so t this represents kind of what we're dealing with this is not unique to the planning department as you know the is facing a revenue shortfall. all the local school districts are facing other municipalities, the private sector you know, medicare and chevron and salesforce are all cutting their staff. we're sort of in this economic cycle right now of where revenue is declining and so that's not unique to the planning department. so that's what we're addressing in the budget based on that where we've been the last few years, the next slide is another view of that. >> so this is really just a representation. this isn't where we actually charge stuff but i wanted to sort of emphasize starting from . okay good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning the bottom so our general fund commission hearing for thursday is 7.5 the services we pay to february 13th, 2025. other departments like rent and when we reach the item you're dt4 our technology is about 8

interested in speaking to we ask that you line up on the million so the general fund's gone right? screen side of the room or to it's eaten our expenditure your right. each speaker will be allowed up recovery pretty much would to three minutes and when you cover like our non personal have 30s remaining you will services which is contracts and hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is lease software basically the reached i will announce that operating functions of the your time is up and take the next person cute to speak. there is a very convenient department and then the the grants revenue sits on the timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have expenditure side in our project left and watch your time tick budget so the lion's share as down. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your was which is why in the previous slide pointed out the name for the record i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these three major data points are really the fees and the volume proceedings. and finally i will remind members of the public that the that comes in from entitlements and permits if you look at this commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. number the lion's share of our revenue and expenditure is fees and at this time i'd like to take role commission president and salaries. so that's where we are able to so present commission vice president moore commissioner adjust our expenditures. braun here, commissioner campbell here commissioner mcgarry present and the rest of it is really just on the fringe. it's really those two commissioner williams here. we expect commissioner imperial categories that drive the to be out today. majority of our budget. first on your agenda so within that context this was commissioners is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one case number 2024 hyphen 008053 crv presented a couple of weeks ago what we're proposing on the

for the preservation design revenue side is again to reduce our fee revenue by $2 million. standards this is proposed for we're also going to eat the cpi continuance to march 20th 2025. item two case number 2024 ,the fees or cpi add in the hyphen 005527 drop it 1042 code every year but we're not going to assume that cpi filbert street discretionary review has been withdrawn. increase in the budget we're going to eat it. so that's another million. i have no other item proposed for continuance so we should so that's about a $3 million take public comment on the revenue decrease. the grants this is primarily continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. the $7 million pro housing members of the public this is grant that we're getting from your opportunity to speak to the hud that's causing not to the continuance calendar seeing go up. and then as deborah explained none. public comment is closed and before the outyear we don't know what the grants are so it your continuance calendar is goes down until we know what not before you commissioners they are expenditure or measure number on move to recovery is the money that we continue items one and two as recover from other departments proposed. again thank you commissioners for the work that we do for them like the airport and mta and port and then we have our on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner campbell i wish to general fund support which is miscarry. commissioner williams all staying flat year over year and right. commissioner braun i commissioner moore and commission president so i so then on the expenditure side move commissioners that motion again to address that fee passes unanimously 6 to 0 reduction we're going to

placing us under your consent calendar all matters listed eliminate we're proposing to eliminate about six positions here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be out of the budget this year we routine by the planning eliminated 17 last year and commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote about 20 the year before. . there will be no separate so we've gone from like 250 discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff down to 200 staff in what so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from positions these are the ones the consent calendar and that are being eliminated are considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. all vacant. we've been holding positions vacant because of the revenue item three case number 2024 hyphen 009797 see wait 2999 not coming in. so the we're going to cut some california street unit number more positions. the overhead is just the city wide indirect cost non 603 conditional use authorization in item for case personnel services that's number 2015 hyphen 002658c primarily contracts is going to stay the same and then we have hyphen zero two at 2937 24th like leases technology cost and street conditional use there and the materials and authorization members of the public this is your opportunity supplies is just our operating to request that either of these you know pencils and paper and two items be pulled off of consent and considered today or stuff like that and then the project budget is where the a future hearing seeing none grants are budgeted and then we public comment is closed and have one equipment request for your consent calendar is now before you commissioners a server farm that we need to upgrade the host for the server

commissioner braun moved to farm is like five years past approve items three and four its life and then the inter-departmental services items on consent calendar. again that's the rent and duty >> i can thank you commissioners on that motion then two to approve items three and human resources. and four on consent. commissioner campbell high these are the what we pay for commissioner mcgarry mr. williams i have commissioner braun i commissioner moore and the services of other departments. >> so that is the expenditure commission president so i some side of it. of commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 the calendar as you can see we placing us on commission matters. came on the 23rd, we went to item five the land acknowledgment the commission historic preservation last week they adopted a resolution recommending the planning commission adopt our budget. we're here today for final acknowledges that we are on the adoption and the to do the unceded ancestral homeland of the remington aloni who are the mayor's office at the end of next week on june 1st the mayor original inhabitants of the san will release the budget to the francisco peninsula as the full board of supervisors and indigenous stewards of this then the finance and budget committee considers the budget land and in accordance with their traditions the roma to in june and it goes back to the full board in july for final colony have never ceded lost nor forgotten their adoption so that is today's

responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as presentation and we with that well as for all peoples who we request that you consider a resolution to adopt our budget reside in their traditional and submit the proposed budget to the mayor's office next week territory as guests we and we're available for any questions that you may have. recognize that we benefit from living and working on their >> thank you. that concludes stuff traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by presentation we should open up public comment members of the public this is your opportunity acknowledging the ancestors, to address the commission on their budget and work program. elders and relatives of the roma to colony community and by you need to come forward if you're in the chambers seeing affirming their sovereign none. we'll go to our reasonable rights as first peoples. >> thank you. accommodation request. >> you miss hester. >> item six commission comments and questions if there are no comments or questions from ms. hester? members of the commission we can move on to department matters. no, i didn't want to. coffee? okay with that then public item seven directors announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners comment is closed and your . just a preview later today the mayor is going to issue an executive directive on

permitting reform that we have been involved in along with our budget and work program are now before you commissioners partner agencies a tbi in the permit center and the office of commissioner brown first i just small business in what the executive directive will do and want to wish ms. landis a quick we'll send it to you excuse me when it's signed and issued is recovery. >> thanks for being here. require us to undertake specific actions in the next i have well first i just want to say i really appreciate the hundred days as well as the look at the longer term trends next year in those are around especially with the case and permit volume versus revenues process changes regulatory and associated with it. >> my the only question i have is it looks like the revenue fee changes potentially per case or permit has declined structural change like how departments are organized which over time. is that just because there are could ultimately lead to smaller projects or what what charter change in technology drives that right. >> so before the pandemic what like how we all interface our we were seeing you saw the cranes downtown. technologies and permitting we were seeing the large projects. process in processing permits. so we're not seeing that during so there's an executive team the pandemic as interest rates were still low we were seeing a that's been established to do lot of remodeling projects but this work. we've been asked that planning now with interest rates being high construction costs being to lead it myself and liz is high a lot of those projects part of it which we're we're honored and committed to do but are going away. so what we're and also with the

we can only do this with the state changes about ministerial help of the other permitting review and less court review agency. what we're seeing is projects so debbie plays a huge role in this the permit center which is that are coming in that we're currently under the city collecting less revenue because they're small or they're administrator's office will be a big participant in the office ministerial or so that's kind of what it's sort of of small business as well. katie dang rebecca villar, phil multilayered what's happening there. okay. thank you. ralph mayor and patrick o'riordan. >> um and then i guess the only so we'll come back and talk to other thing i just want to you more about that but just wanted to give you a preview and we'll certainly send it to check on is you know i saw the budget revenue and expenditure you when it's issued. >> thank you. numbers are still the same as the last time the commission heard it. so there's no major change okay, commissioners item eight that's happened since we we deliberated on the budget in review of past events at the board of supervisors hours. january. >> is that right? i'm sorry i said i didn't quite catch that. i saw that the microphones in a different place today. i have no report from the board of appeals and the historic yes that's right. oh okay. preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> good afternoon commissioners audrey maloney filling in for that's correct. aaron starr today. we had a busy calendar at land i guess the answer's yes. okay. okay, great. use this week. uh, in that case, you know, it's sort of a second look at a first up was the inclusionary very sobering budget situation. housing ordinance which is um, but nevertheless i'm going sponsored by the mayor. the committee first heard this to make a motion i moved to item last week but it required a one week continuance because of substantive amendments that

adopt the budget packet and we were made at that hearing supervisor sartor provided a brief update to share that have commissioner more willing to say something. there is growing support for the cedar street project and >> i, i only want to add a word afterwards the item was sent to the full board with a positive of caution and that is the position about grants we all do recommendation as a committee report. >> next is the development here in the industry that impact fees for office to residential conversion projects grants for extremely important projects i.e. shoreline . >> supervisor dorsey attended committee to make several clarifying amendments along stabilization that is affecting with taking the planning very much of the california commission's recommended modification as supervisor. coast and us here are being canceled literally i just snap sartor also attended to speak on behalf of the ordinance as a of a finger and i want to make sure that we have a backup plan co-sponsor. supervisor chen emphasized the importance of ensuring that the and some safe doing out city still has the resources that they need to conduct somewhere because a number is a substantial number and i would construct affordable housing especially in our city's cultural districts. hate to see the department being caught off guard. she stated that many vulnerable communities have made it known that they have not been >> yeah, agree. you know where we're definitely adequately consulted on this legislation and therefore requested that the committee cognizant of that the grants usually you know are related to continue the item to february a specific you know piece of 24th to give more time for consultation with the community. >> supervisor melgar stated work we're doing or undertaking. >> we're doing so you know we

that she's been a stalwart supporter of child care and affordable housing. don't start that until we or hire people associated with at the same time she has seen the effect of high vacancy rates in our downtown. that until we have a grant agreement in place. >> but you you know your point she stated that the commerce generated by the downtown's active hotels and commercial is well taken. you know, we could have a grant agreement and that be businesses spreads throughout the city and the lack of that terminated in the midst of a grant agreement. so yeah, totally understand. has negatively impacted neighborhoods far and wide. >> thank you. i'm in support obviously what's she emphasized the amount of work that still needs to be in front of us. done to revitalize our thank you, commissioner downtown. and though she still wants williams. funds for child care parks and affordable housing, she acknowledged that the inaction yeah, just thank you for for the presentation. on development hurts these resources even more. >> i'm just concerned about she committed to this legislation not being the start future layoffs. of a wholesale rollback of you know, and and wondering if impact fees and enforced that the fee waiver is only to be you guys have any projects on applied to adaptive reuse projects and not new construction. >> supervisor mahmud brought up on that losing more staff and if you do well let's not go the example of the warfield. he stated that they were set to there but you know it would be move forward as an adaptive reuse project until the project in pencil. interesting you know i'm just concerned that certain he said the space being active is critical to enlivening the downtown whether it is through departments don't get cut and and so you know as far as as an adaptive reuse project or through other initiatives like

arts and entertainment spaces. far as the the future forecast >> supervisor dorsey spoke to clarify the ordinance's impacts on new construction projects ,how does that look? >> yes, but you know, through and woody spoke to confirm that the only portions of only the the last couple of years we've portions of existing offices that are converted into we've you know and i credit the finance team you know, we've avoided any getting even close residential uses would be exempt from these impact fees to the potential for layoffs so any new construction would still trigger the fees. but our revenues keep decreasing which is which is >> the motion made by supervisor chen to continue the problematic and you know we've item to february 24th failed 2 worked with the mayor's office to get some bumps in the to 1 with supervisor chen the general fund but that's hard to sole assenting vote. come by too as the city's revenue shrinks if there are supervisor mahmud moved to make the amendments that i layoffs which again we don't previously mentioned and that motion was approved unanimously and then the committee moved 2 anticipate there still is cushion between kind of with vacant positions that we have. to 1 to move the item forward with a positive recommendation. well, come talk to you about kind of the the work programs supervisor chen was in the dissent and lastly atlantis we would propose to to reduce this week we had the interim housing in hotels and motels in that instance. so it's something we would want your your input and ordinance. that item was continued to the call of the chair so that the consideration on as well. sponsor can work on additional amendments and at the full board this week the 99 rhode thank you but don't anticipate i don't want to anticipate island street ordinance passed

second read and the exactly. thank you. inclusionary housing ordinance thank you. passed its first read. so thank you for the >> and that concludes my report. presentation. tom and i wish your recovery as thank you. okay commissioners, if there are no questions for staff we soon as you can. i think that the team work can move on to general public really hard and diligently look comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items at really finding every single of interest to the public that are within the subject matter penny we have in our department jurisdiction of the commission in times like this in the in except agenda items with respect to agenda items. the low dip cycle. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded i do look forward to however when the item is reached in the meeting each member of the public may address the some new way of upcoming fee commission for up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute implementation but that my limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda ten minutes without my understanding it needs a new ordinance and legislation to adopt and so that will take dream come true. some time and so would like to >> okay. hi georgia shoot ish i'm look forward to hope that there submitting a hard copy of with will be some silver lining in this memorandum of the updated there to to come to a place. timeline emailed to the commission on february 12th for but overall i am in support of the record because the two this budget proposal and thank

sanchez street projects in the email pdfs and on february you for the hard work in times like this. ninth really are illustrative okay commissioners, if there's of the speculative development nothing further there is a that occurred in no valley over motion that has been seconded the past decade plus. to adopt your fiscal years 2025 and i think these two projects are good examples going forward to think about housing in the priority equity geographies, looking at the timeline and the through 2027 budget and work program on that motion history of section 317 and residential demolition, i wonder why section 317 was commissioner campbell i wish to re carry mr. williams i wish to basically preserved in the neighborhoods under the brian i should know more high constraints reduction ordinance but i think it's rooted in commission president so i so move commissioners that motion concern over protecting housing in those neighborhoods for the people that live in those passes unanimously 6 to 0 neighborhoods. a similar concern was also placing us on item ten for case expressed by staff in the number 2024 hyphen 0103 25 pca for condominium conversion of october 2021 analysis of sb nine and the concern that some accessory dwelling units planning code amendments. lower income homeowners in some >> good afternoon commissioners rh one neighborhoods will feel audra maloney again i have hard the pressure to cash out and sell their homes. >> looking at the huge price increases the average of over 4 copies of a powerpoint presentation that i will ask jonas to pass out for members million that happened over the of the public. past decade and now we valley this is a reasonable there are also some available on the table that as as occurs assumption. no evali does not exist in a vacuum so the ability to adjust

