incident mentioned in this letter that i that was new to me. i had not heard of it before, but i just wanted to make sure that you heard it as part of this hearing. and i'm quoting directly from the letter dated september 16th from united to save the mission. additionally, quote. additionally in 2013, in the same building where the 200 capp street commercial space is located, mr. dattani changed front door locks for the residential units of 204 to 218 capp street, and required tenants to provide information including social security numbers, in order to receive a new key and regain access to their own apartments. working with the community rights, community tenants rights, organization and partnering

attorneys. some tenants were able to regain access to their apartments. other tenants felt it was unsafe to return because of the landlords behavior and did not return return. losing their rightful access to their rent control department. as i as i noted in some of my letters, i do think that mr. detainee's reputation in the community does have is relevant to consideration of the coa application. and even though i'd say in the mission, his reputation is mainly for very aggressive use of the lsat, this this incident recounted in the letter, is like 2 or 3 steps beyond that. that is time. as i go. to commissioners, my name is duncan mcdonald. i'm a 30 year resident of san francisco. i'm an attorney, and i do represent,

among other people, mr. dattani, a couple of. i'm sorry, are you representing the. not here. i'm doing this. i need to do one thing to clarify, because i think you have a record that's a little bit problematic, mr. calloway is in litigation with us, and there is a stay, so we can't respond to claims that are being presented to you. and i need to get that into the record so that you understand certain things. we can't even talk about, but are being presented here. i think the rest of the issue is involving residential aren't at issue here. what's at issue here is whether the use permits provided and this bar gets reopened. thank you. spacex gavin newsom. hello. good afternoon. my name is hector and i'm here to support the gentleman right here. because, myself included, i just opened a new business on the mission, and unfortunately, it took me too long to open because tenants

inspections and everything. and i know how hard it is to open a new business, especially when you're a small business. so i'm here just to say if we can bring more to the community, the better. thank you. hello, my name is keith ryan. i'm actually a business broker here in san francisco. i've been a business broker since 1989, and i was also hired as a neutral party to arbitrate the lease negotiations in 2019, i. i had to follow the language of the lease that actually was written by ken, who was the tenant, i did follow that language, and i made a determination that was correct and true, and i stand by my, my, my ruling, so at the whole time everybody was very cordial and civil on this. i don't know where all these allegations are, but they don't seem to be

founded. i did, i am a business broker. i'm on the streets every day. i know covid had a really detrimental effect on all the businesses in san francisco. i'm on the streets. i talk to business owners every day, so i feel for the people of covid that their business did drop off, and there was probably some restraints on the business from the situation. we were all dealt with. that was unfortunate, but i did also reach out to them, and i did have some other locations that they could move into. i also know the gentleman they hired to do the negotiations and come up with the fair market value rent. he's very credible. he's been in the same business as i have been for 30 years. he came up with a fair value. i think that, and from my understanding that the landlord accepted his value. so which was a 30% discount in what the current rent was. and that was also taking everything into consideration with covid and so forth. i think that having a community based business in this location is good for san francisco. when i'm out there on

the streets every day, i see the vacancies. i see the difficulties of being in business. we have to support these businesses having an empty space, which i understand that the city is sending tickets saying that it's an empty space and there's blight because it keeps getting tagged, having an empty space there and having tag and not putting a community based business here is not in san francisco's best interest. i think opening businesses, supporting businesses is in all of our best interests. and i live and i was also a frequent, customer there as well. thank you. last call for public comment. we don't become regulars at our neighborhood bar because we're dependent on alcohol. we become regulars because over time we become dependent on the other regulars who become like family. for those of us who don't have anybody, i ordered my first

drink at uptown more than 27 years ago, right after i moved into my first ramshackle apartment a couple blocks away. not long thereafter, life served me a stiff one. i've never been able to sleep off a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis or ms. over the past quarter century, the disease has insidiously progressed, leaving me profoundly disabled, unable to work or walk, but with concentration and care, i can still hold a drink. so on those rare days when i felt well enough, i would join my fellow regulars at uptown knowing that they had helped me rise from my wheelchair and onto a bar stool where i could, at least for a drink or two, forget that ms. had robbed me of an incredible career, having kids and the simple freedom to do all the things that i loved, all the things that made me, me. at least i thought i'd always have