the counts to meet the findings of section 317 is still available to this commission to forestall the pressures due to the huge price increases. >> it's a tool available to this commission the commission's word would be the final word and given the climate where so many tools have been basically ripped away from this commission, it's a valuable tool. could i please get the computer? >> if you look at the timeline, thank you. there have been several attempts to deal with the issue okay commissioners, we're going whether the authority or the peskin legislation that all failed since then as can be to go a little out of order today instead of having the the seen at various points in the supervisors office come and timeline, the commission has speak first because this ordinance has a little bit of a inquired about dealing with the issue of demolition and the complicated cross section that involves subdivision in and 80 demo counts but that has never happened. >> i did hear staff say once at use and condo conversions we wanted to do just a little bit the hpc that all that would happen if the democrats were of a brief refresher on those subjects for you and how they relate to this ordinance. just it would be that developers would just go up to the new threshold. my response is that may be a good thing because more of the >> so going into ada use as the structure would be retained and subject matter first right off would just be a simple horizontal expansion. for example to add a bedroom or the bat to understand the intricacies and exceptions to

maybe even put in an 80 you which the commission is going to talk about later today. an ever changing world of 80 use you would essentially need >> look at what the change would be in the section 317 two it to be your full time job. values if the house were >> fortunately we do have someone here today and that's adjusted once even better twice natalia fossey who will be available for questions if you see below i think the year two have them on use. values would be the full with but for the purposes of this the full 20% adjustment poor ordinance we're just going to planning code section three 17 focus on the aspects that are important to know for how it b2d done twice since 2009 would would be affected in this ordinance. so again, this ordinance is not be the sweet spot at the very least it wouldn't be a project going to change any of the that really is not only like a eligibility requirement. demolition but is actually a demolition. i hope that the commission will it's or how you can build an adu, how you can convert or keep the timeline handy because construct an adu which programs i will continue to reference it you can use. it is talking about the going forward as we deal with the rezoning and other issues ownership structure of our cities to use so to qualify to such as codifying the flat policy to meet the findings in build near to you you still resolution 2002 for codifying the flat policy when we have so need to meet all the same qualifications you would have had to before. >> we have three programs under many flats throughout the city that may not yet either be ty which an 80 you may be created seat or condo it seems critical the main differences are under the local program you can build and i had an experience with more than 1 or 2. that the other night but i'll take that story for another day >> you but if you need any kind . >> thank you very much. you too. of exception or waiver from the planning code then that unit is happy valentine's day tomorrow

. >> thank you. subject to rent control and under the state program you can >> okay. last call for general public comment seeing none in the only build one adu but that unit is not subject to rent chambers we go to our reasonable accommodation control and has ministerial approval and is not subject to request for this is soon after meeting all of the planning code requirements. the director reported it. generally the majority of our the mayor is about to issue city's multifamily properties executive director on process end up going with the local that directive is going to program because often they're trying to build more than one affect the planning commission adu and they need waivers from hearings. the planning code and most of please send that directive as our single family homes go with the state program because an attachment to the entire list that you send the planning they're trying to build one adu and they benefit from the master ministerial review when commission calendar and also i they go through that and then of course because nothing is would ask for regular people simple in the world of ada use we do have this third bucket don't get the calendar like i called our hybrid program to do that that the calendar so use because hybrid to use have to comply with all planning notes that the directive was code standards except for issued and provide a link to it density. we rarely see this program where there's really major used. change made by the mayor and i have it on there because it is a path but this proposed ordinance would not allow you are aware of and because

mswati and mr. hill who are hybrid to use to participate going to sit on that committee and again it's so rarely used the rest of the public should that we're going to kind of know about it. leave them off of this discussion. thank you very much. they're not fully relevant for the purposes of today. >> okay. final last call for general >> one thing i want to point out before we move slides is public comment seeing none general public communist closed this focus on rent control. and so i just want to emphasize and we can move on to your regular calendar commissioners is where rent control doesn't doesn't apply depending on for item nine case number 2025 which path you use because that was greatly influencing what hyphen 000230 crv for the our department recommended fiscal years 2025 and 2027 modifications are which i will proposed department budget and get to later. work program this is for your >> so now we talked about the adoption good afternoon three paths that you can take. we're going to just do a quick commission i'm thomas desanto. reminder on the types of areas >> i'm the director of that you can build. >> the first is attached which administration at the planning department. >> deborah is recovering from is a new addition to an feeling under the weather so existing building and then you i'm going to do the presentation today and we reviewed the budget a couple of have detached which are free weeks ago the late january in standing usually in the rear more detail. so today it's going to do a yard, a new freestanding building and then the third high level summary of what we talked about a few weeks ago at which i think a lot of us think of when we think of it to use in the city which is the conversion 80 which is taking the last hearing.

existing space in an existing building like storage or a there are a couple of questions about how the proposed budget fit into the context of what's garage and turning that into an 80 you and then again because been going on, the planning nothing is simple we actually department over the past few years and our overall finances do have a fourth type of to use so we put a couple of slides that i did not put on this and that is the junior adu and that's kind of what you would together to answer that question. the first slide i wanted to think of as the op pair the emphasize that there's really nanny suite. it's very much part of the main three major factors that drive home. our budget and that is >> this ordinance would not allow junior to use to become entitlements and permits that condos. so again we're going to leave walk through the door the that one off for the purposes revenue that those entitlements and permits generate and then of the conversation moving forward. how many staff we can fund from so then we get into what this that money. and so if you look at this year prior to covid hitting we were ordinance would do and at almost 16,000. essentially it would allow certain types of new or the volume dropped considerably existing 80 use that are built through the local or the state program to become condominiums. to the following two years when covid hit and then it's come up they would have to meet that list of requirements that's on a little the last couple of the slide. >> some of these are years. the green bar is the actual requirements put in place by revenue so you'll see that this local ordinance and some are at the requirement of the we've had a substantial revenue decline particularly in the

last two years we've had like a state law that allows us to create this local ordinance 14% and then a 16% drop in things like safety inspections revenue that's projected to and and hoa rules and things even out in this coming year in like that that the state program required every local condo conversion program to the year that we're in to have. address that the last couple of and then when we're thinking years we've reduced the assumed about our goals with this revenue in the budget and reduced fte count to make up ordinance as the department ideally the ados that use this for that reduction in the budget. program will create affordable so we've reduced vacant positions in our budget. by design units in areas of our city that are the highest resource and yet lowest density ideally the program will open up homeownership opportunities to middle income families in neighborhoods of our city that are usually out of reach for homeownership and again if done correctly, the program would also encourage existing homeowners to construct, to use and access untapped equity in their properties. >> and beyond that we think it could help older residents with aging in place either by generating the income that they need to stay in their home through the creation and sale

of an 82 on their property or by downsizing within their own neighborhood and moving into an adu so that they can stay in place at the same time of course we want to always ensure that any program that we put forward doesn't put already vulnerable populations at risk of displacement. >> and when we examine the current draft of the legislation we noticed a couple of potential issues related to rent control protections and tenant occupied units. >> so generally single family homes are not subject to rent control and we treat condominiums much the same way. >> so once a unit becomes a condominium it is generally no longer subject to rent control . >> so this means if a 80 you built under the local program which again requires rent control chooses to become a condominium once that adu is a condominium it would and is sold to a new owner.

it would generally not require rent control anymore even though it was built using the local program. >> so even if a scenario exists because again nothing is absolute in this world where rent control is still applied to a condominium that was an adu built through the local program we have another issue that could lead to displacement which is owner move and evictions. >> so a multifamily building only allows one owner a move in eviction but in condominiums everyone is considered its own individual unit and so a condominium unit can have an owner remove an eviction right next door to another condominium unit that has its owner move an eviction. >> and so the ados that are turned into condos are eligible for owner moving evictions if that space was already some kind of living space or dwelling unit then we get into a little bit of a problem with tenant displacement and then obviously loss of the rent control. >> we this is a very high level

overview of this. we go into more detail on pages five and six of your staff report and of course we're also happy to answer any more questions if they they come up during commissioner comments. >> so the next issue we wanted to kind of make sure we're trying to prevent the displacement of tenants on is due to use or unauthorized dwelling units we have major problems with you to use in the city that's of no surprise to anybody just in terms of the ability to verify where a u t u is or is not. >> we know we have a lot of them in the city but they're not authorized so we don't know where all of them are. and so when you're thinking about an 80 u or a space that might be converted into a legal edu, you have to remember that especially with conversion to use there may have been some kind of unauthorized dwelling unit there with a tenant before and one thing to keep in mind is that you do use where we do know where they are are subject to rent control. there are rent control protections.

so what does this look like when we're looking at it in terms of this ordinance? the blue boxes on this screen could be unknown you to use that may or may not have tenants in them. these same blue boxes could become that conversion type of edu that then using this program could turn into a condo and once it's turned into a condo it removes the udu rent control protections and could also displace the tenant through that condo conversion. and i know there might be a question of why don't we just do site visits before approving these types of applications and the problem is we don't know if a tenant was recently there. we can't go back in time to make sure that this unit wasn't recently tenant occupied by the time we come and do a site visit that's so then that leaves us with a lot of questions which is how do we ensure that our goals for this program are met without also

displacing tenants or removing rent controlled housing stock which leads very nicely into our first recommended modification that's in your staff reports. >> we feel like if we're if we're really careful about limiting the types of areas that are eligible to convert into condominiums, we can protect rent controlled housing and protect the displacement of tenants. >> so we have this graphic here and i do want to to make one point of clarification the image of the condo building on the right in theory that building could have more than four units. we know there's six garages on that graphic and yet the proposed ordinance would limit this program to existing buildings with four units or less. >> so this exact building on the right if it was more than four units would not be eligible to use this program. i apologize if it's a bit confusing. we we are stuck with the stock images that we have for

purposes of illustration but again that's just a generic example of what a multi unit building would look like with a detached adu in it. we're not endorsing this program expanding to units or buildings with more than four units. >> so with that said, when we look at what we want to limit this program to, our first limitation is for existing buildings. if you are a single family home or an existing condominium building of four units or less then you can construct a detached adu through the state program. so why limit the structures to just detached? and that's because if a new if it's a new detached adu we know there's no chance that this was a former space that a tenant was occupying that we would might maybe displace there's no there's no issue with versus an attached adu of a wall being knocked down and potentially the space behind that that might have been garage space or storage space affecting an unknown udu and then why limit

to just the state program this gets back to the rent control question. so the state program generally does not apply rent control to the adus it creates. >> so if we allow the condo ization of a two you built through that program we know we're not putting rent control at it at risk of being removed . there may also be a question of why wouldn't we expand this to multifamily buildings not just condos to add the detached adu? and that's because when you have a lot with one condominium and one multifamily building often rent controlled, it creates undue hardships and complications with subdividing that lot and it also becomes a bit of a planning code implementation and nightmare to have a condominium building existing on the same parcel as a multifamily often rent controlled building. so for now we are trying to just limit this program to be as simple as possible. >> so our next proposed limitation on the program is

for new construction. so for new construction we're limiting the program to new single family homes and new condominium projects that are proposing to construct either a detached or attached adu again through that state program. >> so again, if it's an entirely new building broke okay with an attached to you because there's no risk of there having been a tenant in that space who might be subject to the the wall that's knocked down to add that attached adu. >> so all this being said, we recognize that in the real world there are going to be a lot of additional areas that we need to understand and adapt for that are outside of the control of the planning code in order for this program to be successful. but we do feel like with our recommended modifications this ordinance creates a planning pathway for condominium to use without causing harm to rent

control, without risking displacement of tenants and is a very, very important first step to expanding our housing choices. >> before i conclude, i just want to remind that there are two other recommended modifications in our staff report. the first is to move those state mandated requirements that have to do with conveyance and subdivision. move those to the appropriate code because we don't actually have the expertise or skills or staff or certifications to conduct most of that work the way that gbi and dpw does. >> and then to make a couple of clarifying amendments. >> so with that i want to thank you for sitting through this presentation and also remind you that natalia fasi is here. and with that i will turn it over to jonathan goldberg from supervisor and garcia's office to present on their ordinance.

okay. >> hello. good afternoon president so and members of the planning commission. my name is joel and gaudio. i'm the supervisor for the sunset district. as you know, san francisco has a goal to produce 82,000 housing units by 2032. and much of our city is already built out and i know many residents are concerned about increased building heights and disruptions from construction. but we have additional options to consider around increasing housing in the city. i consider accessory dwelling units as an opportunity to increase housing options and density within the existing fabric of our neighborhoods. now 80 use they are an affordable type of home to construct in california because they do not require paying for land and major new infrastructure structured parking or elevators to use are built with cost effective wood frame construction which is significantly less costly than homes and new multifamily infill buildings to use allow extended families to be near

one another while maintaining privacy. they give homeowners the flexibility to share independent living areas with family members and others allowing seniors to age in place as they require more care . but many homeowners continue to face barriers to building to use their are well outside their traditional parameters. within our planning code, longtime homeowners are often constrained by limited liquidity and cash assets even as the value of their homes and property appreciates over decades. residents cannot easily access the wealth that's accrued in the properties they own unless they sell their homes. and this can displace long time residents and separate separate the multigenerational extended families that live in those homes. so i believe this legislation can help prevent this type of displacement while creating opportunities for families and especially immigrant families to build generational wealth. i've also heard from many who don't want to become landlords

or manage tenants as they age in place. i've i've heard questions about how and where they're going to be able to secure access to capital to get an edu built so this legislation before you today intends to reduce those barriers that addresses the concerns i've heard from sunset residents around 80 new construction and financing. and most importantly it provides additional opportunities for san francisco to meet the statement dated housing production goals. so i want to thank peter

from the city attorney's office and planning department staff natalia fossey and audrey maloney for their collaboration and thoughtful input on this legislation. and i concur with planning staff's recommendations on this legislation so thank you commissioners and hope to have your support today. >> very good with that we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. eileen burke in coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf, strongly urging the commission to continue this item to its may 1st hearing. this item first appeared on the january 23rd commission agenda as a proposed continuance to today. however, on january 22nd board

file 250076 was referred for adoption without committee reference agenda to the next board meeting on january 28th. this resolution was adopted by the board of supervisors on january 31st. this resolution was approved by the mayor. >> this resolution is extending by 90 days the prescribed time within which the planning commission may render its decision on an ordinance file under 241069 the extension would have been to me fifth with the last available commission hearing on may 1st if this item is heard today it would have wasted the time of the members of ten members of the board of supervisors, five of which are newly minted. it would have wasted the time of the new mayor and his administration in this

disregard for 90 day extension related to the district four recall regarding the substance of the ordinance, it's been reported that san francisco currently has a glut in condos and that insurance providers are seeking rate increases of up to on condos of 30%. what is the target market for adu two condo conversions does the ordinance reflect the local need or does it reflect the sacramento culture of legislature leaders producing a bill package for its own sake based on mayor laurie's commitment to transparency, accountability and anti-corruption, i would strongly urge the commission to continue this item to me first or clarify with the board and the mayor why it chose to do otherwise. >> thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. planning commission members. i am briana morales from the

housing action coalition as their staff organizer and i am here to strongly support the proposed ordinance. it's a strong practical step towards expanding homeownership our opportunities, increasing housing production and helping longtime residents stay in their communities. >> it's also an ordinance that helps increase our housing production and meeting our housing element requirements. it will definitely tackle our housing crisis in san francisco, one of san francisco's biggest challenges is the lack of entry level homeownership options which is exactly why former assembly member phil ting who represented the west side authorized the state law that made this possible in the first place to create more first time homeownership opportunities. this ordinance brings a lot of benefits to san francisco as supervisor and guardiola previously mentioned it allows flexibility in certain parts of san francisco to allow families

to live together in close proximity without obstructing their privacy which is incredibly valuable for seniors and extended families and longtime residents who haven't been able to stay in their communities based on aging out . it's also a financial flexibility option for people who want to be able to afford to live in their homes for many years to come as well. it allows cost effective ways of housing. there's a lot of financial things to consider when creating housing and using would frame construction is significantly significantly more affordable than other types of large scale development opportunities. so these homes are attainable and sustainable while adding to our housing supply. so we definitely recognize recognize the need for reasonable protections but hope that they shouldn't stand in the way of creating more new home ownership opportunities.

we along with other supporters like the bay area council urge the commission to move forward with this and help more san francisco's become home owners. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm mitchell homer berg with the affordable housing alliance. we've been fighting for renters which for us has meant renters rights, rent control, eviction protection and protection from condo conversions for many years. and today i'm also speaking on behalf of the san francisco tenants union who's joining us and you know, planning staff is spot on here and finding the main problem here and that's why we're so strongly opposed to this legislation. it will result in the loss of an unlimited number of rental units in buildings of up to four units not including easy to use.

right. because the legislation will facilitate the conversion of all the units in those buildings into condominiums and once they're condominiums the tax can all be evicted for owner removal and eviction. there are other just causes that also apply to evicting a tenant in a converted condo to move out. so it is really very destructive and we are strongly opposed. thank you. okay. last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed in this matter is now before you commissioners first i want to say thank you supervisor and gaudio and jonathan's time i really appreciate to hear you firsthand where you stand and your support with our department staff recommendation colleagues, i just want to do

like a quick reminder here that we're here to weigh in on a single question on whether or not we want to incentivize new addus by allowing them to bill as condos. so from where i sit along with the staff recommendations and with our supervisor and cardio support we are avoiding any potential loss of rent control housing. yes there might be issues with the financing or the insurability or the feasibility of these addus villas at this at least remove one roadblock. >> i personally believe this is a do no harm proposal and i will leave it to commissioner o'brien. well first of all thank you to the provider and guardian for bringing forward legislation i was watching when hb 1033 was getting approved i think it was last year and curious to see how this would play out at different local levels.

i know that berkeley has been talking about this as well and i also i want to also thank staff for a really excellent analysis of how this kind of conversion of either use or allowing you to use to be condos interacts with the different types of ada use which ones have rent control and which don't, what the incentives are and ensuring that we're protecting really going pretty far to protect rent controlled units. i have a few questions. i might be a little all over the map today but let's see one question i was little confused about as i said, the the requirement for the areas to which this would apply. there are certain dates and so i'm not sure who can respond to this but basically the the date for the state program aligned with when the state program went into effect so that that seemed to make sense to me. but what what's driving the application of units that come in under the local program from

november 1st of last year onward? thank you commissioner brian jonathan goldberg, chief of staff with supervisor in guardiola's office. the the date was when we expected the legislation to be heard at the board. there were ongoing discussions and so we the intent was for the the legislation to take effect and for a someone who wants to pursue our local program to be able to apply for their permits and and as well as go through the subdivision process at the same time when they apply for their permits we have we completely agree with planning staff's recommendations to sort of amend that date and push it forward. okay. thank you. but it also seems like maybe this form is melanie. so if i understand the recommendations correctly this

would no longer apply to the local program 80 use anyway. >> is that right? >> that's correct. i think hopefully without misstating the supervisors intent those dates where the original attempt at trying to make sure we were not touching any current tenant occupied 80 use and we are going about that in a different way by limiting first of all what can become an ada, what can become a condo and also saying it has to be brand new. you can't take an existing adu and turn it into a condo because again there might be a tenant there that that would be at risk of displacement. so the date was supervisor and cardio is office's attempt at trying to make sure tenants are not displaced and our recommendation is going about it in a different way that essentially would not necessitate those dates anymore. >> thank you. and i think maybe my next question is for you add there's the so the so i'm also curious

on that same line of questioning do we get many use for the local program that don't require waivers because the way the rent control applies when there are waivers that apply to it. >> good afternoon commissioners. natalia fasi departments staff we don't generally 80 used to go through our local program are going through it for two benefits being able to add in certain cases unlimited 80 use and getting those waivers from the planning code. it is extremely rare that one wouldn't need one. >> okay so they probably use the state program if they didn't need the waivers basically. exactly right. thank you. >> um so i agree with the the the approach being taken here with the staff recommend recommended modifications of the legislation. it really seems like a very much a belt and suspenders approach to trying to eliminate any 80 use to which rent control protections would apply from being allowed to undergo the condo conversion.

it's a really thorough sort of for filtering approach by really restricting the types of air use to which this could apply in the situations in which this could apply. so i really appreciate seeing seeing that taken really seriously. i agree with present so you know i see this as uh just a little more incentive for maybe homeowners to provide a to use. i also see this as a slightly different incentive as well in terms of you know, we get these two views that i question whether they'll ever actually be be occupied by renters and to me if the adu ends up being sold as a condo i have a little bit more confidence that maybe somebody is going to you know, somebody buying that is actually going to rent it. maybe there are wealthy people out there with with that it uses the second home in the city but it does give me a little bit more confidence that when we produce housing units people are actually in them. and i also see a benefit to

having the ada use be a relatively affordable not you know still market rate but relatively affordable um ownership product type just by virtue of the size and configuration of a lot of the ada use. so i am in with the staff recommended modifications i am in full support but i see some other commissioners do want to weigh in so thank you. >> thank you. commissioner williams i want to thank you thank you staff for you know sorting all the adu uh different ways we look at use in the city up thank you supervisor and gardiner for being here personally we hardly ever see that come in front of the commission. >> i have a different take. you know i'm very concerned 80 use are by design affordable and you know we are in desperate need of affordable housing according to our

housing element. >> i think rental units are um hard to come by and i'm concerned that you know this is going to affect renters and renters ability to access affordable housing here. but there's a couple of things i want to point out and one thing that that i was a little confused about ms.. malone was so if if someone applies for this legislation or applies for this this law the existing so it's a new new ada use and what happens to the the units that are part of the application to those also get permission to become condo right thank you so much commissioner for asking that question. i was hoping to have an opportunity to explain that

further so we worked heavily with the city attorney on trying to make sure we fully understood and interpreted the state's intention correctly. >> and so these the assembly bill essentially says the main building which again remember most of california is a little bit more suburban than ours. so i think the main building we have interpreted that to mean the whole building the primary is the whole building so that building can become its own condo and the adu becomes a condo. now it's a little bit of a confusing nomenclature because we're essentially saying is the adu can become its own separate building. the effect is nothing happens to the multi unit building. so if you have an existing and again this is without staff recommended modifications if you have an existing three unit rent controlled multi-unit building and under the legislation as it stands now

wanted to add an adu to that the adu could become a condo and the three unit building is the other building so in effect nothing happens to it. >> it cannot become you can't pull one unit out of that three unit building and say great, that's going to also become its own condo and we'll have a two unit building. you can't make all three units in that building a condo. it is the intention is to say if you have one building on the lot of adu that is going to become its own transfer rable property. >> you need to make sure the other units on the lot are not connected in any way to that adu so they become the other primary unit on the block so nothing can be converted to a condo in a multi unit building that is an individual unit. >> does that make sense? that was my question. i just want to add to that too. but if you take our recommendation it does it doesn't even matter because we're saying if it's an existing rec. so that example that you

brought up where there's three units that are rent controlled it's not even an issue we would not allow for a condo to adu in that case it would have to be a rental. adu if i recommendations are taken if it's a three unit condo building you could add another condo. adu and i think that's the thrust of our recommendation. you could basically only do this in new construction or where there are existing condos . >> so if you take our recommendation i think your questions kind of moot. >> thank you. thank you. mr. hillis also so isn't there a more atrium on condominiums right now? is there what what's the existing state of of what's happening with condominiums in our city? >> great question. we have a condominium lottery and that is about the extent of my knowledge on condominium conversions. but i do understand that essentially there is a a lottery that you can go into if you are currently to see you have to be i believe it's six

units or four units. maybe somebody else knows better than i do but this would be a way this program would be a way for let's say a single family home to add a second unit that is an adu and have it become two condos instead of the single family home and the adu that is inherently attached to that parcel and cannot be divided as a separate salable piece. >> other than that with our staff recommended modification you're not going to really get around the condo conversion lottery because again it's only available to single family homes wanting to add another to you and buildings that are already condos that you you know, i remain i remain very concerned about this legislation. i again, i'm someone who believes that we haven't had

enough conversation around affordable housing that were you know, most of the housing that's come before this commission since i've been here has been market rate housing and you know, i don't see anybody really making any moves to to change the conversation or try to really work on our affordable mandate from the state. and so but i want to just touch on a couple other things before and then i'll let my other commissioners have the mic. >> so existing tenants could be subject to owner movements. >> i mean existing tenders can be subject to owner move in eviction. it's but you you've you've went through that so thank you for

and and another point that i wanted to point out is this this legislation is kind of out of compliance with our housing element as far as our affordability requirements that that's i think the main thing now that after these amendments or after you know the recommendations from from planning that's that to me is the biggest obstacle all to gain my support here. so having said that you know unfortunately i won't be able to to support this today. again, i hope the conversation continues around affordable housing that we need to really start to think about. we're becoming a city that is

very unaffordable. people are, you know, low income people are really struggling to stay here and it's a serious, serious situation. so anyway, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner vice president moore thank you. supervisor encouraged you for being here and speaking really from the experience in your district where i see the applicability of this particular program being a possibility when it comes to the interpretation as to where we can look at as we unit occupied buildings and add a need to you the pushback by the department i think is essential because if i paraphrase director hillis if those buildings are renter occupied there is no possibility of achieving that and i think we all strongly stand for that

particular aspect and a building on its own in a situation like that cannot be a condominium because condo means together and there is no partner when the other building is actually occupied by renters . so that's the would give that away. i would like to ask the supervisor to consider discussion and with a final green examination look at the use of the word affordable by design and the reason why i'm seeing that supervisor is we know that us housing construction services most of it's wood coming from canada, japan and other countries and with the most recent threat of tariffs for those countries a large amount of the affordability will very quickly disappear because this the wood will not be cheaper. it will be significantly more expensive uh further to that

and that is a comment independent of tariffs or not is my own personal experience that condominiums by themselves are not an affordable by design situation anymore. that used to be that way quite a few years ago but that has disappeared. reason is that the shared costs for owner imposed assessments are rising at a rate that is hardly affordable anymore particularly when they are mortgage costs which for lower and middle income people are very hard to shoulder. further to that the insurance crisis has thrown most of these condominiums into almost unaffordability because either the insurance has been canceled or the insurance is not attainable or the increase in rates as more than not 300%. and those for me are as a

hidden cost by which the use of the terminology affordability is basically something that i would caution to use because it could create an optimism in the market that is not warranted when the reality hits hits when somebody wants to buy it. and i'm just saying that to you because ultimately i want to support what is really perhaps very applicable in your district. however, i think the caution by with the right by which this needs to be furthered has so sharpened the discussion. could you perhaps comment what to what i'm saying or yes thank you for your comments. i, i very much care about affordability. i, i take your comments about political realities of tariffs and hopefully we won't this administration will only last for four years and will have something better in place but

to the affordability question in the sunset i'm supportive of 200% affordable housing projects that have have had a lot of opposition, a lot of opposition and one is a 100% affordable housing for seniors and formerly homeless seniors among the most vulnerable in our community. >> and so i'm backing those those projects because we need them and i welcome all those residents to come to the sunset. they will enrich and benefit our neighborhoods too to have those folks here with us. and at the same time i also want to make sure that we're providing opportunities for people to do things with their backyards because right now we have all these single family homes with an empty backyard and so if we can be creative and innovative and give incentives to do something out of nothing that that can only help because doing nothing is not an option. i believe. and so if there's an empty yard

and we can make it easier for a family who's invested their whole lives into this one home and create generational wealth, give them incentives to build something that they can benefit from with their own family. i think that's a great opportunity because it doesn't exist right now and so i think we can be doing all of these things together supporting 100% affordable housing and supporting a whole myriad of ways that are creative and innovative to you know, to allow people to do things that they can't do or the hurdle is too high right now. so i wouldn't want to give up just because you know, we might have a current administration that's putting tariffs on things because that won't be forever. and so i want to just encourage you know, that we are we still need to do our work on our end to make things better for our community and i think this legislation is a one step in that direction. >> i appreciate you enthusiasm.

all i ask is that there are other hidden costs creating subdivision map is quite expensive and so is the writing of cars that is a significant additional cost that needs to be considered when moving forward and that's all i'm asking. >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you, commissioner lebron i move to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications second ,seeing nothing further commissioners there's a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. >> commissioner campbell i wish to mcgarry i mr. williams nay you should have braun high commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner williams voting against commissioners that will place us on item 11 for case number