uptown, as it was one of the few things this cruel disease couldn't take from me, but a cruel man could for me the way by which mr. dattani justified charging uptown a cripplingly high rent, far above market rate during a global pandemic when the bar couldn't even open, is particularly galling. the bar's basement, which had always been used for storage, was deemed by an independent arbiter to be suitable for cocktail service, despite its lack of a means by which someone like me could not only access the space but also escape it. should there be a fire or other calamity. at a june 15th community meeting about his plan to open his bar at 200 capp, i asked mr. dattani if he intended to make the basement ada compliant. his response? what's your relationship to uptown anyway? i said, i've been a regular there

for more than 25 years. thank you sir. instead of answering my question. that is your time. you ignored me. do a search on this guy. you'll see how he kicks people like me out of his apartments. let me know. you've done enough. thank you. excuse me. that was very moving. hello, commissioners. my name is deanna mcdougall. i'm a longtime resident of san francisco. eurasian descent and, small business owner. i have been evicted through the ellis act,

and it can be very devastating. and what i understand, mr. dattani has done in several businesses around san francisco has been very concerning. and i feel like it's a form of bullying. excuse me, there is a website called anti-eviction mapping project that i urge everyone listening and participating in this conversation or this discourse regarding the approval of conditional use for 200 capp street and appreciate, review of that. i also, was a patron of the uptown for many years, some 25 years, and it was a great spot. it was a kind of hole in the wall, had a great jukebox, pool tables. it was an authentic san francisco legacy business that truly should be protected. and i'm what my question is, is

what makes a legacy business a legacy business? how is it not being protected? so that's my question to the commissioners, and i appreciate your, no vote in serving this project. thank you. okay final last call for public comment. hi. good afternoon. my name is michael rupe. i'm a district nine resident, longtime san francisco. i am currently president of the board of directors for the nation's only self-governing housing cooperative for people with hiv, called marty's place. maybe you've seen the documentary. hi. good to see you all. so i'm here speaking in support of ketosis. ketosis is finished. it means thank you. so it is here with that same spirit of gratitude

that i'm looking for, of supporting this business, coming in and adding the diversity that we need to boost the nightlife in san francisco and also to fill the vacancies. i do realize, like everything in san francisco, there's a bit of some contention, and i'm only speaking from the vision of hope. hope for our neighborhood, hope for our district, and hope to bring a little bit more nightlife. and someone who is invested in caring, and i'm a person, i like everybody, i get along and can talk to most people, but i was very impressed. after speaking with him earlier, and i'm here to speak in full support, and i hope that you approve this without any hesitation or reservation. thank you. okay, commissioners, with that public comment is closed and this matter is now before you.

commissioner williams, thank you, i want to thank everyone that came out today to speak. very troubling to me personally, you know, living in the mission for many years as a child and then up to the excelsior to see, you know, the gentrification that's happened there. and, my question to, to planning staff is, what kind of protections? right now do the legacy businesses have rich. did you want to start and i can yeah. so there are three zoning districts currently that have conditional use authorization requirements. the mission nct, pacific ave, nct and north beach nct. and as you heard, fillmore's having a

bit of an issue there. and there's discussion about potentially doing an smud throughout the city. i don't know, i don't know much, but those are the three zoning districts currently that require a hearing. can you speak to the protections that that that are included in designating a business a legacy business? can someone speak to that? i mean, the way the code is written and it's a little awkward because it kind of looks back on a, on somebody wanting to fill a legacy business. right? so what the code says is if there was a legacy business in a space, someone now wants to fill it, you need to see you to fill it. so i think the kind of unsatisfying answer in this is it doesn't necessarily protect that legacy business. it gives them some leverage, i think, in negotiating, possibly with the landlord, but doesn't necessarily guarantee, like in this case, that the uptown

stays. right. i mean, the uptown's not there, and the owner is now trying to fill that space and needs icu. so it gives it gives some leverage, i think, to the, to the business. but it doesn't say like you can't terminate that agreement with with delivery. and this is kind of the bit of the problem of us looking at this from a land use perspective. i think, you know, there was talk as the representatives from the uptown said, that they were talking to the small business office. you know, i think we offer as a city some some options there too, like helping mediate or providing some resources to those businesses. but i think that's a bit of a hole with the legacy business. it doesn't say you must stay in your space in a way an owner must must figure that out. so we're looking at different ways to help with legacy business. i mean, ultimately, like the legacy businesses, owning the space is probably the best solution. but we don't have those vehicles in place to help do that. at this

point. so so what what i'm hearing is, is that, there's not much, protection. designating a business, a legacy business. and so i'm that's, that's concerning. that's concerning to me, you know, considering where we're at, especially in neighborhoods like the mission district who have experienced so much displacement, just to remind everybody that 10,000 latinos have been displaced from the mission, and countless businesses, that were minority owned have been, you know, dislocated. i, you know, just haven't been able to survive there. and so, you know, yeah, it just it, you know, on the

residential side, there are protections, right? right. there are there are controls on eviction, that that definitely assists on the residential side. more so than we have protections on the, on the small business side or on the commercial side. and it's somewhat a creature of state law and where the city can impose those restrictions and control. but i but i agree with you, there are better protections on the residential side than there are on the commercial side. yeah unfortunately, i've heard a lot of, not flattering things from community around this landowner, and i'm not i'm not going to support the coup. thanks. thank you, commissioner imperial.