2023 hyphen 007010 see way for the property at 1310 junipero serra boulevard. this is a conditional use authorization. please note that on october 17th 2024 after hearing and closing public comment you continued this matter to january 9th, 2025 with direction for the sponsor by a vote of 6 to 0 commissioner imperial was absent on january 9th without hearing you continued it to today. >> good afternoon commissioners kurt bolton planning department staff the project before you was a request for a conditional use authorization to establish an approximately 19,100 square foot maintenance facility for an existing golf course operated and used by the san francisco golf club at 1310 juniper sierra boulevard. a conditional use authorization is required to allow any intensification or expansion of use. the san francisco golf club is a private golf club established in 1895 and moved to its

current location in 1915 predating local zoning regulations and currently operates from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. tuesday through sundays. its amenities include an 18 hole golf course, a pro shop and a clubhouse. the golf course is located on approximately 163 acres between san francisco and san mateo county. 109 acres of it are located within san francisco. the warehouse and maintenance facility consist of a single storey building approximately 23ft in height and will be located on the west side of the of thomas moore way between san francisco golf club road and brotherhood way. at a portion of the parcel that is currently undeveloped the facility will operate as administrative offices for the meeting staff as well as a repair shop for maintenance and storage for vehicles and equipment such as mowers, golf carts and other equipments used to maintain the golf course. the proposed structure will also include a staff break room and lockers for the san francisco golf club employees. in addition, the project includes a 23 space surface parking lot located to the west. the proposed structure for use by the san francisco golf club . the department has received

approximately 25 letters of opposition from members of the community mostly from parents and associates of the adjacent saint thomas moore school located at 50 thomas moore way. the primary concerns cited include the location of the proposed project and potential negative impacts of the project's proximity to the students. on october 17th, a public hearing was held to discuss the project after taking public comment. the commission continue the project to allow for the project sponsor to conduct further outreach to the general community in particular the saint thomas moore school. the planning commission additionally suggested alternative sites for the project sponsors. the project sponsor has provided a response to the suggested sites in your packets and exhibit f. >> since the october 17th hearing date the project sponsor has made the following revisions to the project an increase the setback of the building from 20ft to 40ft from the shear property line to the north. a reduction of the overall building height from 25ft to 23ft. a reduction of the building footprint from 20,060ft2 to 19,100ft2. and a redesign of the building

so that the administrative area will be located on the eastern portion of the site while the equipment stores on the westernmost portion of the site. these revisions locate the equipment further away from the school. additionally, the project was previously revised. there will be no handling or storage of fertilizers or other chemicals. the gas tanks will remain in their original location and not be moved to the site. since the publication of the staff report, a virtual meeting was conducted on the evening of the 11th. the meeting allowed the project's wants to answer questions and concerns from parents and members of the community opposed to the project. in summary, the department has found the project to be on balance consistent with general plan and meets the required planning code findings as outlined in your draft motion. that concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is also in attendance. >> thank you. that concludes staff presentation. >> we should hear from the project's sponsor. through the chair. you'll have five minutes. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners john caplan here on behalf of the san francisco golf club. we're back since our hearing last december where we heard very clearly from the commission that they wanted us to continue our discussions with the school community.

after the hearing we immediately began reworking the plans, creating more distance between the buildings and reconfiguring the space in response to the concerns raised by the community. >> we've also been able to offer land to the school to double the size of their narrow preschool playground area. we've also conducted a thorough analysis of alternative project sites on the club property demonstrating the necessity of the proposed location for the maintenance building. our team and planning department staff attempted to schedule a community meeting since early december. we continued the planning commission hearing in january and the earliest the community was able to meet was two nights ago. but that did give us another opportunity to respond to the remaining concerns. >> ultimately having responded to all of the specific safety concerns that were raised which daniel will speak to in a moment. there were general calls for more environmental review. unfortunately these requests cited no specific issue to study just kind of a general request for an environmental report. at this point we've responded to all the specific concerns raised and are confident this building is designed and programed in a way that is appropriate for this location. and now i'd like to have our architect daniel robson come to

speak and accept if we can get the computer. good afternoon commissioners. thank you to having us in front of you one more time to present this project. i wanted to start and basically go over where we were at 1017 at our meeting. a couple of things to be aware of is first no chemical storage of any kind was proposed back in 1917. the proposed fuel filling area that we had it was moved to the far west of the site. all fertilizer storage was removed from the project. no vehicle washing was proposed on site and no emergency generator was in the project. >> next slide the changes since then after discussion with the adjacent school and community. we've removed we've moved the building 40ft back from the northern property line. there's no fuel filling or storage of any type on the project. we revised the floor plan as john mentioned, which i'll go into in a moment. we reduced the height of the building between 2ft and 5ft and we reduced the building size by 1000ft2. >> next slide. this is where we left the plan

that you previously looked at showing the building at 20ft from the property line. and the next slide this is where we have move forward to moving the building to 40ft further south and also providing a possible area where we could expand the preschool play area by approximately 1800 feet. the plan sorry. go ahead. the plan this is the previous plan from 1017. the red area shows where the administration area was. and the yellow area shows where the storage was. as we move forward to the plan. as it stands now, we flip those to the intention being that the administrative office is closer to the school where the uses are more compatible and the storage and maintenance areas have moved further to the west. as we look next slide as we look at the previous 1017 section through the site you can see the the buildings of the school and the right hand side and an elevation of the building as it was designed. next slide as we look at the

renovation or the remodel of the the redesign of the building we've moved it again 40ft from the property line. we've reduced the height of the storage area to 23ft and we've removed sorry moved change the site. >> the height of the administrative area to 20ft. >> i wanted to quickly address a few concerns about battery and fire. initially the batteries that are going to be charged in the space are equivalent to the last of us less than a single electric vehicle. the total amount that we would be proposing when all the equipment becomes electrified would be between 3 and 4 electric vehicles. we've created a room which is fire rated and ventilated for any of the battery packs that are removed from equipment to be charged. the building is entirely noncombustible. we've increased the sprinkler coverage. the we have a smoke and fire alarm system that's 24 seven monitored and we've also connected with jensen hughes the fire protection person is here. i do have a copy of a memo from them reviewing the building for for the commissioners next

slide addressing operational noise, air and quality. there's no increase to equipment or staff. the openings that are to the equipment storage are now 100ft from the property line. all the equipment that is stored there leaves this the space at 530 in the morning and returns at 230. the equipment the equipment is washed and grass clippings in the existing location. and as this electrification increases the emissions decrease. lastly, i wanted to say that in terms of my responsibilities as an architect these these items that you're seeing now are the different rules and regulations that we're required to exceed or meet for this building. and i'm an architect. i can't turn it off and i do understand my responsibility and i as a human and a father i'm committed to the safety of this building. >> thank you. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsors presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the

commission on this item as this is its second hearing where public comment has already been accepted and public comment closed. each individual will have one minute. >> thank you president so an honorable members of the planning commission again i am david greenbaum, principal of st thomas moore school but first and foremost i'm a father and a husband and i have a duty and obligation to love and protect my family. i'm proud to be here representing 300 families from our school and nearly 500 neighbors and community members who have signed our petition to oppose this building of this industrial complex next to our school including alma via the church park where said residents and several other communities we appreciate commission's thoughtful hearing on october 17th yet we still do not understand why a nearly 20,000 square foot megastructure next to our school campus an outdoor preschool play area is only a viable solution. >> we will call commissioners so in williams asking the golf club to look at other locations on their 163 acres.

further commissioners moore and campbell asked the club to explore splitting the administrative and technical functions into two separate buildings. guidance from the commission was clear yet no alternate options have been presented. our community remains baffled and dismayed that this project was given an exemption from. the permit address of 1310 unit serra was to quote a planning department email message to imply that construction at 88 thomas moore way would be acceptable. >> thank you. clearly missed san francisco's children and families deserve thank you sir for the. thank you. >> got to talk very fast with only one minute. there is evidence of a california natural diversity database shows the san francisco bay spiny flower on the golf course. impacts to these species must be analyzed during preparation for documents relating to sequoia. this has not been done.

the city has not provided any evidence that the project would not during construction or ongoing pose significant effects to the sensitive receptors 40ft away. >> even if the above studies are conducted and proved to not incur a significant impact is a private golf course an infill development the golf course is not surrounded by urban uses and does not provide public benefit. private golf courses are restricted to members only limiting public access which is a key character istic of urban land use. and one of the conditions of sequoia. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is stephanie versus and i'm the preschool director at saint thomas moore's utopia preschool. the children attending our preschool are 2 to 5 years old and have developing body's immune systems in some with preexisting health conditions. we also serve children with varying abilities and diagnoses some of which include autism, adhd, adhd, sensory integration disorders and other learning differences.

when families enroll their children in our school they do what they do so with the expectation that we will prioritize our child well-being, development and safety. it is our duty to ensure that this happens while in our care just as it is the services responsibility to ensure that their employees are provided with comfortable and modern facilities. it is our responsibility to keep the children's health, safety and education a priority. california state licensing requires us to provide outdoor activities for students. this is just 40ft away from the proposed industrial building and the construction site. there is nowhere else for us to go. the san francisco golf club also has over 164 acres in the commission has requested the club to consider other locations. unfortunately other locations on the property have not been seriously considered causing our most vulnerable population to be at risk of this problem. >> thanks for your time. can i just say when i see the location this building is not necessary, desirable or compatible with the surrounding community and the additional land would only put us closer to the proposed building.

>> my name is andrea posadas, an assistant director and teacher at utopia preschool. since we opened in 2008 the mission has always been to provide a safe, inclusive and inviting classroom environment for the youngest members of our school. >> we've lived peacefully alongside the golf course all this time so the proposal for this huge building is just 40ft away from our fans is shocking and concerning. >> as mentioned, we use our outdoor area for 80% of our day and as a california licensed preschool we're required to have outdoor time for several developmental benefits. >> this proposed year long construction of the building would directly impact their learning with noise from the construction itself not to mention the dirt dust and debris that will come from tearing down the trees and the materials that they're using. to this day we can already hear the lawnmowers and the grinding of the materials that they need for their golf course today. >> and when they took down a number of eucalyptus trees last

year we had to stay inside for two weeks. we didn't have our outdoor space available and this construction site would be for at least a year. so have you ever been inside with 30 small children for eight hours a day for two weeks? imagine what that would thinking that is. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm alejandro leonard, a mother to two children at saint thomas more school. my daughter is four and goes to utopia and my son is in fourth grade. my concern is simple that my children and all the children at the school have a safe and healthy learning environment. a construction zone is not that a huge industrial building right next to them that houses lithium batteries. is not that they have allergies. >> they have severe asthma. this is my son's medication that i have to have at all times in case he needs it.

we ask you to please consider an alternate location. the golf club has told us in their words stop dwelling on the life and safety aspect. well, there are kids. that's what we dwell on. that's what's important. we please ask you to support looking for an alternative location just anywhere else away from them. please protect the safe and healthy learning environment that they have now and deny approval of this conditional use. can we use the projector? yes, of course. can we go to the overhead? good afternoon, commissioner. >> my name is john. i am a student here and i would like to show everyone the map of the golf club. there are many places where disability can go that is not right next to my school. >> you can go here here.

you if you would like my friends and i can come up with another place other places to put it. please help protect students like me. >> thank you for your time. >> dear commissioners, my name is marsha lee. i'm a pediatrician and pediatric kidney doctor at ucsf benioff children's hospital. i come here today as the mother of a sixth grader who has a tendency thomas more school since he was a preschooler in medicine. every decision i make through the lens of risk versus benefit let me be clear. >> this building and its proximity to our school poses all the risk and no benefit to our children. the proposed construction will expose our students to wood dust, harmful chemicals, noise

and vibration. here are some information from the california department of public health. what does can trigger symptoms right away and people who already have asthma. what dust can also cause asthma in people who have never had asthma before. and unfortunately there's very little information about how much exposure can make you sick. many parents have disclosed to me their children have an underlying diagnosis of asthma or other underlying pulmonary disease. these children will be at risk of asthma exacerbations which can have the following consequences. urgent doctor visits nebulizer or inhaler treatments, school absences, emergency visits, hospitalization, a breathing tube and mechanical ventilation. >> that is usually in the worst case scenario. >> death. thank you very much. >> hello, planning commissioners. my name's latisha fish. i was a former epa h.r. director at the southwest region in san francisco.

i'm currently a grandmother for my second grader cierra fish. i am here in protest for the exemption of the epa order and risk and health assessment that is required for building. currently as i see this building it is a large scale industrial maintenance and storage facility with administrative offices. and this project requires a fire and life risk assessment as well as an environmental impact. you heard today of the cries of the parents and the the teacher as well as the principal. the most important thing is health and safety. title five while it is a law for public schools you can make a ditto affect that it could also be a criteria for say thomas more. and i just want to say that air

pollution lead poisoning, hazardous chemicals and also the condition and the inadequacy of the. >> good afternoon. honorable commissioners. >> my name is lauren and i'm here at st thomas more school. i'm so sorry. it really hurts my heart when things involve kids so i apologize. but i believe that at the last hearing in october of 2024 and the commissioner's closing instruction. instructions to the golf club and the san francisco planning department that today's hearing would first and foremost foremost call into question the alternative suggestions for a site locations for this maintenance facility the. yes f g c did respond to those

and did respond to those questions but they cited the other sites as an attainable and unreasonable goal. they noted i don't. as having to change sewer and power and electrical outlets having their new warehouse being visible to all to existing homes and partners ted and brotherhood way thank. >> side of things like hitting golf as impacts for the and dairy sites and helping carry out thank you ma'am that you've already spoken and you've spoke beyond your one minute. >> good afternoon commissioners and everyone i'm one of the moms in a beloved st thomas more school representing hardworking filipino american families. truly our heartfelt concern is

the health and safety of our children attending our same school. i have two precious kids in sixth grade who love going to school every day to learn how to become a good and responsible person as well as respect for citizens in the community. with good morals and conscience they both have asthma which is why i am here today to support our beloved st thomas school community because i strongly believe that it's not acceptable to jeopardize my kids health together with all of other students and staff who will be greatly affected in the construction of this golf course. maintenance building. >> thank you so much and have a blessed day. good afternoon commissioners. my name is cheryl nicholas and i'm here today as a concerned parent and also someone who understands firsthand the impact of environmental hazards on children's health since

childhood i have suffered asthma a condition triggered by pollutants of my own school. >> now as a mother of two grade school children, i worried that history might repeat itself due to the proposed construction near their school and as a sign francisco influencer with nearly 80,000 followers across social media platforms, i have a voice that reaches thousands of parents and community members who care about children's health and education . >> this is not just about one school it's about protecting the next generation from preventable harm. so i urge city planning officials and commissioners to please deny your application. >> so thank you commissioners and looking forward for your support in regards to this matter. thank you.

>> good afternoon san francisco planning commissioner my name is fatima perea with seiu u.s. ww the union reps for the ground keepers here we strive to improve the quality of life of our members and improve working conditions for all service workers which includes ensuring an adequate facility for breaks urging the san francisco planning commissioner to support services for our workers by improving the san francisco. maintenance building project. >> so i take you thank you for your time. you guys have a wonderful day. hello. i mean my name is angelina. i'm here today not as a lawyer or a consultant but as a mother coming to this commission for help last october. commissioner so williams moore you all heard us and since then these millions of dollars lawyers and consultants from

the golf club have made minimal changes to your recommendations. >> we're disappointed, exhausted and worried and scared for our kids. they will be bleaching sand grinding wheels, chips for mulch battery storage these are industrial. >> working conditions not for school aged children. we can i want to know question why does safety why does it continue to be number two on this project? priorities one facility consolidation other priorities. >> golf not hitting the neighbors hundreds of feet away. this is in their documentation priorities over safety also includes project cost of where the sewer lines are. >> golf club called us moms provocative and that is that we were dwelling on the safety of our children. >> reports have surfaced that is your time that outside pressure is scary protecting

our children. hi, my name is samantha and i'm a student at st thomas more school. >> i'm here to speak up for me and my classmates mates because i don't think it's fair that adults are making decisions that quickly that put kids like me in danger. >> it feels like it feels like the people in charge care more about millionaires having fun for a couple of hours a day than the safety of my fourth grade class at 11 a.m. many millionaires are playing golf. i'm in science class. we keep the windows open for fresh air for us and our class pet francis. >> the city cares more about its kids a city that cares more about its kids is a city that plans for them and not one that puts their safety last and asking you to say no to this project please so i can tell my friends that we don't have to worry. >> thank you.

good afternoon commissioners. i was here in october pregnant with my second child. i'm a parent at stem and my babies in the back as well. i have a current kindergartner and a future preschooler. i would ask to please consider alternate locations. the golf club and the project sponsor is putting the burden of research and expertise on independent families to look into the environmental pieces. we're concerned about the health and safety of our children. we're concerned about the congestion that construction brings. and my daughter was also at the preschool at the jcc. san francisco and brotherhood way. just down the street and the eucalyptus tree removal also affected the outdoor time. i'm there over the summer as well which is a which was a concern. please just consider an

alternate location. we're really concerned. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is joe duncan. i'm a parent of a student at st thomas. more six year old gianna. >> these are the medications that she needs for respiratory her respiratory illness building a 19 20,000 whatever square foot industrial building next to her school that makes no sense healthwise for anybody at that school. it is ridiculous that we're even here having to compare the safety of our children versus the pleasure of some billionaires. makes no sense. i want to know what is the priority of this commission. please say no. this is ridiculous that i had to get to this far. you see all the parents here and support that this project not being passed there is no

benefit whatsoever to the saint thomas moore school when they have 164 acres they could build it anywhere. even a child could show. the san francisco golf course where to put it. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm not buying the excuse that the structure cannot be built in different locations. does the additional project cost a trench utilities or the inconvenience of separating the buildings outweigh the social costs for our students? it's more likely that the members do not wish this building to be an eyesore for the approach shot on gates ajar. song and drilling causing a shrink on the pitch or three putt on tilly they specifically chosen the site to house all unsightly and loud activities that the only disruption is for the school. the proximity of an industrial project from the school shouldn't be in terms of feet but rather in miles. i find it hard to believe the threatened plant or animal with

thought this project but disrupting the habitat of preschool children playing in their yard and students taking exams isn't protected. we are insulted by the golf courses offer of providing land to draw our children even closer to the danger and i recommend that this project's exemption from school be revoked so that a legitimate environmental impact report can be prepared if any land should be gifted for this project, perhaps the city can consider granting a portion of the project terry dual site. with the condition that the golf course creates a revitalized memorial, i strongly oppose the location this project is it is your time. >> thank you. >> when i started the commission alice minerals and the what i lost i but are there any other quartararo? apollo press the project always a little news and more important the comatose almost any responsibility that they had a lot of money to this project was the marcello it understood esthetically and as well as simply congratulating operators on the features to manufacture 20 hours moving on to the next trial i reckon terminal.

i cannot even today ask what are meant to elemental venti dolores on call of course in a patrol cell if he's used against a castle city cerca de la vega could have looked. club golf club la scala is to expand the neo soul must i like of my guest with chemicals paul my culture contaminants into latin as an official in cradle read or cancel operas making outside of travel hazardous. is not to rule in a lot of literature a lot of flowers and a musical me for the conversation about goddess randall approximately the approximate that sales to other minorities exponent joining yours all must nuestro musical module to get the normal response to other materials also orders no end to end or commerce perceived chemical. >> my hand to swallow tells me honorius quando thank you so that is your time i

commissioners thank you very much. obviously the revisions made by the project applicant really don't meet the moment. i mean there were commissioners up here president so and made suggestions about alternative sites obviously moving forward with those sites have not taken place and that due diligence i would just encourage you all of you this is the first time. in the city of san francisco that this use right next to a preschool if you look at what they've done, you're looking not at $20,000 that 20,000ft2 but you're looking at 19,000ft2. so what i would ask you is either to delay this project or to continue it because what's currently before you right now. really the adjustments that the commission have clearly made i think it was mr. williams, mr. campbell, ms. moore and ms. so really wasn't taken into consideration. so i hopefully this board this commission denies this project or continues this project to another date. thank you for.

good afternoon. can we go to the overhead please? >> go ahead sir. okay. good afternoon commissioners 1310 junipero serra that is the address that was actually used when applying for this project 1310 actually is what they stated. hey hey we meant no ill will even though it's right next to the school as you can see by my finger that's the proposed location. it's right next to the school. instead of using 88 thomas way they elected to use 1310 they said hey no harm on our part. we did what we needed to do. >> well, if that's the case we have something called sequel. sequel does provide an exemption if it's five acres or less they actually have a parcel that's 165 acres and when we've asked them for that. and please correct me if i'm

wrong but in a meeting one of the gentleman said when we asked and we said we have concerns about safety of our children, he repeatedly said hey. asked and answered. asked and answered. he treated it like a courtroom setting when we stated to him hey listen but can you partner with us and follow through on sequel asked and answered asked and answered. thank you very much mr. toby and i'm just explaining i'll stop and say god, it's your time. i just want to one gets one listeners know that this is not the way to treat your neighbors . >> thank you, sir. thank you, sir. >> thank you for your time as you can tell for passionate because we're thank you, sir. thank you, sir. thank you. no disrespect. >> appreciate it. showed a lot of it but go ahead . last call for public comment

and commissioners. my name is john christian. i'm the executive director of the real property support corporation which owns the land upon which st thomas moore school sits. >> i think i've been become familiar with this project since my first conversations in september of 2019 with greg davis, the general manager of the club and mary fitzgerald, the now retired principal, about the club's evolving plans to construct a new maintenance facility. >> it's a very difficult proposition to go through a design process for five years and then suddenly try to flip it in terms of easement utilities and all the rest of it when all of that i can assure you because i've been there has been has been evaluated. i want to say a quick word about student safe safety. at my request the club committed early on that all

maintenance personnel and all contractor trades would undergo vertis training. protecting the role. >> thank you sir. that is your time. i hope i'm not as fast as i used to. >> thank you. last call for public comment seeing none high commissioners thank you for your time. my name is carla morales. i am a dad of my six year old. next year i come up here with emotion because i care about my daughter a lot and that's that's really all i'm expressing for you today is to consider the safety of our children. my daughter and everything that all the parents have said here today. >> thank you. thank you so much for. okay. final last call for public comment seeing none public

comment is closed and this matter is not before you commissioners commissioner williams i want to thank all the parents and concerned folks that came out to this hearing. i prepared a little statement i'd like to read during our last hearing. >> this commission asked the project sponsor to explore a new location for the proposed maintenance facility. the project sponsor failed to locate an alternative location . the same conditions exist for the children at st thomas more the proposed project updates one moving additional 20ft decreasing the height by two

feet, reducing the footprint from 20,060ft2 to 20. to 19,100ft2 has not been adequate to address the grave concerns of st thomas more school. the safety of children for me will always be number one concern not only as a commissioner but a member of the public. i also don't agree with planning's environmental review i don't think we have adequately assessed all the hazard materials being stored and actively used on the golf course including the force, the fuel storage containers. >> in addition, the project sponsor didn't bother to address the real concerns of particulate dust and other airborne matter that can occur during the construction process which will surely blow onto the school yard that kindergarten children play on.

>> all these concerns have been expressed and dozens of letters from parents. >> i see that someone ain't happy. >> did you make that sign sign while this building is in the space isolator so we will be pretty safe. okay. >> continue. commissioner williams so all these concerns have been expressed and dozens of letters from parents, school staff, grandparents and neighbors and elected officials because all because of all these issues i cannot support this project in its current form. >> thank you, commissioner

mcgarry. >> good afternoon everybody. i'm thank you for coming out. i'm a parent of three children and i've got a five year old and nine year old and a 12 year old. and so i understand the concerns of everybody. >> i spent two hours on the job site yesterday basically on the golf course on a golf cart bouncing around basically seeing all the. >> all the sites the alternative sites are not feasible for what they want to do. >> but i did walk i did walk the property and i walked basically right up to the perimeter and right around the perimeter the property in question st thomas more and. side it's down the side that actually has been turned into outsource space outdoor space for the kids is what seems to be a fire line but at the top of that the entrance and the exit of it there's two giant

electrical transformers there. then as you go down basically further down the lane road property you'll find that basically there's been an a building that has been built on the neighbors property. so it's strange it's a so property here we have basically owner we have a neighbor and we have tenant but we have a total mass. those to transform ours can't be good for the kids. the side chain link fence down there has to be conductive for the two transformers. >> the proposal that i see with the 40 foot there's ribbons up there right now. the possibilities for that would actually bring actual green space to the outdoor space. there is no green space for the children right now. the. eucalyptus trees have been cut back and you could literally measure them because if they fall down they will fall just

short of the of the property line that hand and that's what's happened around the area of foam down the present yard where they have is for the. it was built for eight people there's now 20 people there and the lockers are outside. could you imagine getting changed for work this morning or to get here this morning having to change and basically you're in the elements. their clothing to swap into their work. clothing is outside in the elements. it's they desperately need some form of indoor space where they can get ready. >> the corner in question is not active i'm told and i see debris there that basically should not be there. >> it's. illicit behavior after hours the fact that these people are gone, the workers will be there

at 530 in the morning and they'll leave at 5:00. they will actually activate that corner which can actually only clean up the area for parents that will actually drop off their children at a later hour and basically keep the place safe after hours on the weekends because there is there is issues on that corner just around. from thomas more school i'm shocked that there isn't the opportunity to actually get together because there's a beautiful opportunity here for cohesion. >> there is 1800 square feet of what is actually on the table green space that can actually get around those two electrical transformers that are there right now and basically help the situation. and i'm shocked that there isn't the right people. it's like we've reached an impasse here. we've you need to be put into

forced arbitration because neighbors have to get on your neither of you are going away so i will stand in support of this project. >> i think it everything the fact the chemicals are gone fertilizer are gone no few fuel tanks basically no washing and no fuel filling. >> honest you couldn't ask for a safer solution now basically you look at the existing fire lane that's there and in partnership clean up the two electrical transformers and legalize or do something with that prop that building that has just been built into the neighbor's property. so there is an opportunity here and it shouldn't just be a no no, no. so thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mcgarry, i understand we all understand that emotions are running really high right now around this project and we appreciate

all the public input we have received. i personally feel that this is really emotional for everyone. myself have my child school did not have the luxury to have so many options of land or tree or no tree in san francisco her own school underwent a massive renovations that spanned for six years. all all of us are still healthy . so i think that every perspective is pretty relative here and i really hope that we think. we think really conscientious about what we what's given to us. i really think that your school location is great and the campus is amazing. the location has really nice abundance of fresh air compared to many schools in san francisco that we don't have those luxuries. i do.

and however, before i share all my comments with everyone i like to invite back the gentleman that wish that he speaks faster than he normally does because i am not really clear your position if you don't mind. indulge me. thank you. my conclusion in all of this commissioner, just so there's proper context is that with the clubs it's exploring alternative sites. nothing is perfect. nothing ever is. however, with all of these positive enhancements that others have gone into in greater detail, the end result is a much better project than originally proposed which i now

support. okay thank you. >> i could go on. oh you want you have more come in to say oh no. oh just answering your question i respect the one minute thank you thank thank you. >> appreciate it. thank. appreciate your respect everybody's time. >> thank you so it appears though that some members of our public have not been advised of the several revisions to the project that the golf course has agreed to many of them you already heard of it. i'll share some of these relevant ones when i tour the site. along with rich hill us and our planning staff curt and also accompanied by i actually visit both the school and then i visit the golf course and when i visit the golf course it was accompanied by the school principal david and miss linda shaw. some of these most relevant

revisions i personally observe is that the workers in the golf course shall deserve a better place to take breaks with dignity and pride and i think that the proposed revisions actually gave them not just an administration officers but it gave them actually a. conditions space that they can actually take breaks and they have the appropriate microwave and places to eat lunch. that's very important for labor perspective for again fair work environment. the other major things that i want to emphasize is that it is the golf course actually. took their own initiative to doubling the setback and then proposed to add back two rows

of trees. >> that was actually kind of phenomenal to me. i think trees are filled to bring a lot of fresh air and i appreciate that. the chemical and fertilizer storage tanks are not in this new proposal. they will be remain at the current location and i take a deeper dive and review on the plan that has been proposed to us. the battery storage is actually in the center of this new proposed building surrounded by solid walls. it kind of reads like a vault to me if you're looking at the plans and these shops the machine shops to maintain their tools and equipment are located at the far end portion of the building not next to the school's outdoor area. walls or specify what code compliance as t c rating and the doors are open towards the golf course which was exactly what i was asking the architect of the project sponsor to specify that and he did something that i actually

didn't even aware of until i see the new plan is that there is a. offer for a possible enlargement of the play area for the school that is actually in the club and the golf clubs property. it will result in doubling the size of the play area for the children with three rows of trees. and i also want to make clear that although the golf club spans both the city and san mateo county. the approval site is located entirely within san francisco and the board of supervisors of san mateo county has not taken any official action with respect to this project although one member of that body mr. david canepa, whose child attends the school, has provided public comments. >> i want to acknowledge that so sir, you're out of order.