yeah. this is a very uncomfortable situation. we are in. i do have a question in terms of because i think, you know, and bear with me with this because of the legacy business and also the i there is this legacy business, in the mission ordinance for the mission street nct that has actually you know, put a q, a and also there are some conditions in terms of mergers or prohibited and also in terms of the replacement of a legacy business, so in the process of rent negotiation, i don't know who can answer this. i don't know if the staff or, you know, whether the uptown bar owner as well, and all the and also the ketose bar. but i'm curious as to during the time of rent negotiation or, you know, during that time, in, in what is, you know, as far the, the

owner is mentioning that, you know, the that the uptown bar, you know, in a way leave itself in its own, but at the same time, the uptown bar is also mentioning that durine rent negotiation, they are not given that much of, you know, say in it in a, in a way that, you know, not giving an extension of your five year, five year lease. i mean, for me, when it when we're talking about non extension of five year lease, i mean that can be a form of displacement. so the reason i'm tackling into this because there is a there is a language in the, in the ordinance itself where you know, replacement of a legacy business requires kwa and where an immediately prior use was a legacy business. the

controls require any new nonresidential use to obtain conditional use authorization provided. however that this requirement shall not apply, whereas subject non residential space has had no occupant occupant and has not been open to the public for three or more years. and that's the reason why it's here too. because it has been vacant less than three years. and also there's also one part of it or where the legacy business has removed itself, so i'm looking into this kind of like technicality where, you know, in a way, if the during the rent negotiation was given, you know, was given in that process where the business or the uptown bar, in a way, you know, you in a way both parties are not really looking into some solution to keep the business together, and trying to keep in the spirit of why the kwa is, is actually put into place in the

first place by this ordinance. and so, you know, the so this is something that, you know, i try i know the city attorney would like, you know, it's a matter of the, of the use, not the user, but at the same time, you know, the debacle that i have in here or the issue that i have is here is that the legacy business in itself, whether it is being displaced intentionally and that is, you know, where i'm getting at in terms of the kwa and where i am at as a commissioner, where the uptown bar is being displaced intentionally during this process, so, you know, just to see just for you, for all the public to hear where my thoughts are in this and my other, i think more question on the on the staff or, you know, anyone who is working with the cdd, what is the process when someone is going through the rent negotiation and how is that, you know, how is that being informed

to them that they can actually get some, some kind of support, not after the fact that they're going to be displaced and, you know, so that's also i don't know if the planning staff can answer that question, but if there's something in that in place, yeah, i mean, you heard from some folks from from the uptown there are you can go to the office of small business. they will help and try to assist in these. but again, i think it's not it's not always successful where there's a positive result in the legacy business remains. so i think that's where there's kind of gaps in the protection for legacy business in the code. yeah yeah, yeah. thank you. and i think it sounds more that there needs to have more protection in the legacy business itself. and then and now the issue is like we're getting into a vacant storefront that needs to be activated. and so for me as a commissioner, i'm

looking into the legacy business protection in a way, of the coa as being required as the coa, you know, intentionally was uphold to and then at the same time, we have a vacant space that needs to be activated. for me, i would like to, you know, i stay true on what mission nct is actually, you know, the policy principles of it. and that is to preserve the legacy business as well, it is quite troubling at the same time to hear and of course, you know, it should not be part of a, should not part of the decision, but, the background of the landlord with the history of its eviction itself, i find that troubling. commissioner braum, i find this to be very difficult. i i was definitely not a regular part of the community at the uptown, but it's a great bar. it was a great

bar. i've been there many times. and everything that's transpired here in the background and the circumstances is just really disheartening, and so what i have tried to explore a little bit ahead of the hearing, and then also i've been listening for is how it is we can make findings, that would allow a motion to proceed to deny the siu, as commissioner imperial was just saying, the challenge we have here is that we approve the use, not the user at the planning commission, which is, you know, not satisfying in a number of ways. right. but, in order for us, to my understanding, in order for us to, to deny the coa, we would need to have a motion that, based on the planning code, has the right findings to deny the siu and i have been looking and trying to figure that one out, and it's just not if any other