>> you're welcome. thank you. thank you. thank you. after visiting the site, i'm convinced that all the other locations proposed of the building are in feasible and i really appreciate the team taking the effort to really try to fit them in and it really isn't able to. it was a really well-intended effort. >> the entire site is irrigated by gray water. there really is no fresh water supplied but it's a really good environment. whole climate change initiative that the golf course taken. so i'm also convinced that the project changes that i mentioned. support our approval of this project. so for these reason i support the project as revised. so now i would like to pass it to commissioner campbell. >> thank you. thank you everyone for coming out to i, i want to start by

saying i completely understand and share your concerns about the safety of your children. like many of my fellow commissioners, i'm also a parent. i've raised two kids in san francisco and i know what it means to want to fiercely protect your children. >> at our last hearing about this matter i did wonder how could a large site like this not have an alternative location for this facility? there's so many acres and i know we proposed alternative sites so i went out myself last week and also toured and reviewed those alternative locations that we had floated to the project sponsor and i was surprised to really learn that the. as large as it is the the golf course actually has quite a bit of restrictions as president so just described and it does seem that the really only viable locations for a facility of this are its existing site and the proposed site and i think they've simply outgrown their

existing site. so with that in mind, we did also request that they consider splitting the building. and i do feel that while they were not able to split the building on the proposed site, they were able to split the functions of the program itself and i was pretty satisfied with how thoughtfully they removed the more contaminated or fertilizer chemical type components of the program away from the school. >> so i was pleased to see that and i just think in general there's been a very thoughtful response to the concerns of the school. i think the reduction of the overall size of the building the setbacks are double what would be required by code and i really appreciated the letter we got from from robert burt, the senior fire protection engineer regarding all of the fire safety measures that really do. there there are additional voluntary measures that they're taking they're going above and beyond code.

that being said, i do think that there remain some concerns that i'm hearing from the community around the construction itself. >> so i would really love for the project sponsor maybe to walk us through a little bit of the thought that's gone into timing the construction around the school schedule and how quickly the building will be erected such that it might might use some. >> minds of the community. thank you, commissioner campbell we've always wanted to be in close coordination with the school understanding that they have a calendar that has heavier times of use during the year and less so in particular during the summer this the way this building is being built. the most significant component of this construction is the foundation essentially a modular unit on top not quite this is not like it's obviously got custom elements to it but it's a pretty straightforward construction on top of that foundation. so absolutely what we really hope to do.

assuming we're able to move forward is to coordinate in particular that the heaviest of construction during that period of time when the school is not in session and again once you get the actual structure in place, most of the work is inside the building. noise all the other concerns go away. but absolutely we are fully committed to continuing to coordinate with principal green barn and the school about how to lessen the impact in addition to all of the rules we have in san francisco about construction by in particular at this site how to coordinate that as best as we can with the school. >> thank you for that. and then while i've got you yeah i know in the presentation it was touched upon but it does seem like there's in terms of the operating hours of the of the crew and what they do and the shop hours versus the school hours that they're. there might be less overlap there in in terms of what's happening at the facility that is up against the building of the school versus when the school is in session. >> and maybe you could just elaborate on that a little bit.

yeah, i think generally speaking what you're seeing on. and what was on the slide is that the workers i think begin at 530 in the morning well before there's any students at the school. so we've got all of the equipment out on the large site as we've discussed many times don't return back to the building generally speaking until mid-afternoon to 230. so most of the. the usage of the equipment is well away from this building during the period of time when school is in is in session. >> thank you. thank you. thank you commissioner. vice president moore, thank you for everybody coming and we staging the unabated concerns today and i very carefully looked at the plans and my own concerns as i expressed during our past showing have not been alleviated. while there have been changes made, it is the size and the operational needs of this building which have partially changed but not fundamentally

been removed to the extent that i could say everything is okay but we all know that i believe the applicant is presenting himself with the best intentions. however, whenever it comes to operating a building that is located where it is. the levels and the details of what else can happen. so this building looks at needs that are currently existing and i do believe that the increase in needing electric golf carts will be increasing in the future and this building not being really able to address what i consider to be still unexplored needs of how to deal with resume i own generated battery fires even in san francisco. while people talk about it there are far larger incidents which you hardly ever hear about if you look a little bit deeper into literature and then event reporting on those things they are actually quite scary.

aside from that, i think this building in this location as a single mass is far too large and i believe that the. exploration about other locations as has at least not to me been presented that i feel that has been even seriously undertaken it is for those and a number of other reasons that i will not be able to support the project that is in front of us today. >> thank you. thank you. commissioner williams i got a question for the project sponsor as far as the dust and the you know that the particulate that's going to happen if in fact this goes through you guys i haven't heard any mitigation you know, trying to try to address that the concerns of of the parents.

during the construction process ,is there any plan have you thought about it? i mentioned, you know, previously that you guys didn't i didn't see anything and so i'm asking you now would you consider for some kind of barrier or some some kind of a wall, a temporary wall or such to to mitigate the dust and that the construction debris that. it very windy out there that will definitely blow into the school where children are playing yeah thank you for the question commissioner williams i'm just to start a couple of things in terms of the concerns about construction phase one has been done for the site all ready it's shown that we don't have problematic soils on site . we are also subject to. san francisco's very rigorous rigorous construction management plan ordinance such

that we're going to need to come to the city with a plan unique for every site to in ensure that dust and other debris gets limited as much as possible off the site. so standard measures are. hosing down keeping things wet so the dust stays on site. there's actually sensors now where you can actually sense the amount of particulate in the air and it can tell you if it's gone above a certain level. i say that all all just because that that's what's baked into this plan right now. your point about, you know, a wall or netting, i think that sounds totally appropriate. i. you know in just talking to the architect briefly that doesn't we've got no issue if if that's going to be something that's going to improve particulate matter and we can continue to work with the city and particularly the group that works on the construction management plan. we've got no issues with that type of additional protection. >> so thank you for the question and suggestion. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate that. i want to make a motion and i'm

not sure if i'm going to have the support of this commission but i do want to make it. and that is to deny the sea you do your second second. okay. and commissioner brown didn't i made a second. >> yeah, i heard you. yes. thank you. forgot to turn on my you know, i fully recognize the strong emotions that are being felt over this project and the legitimate, um, feelings about the safety concerns that have been brought forward during this hearing and a previous one i think that i you know, i supported the continuance to this hearing for this project because i was hopeful that we

could see how this project could be improved, how it could be changed. explore those alternative site locations and you know, i've thoroughly reviewed all the materials presented to us since that hearing. i've seen the description of the alternative sites and i was i was satisfied as far as the alternative sites go and then for the current location of the project, you know, i think this is to me this is a good compromise for where the project was before versus where it is and how it is configured now. you know that the height of this project has been slightly reduced. it's on the whole this is we're talking less than two feet at the peak of the project and quite a bit i'm sorry two stories of the peak of the project essentially in terms of its overall clear height and then quite a bit lower towards the school side. the fact it's now been pulled

back in additional 40ft well. additional 20ft for a total of 40ft from north property line is is an improvement i think it's an improvement that there can be more landscape screening between the building and the school. i also really you know, one of the biggest things i see that's a great improvement in the project is reorienting the openings of the building in a much more sensitive way. so the openings of the building there on the opposite side from the school now. whatever if there is any if there are any particular is there any concerns about that? you know they are no longer even there's nothing even coming and going from the site closer to the school except for a small portion closest to the gym with no windows. so you know, is everyone getting what they want? no, but i at this point i'm satisfied with the changes that the project and i um i can move forward with it and if the

current motion that's on the table were to fail then i'm going to make a motion to follow which is to approve the project. >> thank you. >> thank you. and commissioner mcgarry, i'd like the project sponsor to commit to the 1800 square feet at the possibility of the construction being conducted the summertime. this is a slab with a metal fabrication building sitting on top that's probably going to come in in pieces so that's going to go really, really fast. but the concern here of any kind of particulates or or soil movement will be in the slab are grade. so when is that going to go in ? >> if it's going it go in and basically what timing will it will it will you schedule it with school being out? >> thank you, commissioner mcgarry unfortunately i have

gotten to this level of detail yet with the school having the conversation be more focused on the project but obviously the summer time is kind of the key time couple months it's not the school is not completely shut down but many less students on site are. >> if if we had complete control of the situation we'd be under construction get the foundation done by the end of the summer. as we know in san francisco there's more potential process ahead of us which puts us in a little bit of a challenging position to commit to only building the foundation during the summer because through actions that we have no control over we could be delayed a number of more months with our permit. what i what the the golf club is absolutely committed to is dedicating that space to the open space. no matter what no matter what's happened in the past that is still on the table will be on the table. we're we're going to need to see coordination at some point because you know, there's documents to be signed and that sort of thing. but we are committed to to

dedicating that space and committed to getting this site under construction and foundation done as quickly as possible and the goal would be this summer. and if that's if there's active space right now is deemed or is or a fire lane, is it possible to have something at the other end of that to allow the school to exit out of there in an emergency at the other end of of the building property? >> can we get staff gov can we get the computer up please? >> sorry commissioner. yeah i just want to make sure i'm responding so we've got the thomas moore way on the right side of the screen you can see kind of the white rectangle which is where the existing and expanded open space would be.

>> can you just maybe give me a little bit more direct? further down to the left you don't you don't have the building that is basically encroaching onto the property but actually down around about that point because there's a building there's that the school has built on the property that is not shown on this. >> is it possible that that point is that if something goes wrong because of those the two electrical generators of fronts transformers that are basically narrowing this the egress out of that can we have an alternate fill in back here just in case something goes wrong? >> to provide that alternative means another egress for the site. i mean that seems pretty yeah. can that possibly work? yeah. we haven't design it but to the degree that the issue you're getting out commissioner in terms of the schools building being built over the property line and potentially needing that second means.

>> on getting out if they have to because they've got a limited exit upfront absolutely i don't know how we can condition this in a way that i mean we're going to need to work with fire and the building department. but in terms of what the the the golf club can do to facilitate that by. it's going to be over golf club land yes absolutely that would be something we can commit to not having the final answer in front of us right now but i just wish everybody was talking with there's been months here now i walked this project yesterday and i saw okay, i want a commitment of the 1800 square feet there. >> there is a commitment here today. >> there should be a conversation on that brought back here the pros the cons on that but there hasn't been i the transformers worried me right where they were the ability for kids to get out of there with existing. >> bothered me and then i saw

the encroachment on the property down the road that bothered me and then it's like okay well where do all these kids they can't run out just the front way and the back is just a dead end. >> and then i saw this encroachment and it's like okay it's all got to be fixed. why isn't everybody sitting down and actually dealing with the problems here that need to be fixed? so i think we have to clean up the encroachment on that and there was a possibility you there that there could be an additional exit out there fire exit. just say something god forbid something actually did go wrong. >> absolutely. and commissioner mcgarry, i think a decision at the hearing today is going to help us all move to this next stage of of of collaboration on issues like that and i agree with you. i wish we could have been talking about this six months ago and showing you a site plan that has all of this planned out. the golf club is committed to the open space working on that that figuring out that that

separate means of egress and a new fence that will accommodate both neighbors both sides of the fence. >> absolutely. and that's actually one comment we did hear on tuesday night that we wanted to respond to and that. do appropriate both privacy as well as a certain level of decorative esthetic to it because we know we're up against that school. >> i think commissioner mcgarry had a really good point. everyone here is really concerned and really need to make sure that the safety and welfare of the children and the teacher as it currently is needs to be. >> consider actually look into absolutely. >> thank you president commissioner vice president moore while i've stated my position of how i feel about the project i believe that myself as well as everybody else deserves at least a

drawing on the overhead there which shows exactly what mr. mcnally described in words. and i would suggest that perhaps mr. mcelwee who has very carefully looked at the transformer location. goes to the overhead, takes a drawing and i'll be happy to lend you my drawing yet the drawing package is here and you take a pencil and explain of what it exactly is you had in mind in terms of changes i would like to see that considered in my in my deliberation because you would like to make it a condition that would follow the. as an adjunct to what cone is a motion is is i correct allow me to expand so i'm not trying to legalize the the building that's encroaching halfway down because that just shouldn't be there. but it's an example of basically there a shared fence that's there and if you do look at the front where people can come in and out basically over.

>> i'd say 3/5 of that is basically two transformers right here. >> yes, as you're going. but what i'm more concerned of is that there and that's not moving. i want to go down and i want that shared fence that's going to be put in. i want both sides to have collaboration on that and because up front is limited for exit i want some additional. possibility of an additional exit within that fence that people from the school can get out if they need to because fires can happen on both side of a fence. >> i think clearly there's an observation that there's something that we need to. someone in someone who has the expertise in fire protection and exiting and egress. >> so she'll be should be evaluating the situation of the existing configuration. >> does it seem fair and you

brought up a really good point and commissioner moore also request to clarify that actually what commissioner mcgarry had mentioned that there are existing. transformer that is not actually being drawn on the drawings right now for the at the school side and so i think it's maybe perhaps it's fair to say that the commission recommend someone with that fire protection and health and safety expert to conduct a site visit. >> okay. >> on both sides. okay. and then commissioner braun. >> yes, i'll just put out my my motion has not been seconded and commissioner mcgarry, if if there is something you want to change about the motion, know i'll second your motion. >> but i do want. a possibility. and that fence when they're building it at the back that the further parts of the of the property that there is a possibility of getting in and out for the people in the

school just in case they have an issue on their side of the fence i, i i'm all in favor of that. i don't think we can condition . essentially an easement across somebody else's property but but the spirit of that recommendation is definitely well taken and i do agree with that and i'm sorry to apologize what may maybe i think the principal want to speak for me. do you mind make it really as. >> such thing as as possible. thank you. appreciate it. commissioners we we appreciate all the words that you are sharing with us. but i think this conversation that's been happening for this past ten minutes is an example of why we were asking for additional health and safety conditions as they have not been met. and this is this is part of the challenge and so we we even we. here sitting here with all of us with all the resources and all the brainpower can still

not address what if there was a fire? the safety concerns of our students which shows that this condition should not be allowed . so that is that is the that is the. well therefore we're still looking for additional all we asked at the meeting that we had this past week was two additional safety measures to put into show to prove us to prove to us that this will be safe, that there are safety measures put in and would it be okay if the director of the preschool. president so would it be okay if the director of the preschool just had a couple of words very quickly very, very quickly. >> she's one who has is that okay? very quickly please. >> it's yeah, i just wanted to clarify our hours of operation because it's been referring to just the school time but we are a school as well and we're open till 430 every day and we're also open longer until june so we extend our school year longer than the school year so . any considerations about that should be. we're going to be the most

directed, the most impacted who are outside so much so i feel like that's being disregarded a lot in this conversation that yes, there's there's a school there and that's very important. but we also have a preschool where we're open longer and i'm directly impacted by all of this. >> thank you. thank you. okay, commissioners, if there's no further deliberation we'd like to just mention typically commissioner williams, when we don't have a motion of denial in front of you, we adopt a motion of intent to deny. to allow staff the opportunity to draft a motion for your review prior to actually taking that action. alternatively you can articulate findings verbally that then staff can record and then put into the denial motion as part of your motion today. so so so you're saying an intent to deny? typically we we in this instance when there's a denial motion in front of you a draft

denial motion we would adopt an intent to deny and continue for two weeks at least to allow staff to draft that denial motion for your review again alternatively it's been done in the past if you articulate your findings today we can be that it can be incorporated later into. >> into it so so what's the motion so what what would be the motion. >> well right now if it's a motion to deny that has seconded so the motion would be to intent to deny right then then staff would go back, draft a motion for your review and provide it to you. we would continue this matter for a couple of weeks to allow that to happen but i think you've made it clear. >> like why why would the rationale for the intent i mean i think you can make the motion to deny and not necessarily look at intent. well, i want to make that motion. okay. to deny. to deny. very good. it has been seconded. i'll call that question on that

motion to deny the conditional use authorization, please. >> i'm sorry i need to be consistent with every commission hearing if any of you would like to watch what last thursday. it is really consistent. i need to be fair to every sense that san franciscan i set that last thursday here. we're here for eight hours. please refrain from making really clapping sound if you agree you can raise your hand and do this. i know everyone is really emotionally very very emotional high or low and all that in between but but please i allow you to do that a few more times already and i need to be fair to everyone. >> okay. thank you. on the motion to deny the conditional use authorization commissioner campbell i i'm sorry that was nay commissioner mcgarry and commissioner

williams yet? yes. commissioner braun. no commissioner more right and commission president so no, that motion fails 224 with commissioners campbell mcgarry braun and so voting against commissioners there is an alternate motion to approve the project with conditions. recommending a review of fire safety egress at the fire at the fence line on that motion commissioner campbell by commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams commissioner identified i want to make a friendly motion or amendment to the to the motion and that is that. that there is a fence built during construction that will mitigate the dust and whatever else particulate that can come over into the school yard and it has to be high as well. so at least 12 to 16ft in

height i think is. commission if i just suggest that you know that i don't want to get specific on that we can work with d h and the dust to you know there is a dust control ordinance we can work with them to put come up with additional mitigation measures beyond what's required in that ordinance to address the concerns you're raising and maybe a dollar to maybe something else. >> but i just want to be able to work with them to get at your your concern so i think if you direct us to work with h. >> within the within the ordinance to come up with additional mitigation measures to mitigate dust being put into that yes school during construction we can we can work on that. >> i want to i want to make it ,you know, very, very clear that that you know, this is a concern and so it needs to be addressed.

i think the point though that to get across is that it's beyond the commission's jurisdiction to regulate that. >> so i think if you can just make sure that in your motion you're very clear that we're not. that we wouldn't get involved in how they regulate the the the project that we encourage them and we're going to seek out additional measures to control doing dust and construction so to seek out additional measures to mitigate the dust and construction and construction particulate particulate matter. >> okay that that sounds square would work with that that sounds that sounds right to me that that sounds well we can also report back to you on the outcome of those discussions through a memo or a director's call. >> i would appreciate that. director hillis okay. >> commissioner brown so i think that that's that's firm direction to staff from this commission and so the motion

stands. but i am in full agreement that you know, the school does operate year round and the project sponsor has committed to taking extra measures to mitigate dust during construction. and so yes, the department needs to pay close attention to this and make sure that there are those extra measures. thank you. okay. so that's that's that's going to be added on to the motion right into the record. >> thank you. that's correct. very good. then there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the project with conditions recommending a review of fire safety egress at the fence line and directing staff to work with the department of public health on additional dust mitigation measures. on that motion, commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams nay. commissioner braun commissioner moore no and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes for two to with commissioners williams and

moore voting against commissioners that will place this on the final item on your agenda today. number 12 case number 2023 hyphen 011398 way at 1111 pennsylvania avenue conditional use authorization conditional

start yes so i mean i personally there's a silent majority of parents who are not actually. >> yeah i think i did yeah yeah it happens sometimes they folks just don't you know good afternoon commissioners and residents all this is colony of me department staff can you hear me all right i'm presenting a conditional use authorization to establish a fleet charging use at 1111 pennsylvania avenue which is located within the pdr two zoning district. the project proposes to install

52 charging spaces and six onsite vehicle queuing spaces. the project is replacing two existing surface lots which are currently occupied by a self-storage use. the existing lots will be repaved along with landscaping and fencing improvements to the site. the project is removing one curb cut on pennsylvania avenue and retaining a total of three curb cuts on both pennsylvania avenue on 25th street. based on community feedback, the project modified the site access to provide a secondary entrance along 25th street and also provided an onsite queuing management plan to ensure that the fleet vehicles do not obstruct the traffic on the adjacent streets. to date the department has received two letters regarding this project one in support and one in opposition. the letter in support was provided by the teamsters local union 665 following discussions with the project's sponsors sponsors and they have reached an agreement to address any potential impacts that this proposed use may have.

the letter in opposition was provided by the potential boosters and. neighborhood associations. the concerns were regarding the project's adverse effect on existing residents. the curb cut on pennsylvania avenue and its impact on local traffic patterns and the future operator for the proposed plant charging site staff would like to note that a red line motion has been circulated. to note that additional condition number seven was added to exhibit e, it requires that the project sponsor update the queuing management plan when an operator as finalized. in summary, the department has determined that the project complies with the zoning is on balance with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project establishes an ev fleet charging use in a pdr zone site which is adjacent to a freeway and its. proposes improvements to the current conditions. the project supports the use of electric vehicles with generally contribute less to air and noise pollution thus making it necessary and

desirable. the department recommends approval and this concludes my presentation the project sponsor is here and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon melinda sara shapiro with reuben genius and rose. i'm here on behalf of the sponsor. this project, as kalyani mentioned will create new fleet charging use with up to 52 charging spaces on two existing surface lots. the project is desirable because fleet charging infrastructure is needed to serve electric vehicles used by a variety of operators. the project you know evs in general produce less air pollution and noise than gas or diesel vehicles and new facilities like this directly advance numerous city, state and federal environmental policies. this is also an ideal location for fleet charging. it's right next to interstate 280. easily accessible from cesar chavez to the south and third street to the east and it's just over a half mile from the

highway one on one access the fleet charging use is highly compatible with surrounding development and the underlying zoning. this site is zoned pdr too which is meant to encourage a range of industrial incompatible uses. most forms of automotive use our principly permitted in this area and fleet charging is a low impact operator that will complement other nearby uses. the project is also going to improve, secure and reactivate the site. right now their images in the staff packet this is a self-storage use with 80 portable cargo containers and no unified screening or landscaping. the project will repave the lots install charging infrastructure attractive and secure new fencing and landscaped setbacks along both of the frontages that will improve the area for pedestrians. the sponsor has carefully considered site circulation and developed a traffic management queuing plan to ensure that there will be no vehicle backup along pennsylvania or 25th. the internal layout of the site is designed to have multiple access points and the upper lot

will have a 24 foot wide drive aisle with a lower light having a 35 foot wide driveway all which is plenty of room for vehicles to pass each other and maneuver on the site. the project will also provide six dedicated vehicle queuing spaces and non charging spaces within the lot and have its entry recessed with an automated gate that's going to allow vehicles to pull off of the street rather than queuing on it and security access cameras to monitor the site conditions 24 seven. these items ensure the project won't result in vehicle backups or impede pedestrian or muni service in the area. the sponsor has reached out to neighborhood stakeholders they hold hosted a virtual meeting with members of the patrol boosters and the dogpatch neighborhood association last year in response to comments from that meeting the design was modified to increase screening and landscaping at the site and to eliminate one of the two existing 33 foot wide curb cuts along pennsylvania avenue. i'm also pleased to say that the sponsor has worked closely with and earned the support of the teamsters local union 665

as well as the electrical workers union local six. for these reasons we ask that the commission approve fleet charging here and we are available for any questions or thank you. with that we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. governor. commissioners mark gleason here speaking on behalf of teamsters 665 in teamsters joint council seven want to say to everyone on the staff the director and others of planning we very much appreciate the continued. listening to the concerns that we have as it relates to fleet charging expansion in san francisco and how that would affect workers san franciscans who work in the distribution and logistics industry.

that being said, after quite some talks we are in support of the project now with some adjustments and and the developer hearing what our concerns were and we're very comfortable with where that is now and have signed off on an agreement. i would just add with that that you know during this time you know we've had our issue with fleet charging in general and it will be continuing that way certainly in other parts of san francisco in the future. but that being said. we also have heard and understand the concerns of the neighbors and although our issue is simply revolving around how fleet charging affects working conditions, we would say that we hope that the concerns that the neighborhood has with certainly be heard as well. so with that thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners alex lansberg with the electrical industry. just wanted to both echo what mr. gleason said and again confirm that we have reached an

agreement with the project sponsor. we're going to be having skilled and trained union electricians and local san francisco electrical contractors doing this. doing this work for anyone who's been by that site. i think this is going to be a significant improvement. many of us have gotten off of 24th street from 280 and let's face it, just having a bunch of containers just sitting there just kind of poorly screened is is very much. or getting rid of that is going to be very much an upgrade. so i'm glad that the project sponsor worked with obviously with the teamsters but also with other community groups to to address their concerns and i look forward to seeing this project come out of the ground. thank you. >> last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner vice president moore i have a question regarding some details of the applicant representative could come to the podium one

more time. you spoke about. concerns about two points of exit entry from pennsylvania so drawing still showed two points. >> has that been changed? the yeah the design has been changed that the only curb cut to be retained is going to be closer to the i-285 exit ramp. the remaining 33 foot wide curb cut closer to the corner is going to be removed. eliminate okay so we're going to be one connected the second question i have in staff report it says it is not yet an operator. is there a timeframe by which you think that this will be realized? what is the construction time and who will take this type of project? >> the intent is to move forward with development of the site for fully charging san francisco. that's going to take some time for building permits. we also are going to need pgd permits and the reality is that uses like this take a long time

to prove it can be years to get those approvals together. being that case it's difficult to find an operator that will commit at the outset. we do think that there will be demand for the site but we don't have an operator identified right now. what happens if you don't have an operator? i mean things have changed a little bit relative to what we think people will be doing and are not doing. i mean it would be an unusual site without an operator to sit there in the location where it is obviously open to vandalism and all kinds of other things particular it's not really an onsite operator who controls this thing. so i'd be curious how you would answer my question. >> i think for the site to be viable we will have to eventually have an operator there. you know, we do anticipate there will be demand for this. there is an increase in heavy charging and heavy use, you know, throughout the city and encouragement for it. but we don't have an operator identified at this point. i want to direct my question perhaps to staff what do we do in a case like that ultimately obviously the project is necessary in some form or

another. however, an unrealized project of which we have others mostly dimensional in size in case what do we do with that? >> i think practically speaking i would anticipate that as the permits are getting pretty far along i would agree pgd is a really big hurdle with a lot of unknown timelines but i would imagine once they clear the hurdle and they're getting well through the building department that i would imagine it will start getting marketed to a tenant. i would normally people don't pull building permits if they don't have an operator. >> so i would imagine that prior to pulling a building permit which is full circle to our budget conversation when you have to put up some real cash to pull your building permit and pay those fees that they will likely have an operator queued up. >> rarely do we see people actually building things like this on spec they might get through the the planning entitlement process but i don't think they'll probably put shovels in the ground i would imagine until they know that they've got somebody with a lease sign. so that would be my estimate.

again we approve land use not users with the exception of formula retail and so this also is not that foreign of a concept i think for projects particularly those that often don't come through commission as you know we're looking at the underlying land use rather than the user. >> good, good, good answer. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner campbell the thought is this would be autonomous vehicles eventually or when we say a fleet it's just any sort of just so just yeah clarification thought is that would be any sort of electrical vehicle operator not autonomous specific no. yeah i'll get off my soapbox around autonomous vehicles let me go to my notes here so generally i think this is i'm in support of this i agree it's a better use of the surface lot as it is today. however i think it would be great for us to be integrating these types of offerings like subterranean and a parking structure as we like as we have

larger development projects come before us. i think this is really where we want these elements that are more integrated rather than on a surface lot just because those are ripe for activation and densification. but i do appreciate the community outreach and the concessions made in terms of the design modifications and the landscaping and screening and the queuing management. so my comments thank you commissioner brown yes, i have a question and maybe this is kind of in the weeds and something i should have try to get resolved before the hearing but bear with me in the site plan for this project. i did see there actually is a site plan in the packet that does show the removal of the curb cut on pennsylvania near 25th. but in that site plan there is a note that says planting area 472ft2 parentheses 245ft2 less than required. >> is that a typo? does anyone shed light on that