commissioners have any any other direction on this. you know, i have not been able to find this, i think the power of the siu right now, the requirement that does exist in the mission neighborhood, commercial transit district around legacy businesses is simply the fact that there is a icu requirement. you know, the idea behind some of this seems to be coming to this commission to get a conditional use authorization for a subsequent business. is a time consuming and expensive and difficult thing to do. and that's about the power i see that we had here. having that disincentive or rather an incentive for everyone to try to maintain legacy tenants, up front. and once the legacy tenant is no longer in place, it becomes very difficult for this commission to say, for example, right now, no new bar use, you know, there's perhaps a desire to say no new bar use because of

the user. no, no new bar use in this circumstance. but if we say that here with just the way the planning code works, it looks to me like we're saying the next wonderful applicant who comes through within the next three years and says they want to open a bar, they're not allowed to either. it would be very difficult for us to then have a different set of findings that would make that possible, and then the other side of this also is if we if we did find a way to deny this conditional use authorization, the site would sit vacant for another. well, there could be a different use that comes in. but if it remains a bar, you know, there's a solid chance this sits vacant for another two years. and what month are we in? two years and three months until the conditional use authorization requirement expires. and so, i'm curious to hear if any other commissioners have any comments. i am not enthusiastic about this, but i also, as i've said, i'm having a really hard time finding a way in our planning

code that actually disallows this. this authorization. thank you. commissioner. commissioner moore, i believe that, commissioner brown very eloquently described the dilemma we're in, and i'm sitting here realizing that the legacy business while we each thursday hear the report from the historic preservation, enjoy the recognition of new legacy businesses when push comes to shove, there's very little ther. and i am glad that the legacy business expansion happened last monday. but that does not give us now or in the future, any other tools and the ones that are in front of us today with not really having any particular ability to say no, it is not the use, it's the user. this i want to describe to you something anecdotal, and it may be far fetched, but it was a good

lesson for me at a time when there was no legacy business designation. there was a very successful, coffee shop, very small, on the corner of pacific and leavenworth, and everybody loved that place. you could have internet when internet was not really that strong. yet everywhere you couldn't be in your house, but you could be there. and it had its croissants in the morning and good coffee, and it was basically a magnet for everybody. and all of a sudden the owner decided that he just didn't want this successful coffee shop to be there anymore. terminated the lease. i do not know exactly the circumstance, but the owner came in and applied for, an approval of a coffee shop. and again, it was not about the use, it was not about the user, which community

greatly objected to, but it was about the use and the commission couldn't do really much other than just let it be. and that coffee shop came into existence, except it is vacant and unused for the last six years, there was just there were just no takers. and other coffee shops down the block showed up and they became successful. except the one in question did not. and this is an anecdote of how things sometimes happens in life. there's a built in justic, and that is all i can say, because the tools that we have are limited or non-existent. and i just hang that out for thought. food for thought was $1,000 a month, sir. you're out of order at this time. thank yo. commissioner mcgarry. very well

put, commissioner moore, i think we all had a local coffee shop. that a chain or somebody moved in. because it was doing so well. and that one basically went over, went under or survived or people chose to go to one instead of the other. unfortunately, i think we have a legal versus moral issue here, and we don't have legal standing not to move this forward, but the community does. the bar will open. they choose whether they go to that bar or not or go to another one across town or just down the street. if it does become a pop up. if it does, i'll put it on my radar. i'll try and pop in after work if i get a chance, i wish everybody all the best, but i do believe this is a moral versus legal issue here. and i find myself in a moral quandary. with the mere

fact that basically, i'm not too sure. and i agree with all my commissioners. we're in a bad spot. i don't believe we can legally deny this going forward. and i don't even like being the one who actually says that, but this is where we are. i was going to make a motion to approve with conditions. second. if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner mcgarry. yes. commissioner williams. nay. commissioner braun. hi commissioner. imperial. nay commissioner. moore. no commission. president. so i so

move. commissioners. that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners. williams imperial and moore voting against. and that concludes your hearing today.

mr. benedicto, present commissioner yanez present. commissioner yi, air vice president carter and president elias are in route, commissioners, you have a quorum. also with us tonight is chief scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountability line. item one. general public comment at this time. the public is now welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the