? there is a planning department can speak to this further to get into the details of it but basically there's a requirement to have a landscaped barrier in from the fence around the site has to be a certain with unless you allocated another area in the site for greater depth and there is a and the same site plan you'd see an inset on the sloped area with an additional 275ft2 of planting and natural drainage area that that meets that offset. >> okay. thank you for that and sorry if it was in the details in the pack and i just overlooked it but that's i appreciate the answer and it certainly seems like actually a pretty reasonable place to have the additional planting concentrated since that is that and is adjacent to the sidewalk in that place. so it's a little bit of a maybe more pleasant break in some ways. and then actually another question for the project sponsor or maybe this is for staff as far as allowable use to but there's the self-storage

on site right now. what's the envisioned use in the interim kind of echoing the questions about what if this takes a long time to move forward and get built? is the plan to keep the site vacant or to continue to seek to continue the self-storage use or the storage use and whatever it is we would anticipate the self-storage use would continue while we're seeking permits to build out the fully charging. >> okay. thank you. um, you know, i i'm glad to see that we're further efforts to uh to address queuing with the on site queuing that's been put in place having the option of b circulation coming in through 25th street as well. i was glad to see that um, and i'm also happy to see the removal of the curb cut closer to fifth street because you know on the whole this project to me it improves as it matches the pdr zoning. >> this makes very incremental improvements. um landscaping itself will still be subject to planning department review and approval so we'll have that process to ensure that it's meets the

requirements. >> i you know one of the points that caught my attention was about the central waterfront dogpatch public realm improvement plan and so i spent some time kind of going back through that plan and you know what was identified for the site? it was raised in the letter we received that this was a gateway in that plan. gateway in that plan is that actually defined? but even so i take the point that this is, you know, a kind of an entry point within that plan area. and i agree this isn't the perfect project for creating a big shift in this being a very high traffic, very industrial area. i usually come and go to the tunnel top park on foot using our run and it's there's a lot of work to do on making this more pedestrian friendly that's for sure. but i see this as making good incremental progress. you know they're supposed to be bold outs built a 25th in pennsylvania removal of that curb cut and pennsylvania seems like a good first step to make that a little bit easier. the landscaping and fencing that would be improved would be a much more appealing hopefully

than the current condition which just looks like it kind of fell their way kind of haphazard. and so this has my support and just you know, if other if other ideas are raised i'm open to amending the motion but for the sake of expediency i'm going to make a motion to approve the project. >> okay. thank you. second well, i got something i would like to add to this. >> thank you. i appreciate the project sponsors representative to explain a little bit about the nuances of how the project will be in compliance with the minimum planting in the landscape plan. but i am not seeing a lighting plan. i'm really my my biggest concern for our city is public safety and we always look for

project improvement to improve also the safety of the public room so what is presented in front of us do not show any suggestions except just saying it will comply. so it's a little interesting. i would like to hear if you have anything more to share to say that because it does say project sponsors shall submit an exterior or lighting plan to the planning department prior to the planning department approval of the building and site permit application. oh precedent. so yes that is a part of our standard conditions of approval and they will once you know the the building permit stage comes up they will submit more detailed plans and we will be reviewing that. it is subject to review at this stage they have not been required to submit one but it

will be a part of the site permit uh during building permit review. thank you. thank you. and then also i think commissioner o'brien has a really good point about anything that we try to improve we should include improving it in the goal to achieve and meet our general plan, right? so if there's the streetscape has both out and i like to hear what your sequence of process that will how does the sidewalks going to be improved alongside with this project so then we're consistent with our general plan. >> i can answer that. so this project did not trigger a start review requirements because it didn't meet all of the triggers in section 130 8.1 but we did take it to start for an office our review and there were some recommendations like

the bulb out and some you know the landscaping requirements and the removal of the curb cut as well was recommended by our start and the project sponsor has taken those recommendations into consideration and incorporated those into the plan. so that would be they would submit a more detailed streetscape plan showing all of those changes at the time as well. but it will be a part of their site permit but it is not subject to start review as such. >> oh oh oh yeah i mean it's not required so the they're not triggering a start review do you want to clarify that the planning code has specific requirements for the scope of development that trigger significant streetscape improvements like bulb outs, crossways, things like that. this is you know, a fairly low scale of development. the installation of any charging that doesn't trigger that bulb out development at

this point if at some future portion point in time there's a larger development on the site say redeveloped for residential or for building that would trigger those improvements. >> okay. thank you. i do like to add a condition to the approval here though i do like to see their lighting plan coming back to share with us. >> commissioner, if i could maybe ask we can just when the time comes we can add it in your packet as an information item only. >> okay so that's what i mean. you'll need to come in for approval by i want to see it. it's very important to me that those equity geography location also have the ample measurement for public safety. yeah and then commissioner williams, just just briefly, you know looking at the site there's some close to the freeway so and there's there's an on ramp and an off ramp and

and i'm just curious to have you guys did you do it was there any study done like how that might impact the traffic coming off and and on to the to the to the freeway there because it's kind of a conspicuous little area right there as far as traffic, you know and so it was was there any any other outside thought that went into that to consider that that those impacts of traffic commissioner williams a full while a full transportation impact analysis study was not required as part of the environmental review process the department staff did evaluate the project's potential transportation impacts under sequoyah and it was found that there was no further analysis was required before issuing the exemption

and in general it's informed by you know, the project location, proposed land use potential travel and loading demand and it's proposed, you know changes . so it was found that the project did not have the potential to result in significant transportation related impacts. >> it had low beam peak traffic and the only traffic that the it anticipated would be the fleet coming in at night. so the epi staff who reviewed it and it was reviewed twice once in january and once again in february of this year i mean just before the hearing. so they reiterated that it would not result in a significant impact and also given that the proposed traffic management plan that also helped mitigate those impacts as well. >> so there was there was something there was there is

there is an initial analysis that was done as part of our environmental review but there was no full transportation analysis study required to be submitted by the sponsor. >> thank you. >> i appreciate that. thank you so much. yeah, i just just i'm wondering because again that that areas it's there's a lot of traffic that goes through there and i was just thinking about how cars are coming out of their and integrating it into the the existing traffic patterns um you know composed get dangerous you know and so that just just a concern there not another thing i kind of just wanted to to touch on was the community engagement for this area this patrol hill you know there's the housing right there that's close on on on the hill there. there's a lot of new development and i'm just wondering how how you guys went about doing that community

engagement and did how did that did you get any response from the existing residents from the community there to this project ? yeah, this this scope of development didn't trigger a full pre-application meeting mailed notice meaning for it we did outreach to the patrol boosters and the dog patch neighborhood association and also the site was publicly noticed at the time of this application we didn't receive any outreach from the neighbors in the area so there there wasn't much much discussion from the neighbors about this because it didn't trigger okay. >> just you know, i just want to know because you know, again there are neighbors there even though it's it's a kind of an area that you know, there's not buildings around it but there's there's definitely a lot of folks that live in the area and so i i always to me it's important that, you know, those voices are included in in in land use decisions that could

affect them also. so i know you haven't found someone to occupy the space but it could could this possibly be like a public facility that the public can use to charge their vehicles? >> that is one of the questions we have from the neighborhood association during the process that would be a separate use to have onsite publicly accessible charging. we did not add that into the proposal because a lot of the design of the site went into limiting vehicle queuing and access to it to make sure that we wouldn't have any backups or traffic issues. so we're limiting it to just one fleet operator for those 52 spaces and limited access to the site for that reason. >> so so it won't be available to the public. it's now public public but will it ever be available say you can't find someone i mean is that i'm just wondering because i know there's a need there's a need right. for for public charging stations? well, yeah, i don't think we've

evaluated that at this point. >> we do think there will be demand for the privately charging use but it's always possible uses can evolve over time if there isn't an operator . okay. thank you. >> just a quick note kind of following on commissioner william's comments. just to be clear, i do want to include the additional queuing management plan item that was handed out to us in my motion. >> thank you. okay commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner campbell i mr. mcgarry high commissioner williams i missioner brown i missioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 concludes your hearing today i'm happy to remind you that next week the hearing is canceled and so i'll see you again on the 27th.

>> thank you mean today so today we are announcing that we'll be filing a lawsuit against the trump administration in the northern district of california this

effort is co-led by san francisco and santa clara county and you'll hear shortly from our santa clara county counsel tony lopresti. since his first term, donald trump has tried different ways to coerce cities into doing the job of the federal government and carrying out federal immigration enforcement. since taking office on january the 20th, trump and his administration have doubled down on those efforts. >> they've targeted sanctuary localities and states with executive orders and agency actions meant to illegally compel local jurisdictions into carrying out the president's priorities and allowing the federal government to commandeer local law enforcement officers as ice agents. >> the federal actions make clear that cities like san francisco will be defunded if we do not give up our local authority and autonomy and comply. his executive order titled protecting the american people against invasion orders federal

agencies to illegally cut off federal funding to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. to implement this executive order and to carry out trump's wishes, the u.s. department of justice sent memos on january the 21st and this wednesday february the 5th that instruct u.s. doj personnel to investigate and civilly or criminally prosecute local officials in sanctuary jurisdictions that do not actively assist in immigration enforcement. these are not idle threats. yesterday the trump administration brought a lawsuit against the city of chicago cook county, the state of illinois and local and state officials challenging their sanctuary laws. their lawsuit made the prosecutor of state and local officials for following their laws a reality. the lawsuit that we're going to be filing later on today with a number of cities and counties lay out exactly how these executive orders and u.s. doj

memos violate a whole host of laws. >> their actions fly in the face of fundamental constitutional provisions. they violate plain statutory language and numerous court orders. our lawsuit describes how their actions violate the constitution's 10th amendment the separation of powers doctrine, the spending clause, the due process clause and the administrative procedures act. we will be asking the court to declare these actions unlawful and to prevent the trump administration from enforcing the challenge portions of the executive orders and u.s. doj memos. i want to be clear the trump administration is asserting a right it does not have. they are trying to tell us how to use our resources and to commandeer our local law enforcement. >> this is the federal government coercing local officials to bend to their will or face defunding or prosecution and that is illegal

or authoritarian. and last i checked, we still live in a democracy under the rule of law and the federal government needs to follow the law. >> local officials have a right to do their jobs without threats or interference from the federal government. >> now let me note that none of these actions targeting century jurisdictions will improve public safety. sanctuary laws improve public safety and that is their purpose. our city sanctuary laws have been in place since 1989. studies have consistently shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and sanctuary jurisdictions are either seeing no increase in crime or have lower crime rates as a result of sanctuary laws. victims and witnesses of crime are willing to come forward and report crimes to the police . and when law enforcement and communities trust each other, we get criminals off the streets making everyone safer.

these were points that were made in a recent statement by the california police chiefs association representing hundreds of police chiefs in our state. >> eroding trust and targeting hardworking families with threats of deportation does the opposite. >> it makes individuals fearful to report crimes to go to school to get needed health care. it makes us all less safe. now donald trump and his allies like to spread falsehoods that sanctuary jurisdictions harbor criminals. >> that is simply not true. the federal government knows the identity and has the fingerprints of every inmate in san francisco jails. if the federal government has legal reason to arrest someone they can do so by obtaining a criminal warrant or a court order. >> the purpose of our local sanctuary laws is not to interfere with or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement . but let me say this. immigration enforcement is the

federal government's responsibility, not the responsibility of state and local governments. sanctuary policies prioritize using our scarce local law enforcement resources to actually fight crime, not do the job of the federal government. >> now during the first trump administration, san francisco and santa clara sued the federal government after the administration attempted to withhold federal funds from the city based on its sanctuary policies like it is trying to do today. >> and we won federal district courts and the ninth circuit u.s. court of appeals ruled that the conditions the trump administration attempted to place on federal funding were unconstitutional and that our local sanctuary policies comply with federal law. >> no one is interfering with the federal government's ability to do their job. >> but the trump administration is certainly interfering with our ability to do our job. they're trying to take away our autonomy and interfering with

our ability to keep our residents safe. and thus we have no choice but to seek relief from the court. >> i want to mention that our lawsuit is joined by a number of jurisdictions across the country including new haven, connecticut, portland, oregon. king county, washington. and i'm here to introduce our santa clara county council tony lopresti. i very much appreciate the partnership between our offices and as i mentioned, santa clara is co-leading this case with us . good morning. i want to begin by thanking city attorney david chiu and his extraordinary team for their leadership and partnership with santa clara county and standing up for the constitutional rights of our residents. santa clara's core mission is to care for its most vulnerable

residents and to deliver the critical services that they need to survive and to thrive. santa clara has mission. our job is not to enforce immigration laws and the constitution could not be more clear that the federal government can't require us to help with enforcement of civil immigration laws and constitutional speak. we call that commandeering the federal government can't commandeer our local government. they can't commandeer our local resources and they can't commandeer our local law enforcement to help them carry out a vision of mass deportation. you might ask why santa clara and san francisco and hundreds of other jurisdictions choose not to cooperate with the federal government? for us it's simple. we are striving to create a

culture of trust and security within our communities so that our residents know that they can come to the county when they are in need or when they can be of help. that includes feeling safe coming to local law enforcement to report crimes or to participate in investigations without fearing that they or their loved ones face deportation. our non-cooperation policies are designed to protect that trust and security and the federal government can't weaponize federal funding to bully us away from that commitment to trust and security. we worked hand in hand with san francisco in 2017 to enforce the constitution against the trump administration. we litigated before and we prevailed. we are litigate litigating again and we will prevail again. thank you.

>> i want to take a moment and thank the team in my office that has been working around the clock really since the inauguration of donald trump. >> our litigators karen tulloch ,nancy harris, sara eisenberg, molly lee, alex holtzman and others advice attorneys jenna clark, lisa cabrera, kate kimberlin, valerie lopez and pearson christina fletcher's jesse minority and others. >> our legal professionals elizabeth colebrook. >> katie dunn, sir gutierrez as well as yale law school's asphalt program. and at this moment i'd like to invite up our chief deputy yvonne murray to make a few remarks in spanish wednesday. yes. i mean i'm receiving midday you'll abogado ethan holcomb all here for the totality here. that office now that abogado de la ciudad de san francisco only lets you let the san francisco yell condado the santa clara in

who took on last you that is the new haven and connecticut portland and oregon. yale condo they king and yale started in washington vi mossop but i think that only the hill control but i think that trump official hinted at the los estados unidos e various lee that is that he fed this departamento said at alice l proceedings the yale gobierno federal estanguet yolanda la la isla constitution federal xin su that this e condos are using aim facade immigration federal annual primitive the issue but i see things here l proceeding piano seal or now ordering a.a ng for gatherings sanctuary city or solaris condos estados sanctuary us barack latifi guard sue that is sanctuary s nor seconding or are there gang criminal is su that is sanctuary s the any less e police us given priority the alaska river publica locale

they handle shall go we are no federal a hectare last layers fitted alice they migration at that i they still out of the negative are eunos those departamento de justicia el preceding that in think that a4 sat and that sus police us apiary that this racket again gets you that is sanctuary us are using and ing for salas latest federalist the immigration yemen i nuestras you

get access. >> thank you. that concludes our comments. >> happy to answer any questions. talk a little bit about the differences between what the trump administration tried to do last time around and this time and the difference between the lawsuits if that's so. >> so at some levels there's not there not many differences. >> and in fact he is reinstating the original executive order that a court had held in the ninth circuit had held were unconstitutional. but in addition to that, he is now also threatening local officials, state officials with investigations, criminal and civil prosecutions.

what relief are you seeking in this lawsuit? quite a few pieces and you want to take a yes no? yeah, at a high level we're. oh, i'm sorry. sara eisenberg from the san francisco city attorney's office. we are seeking declaration that these executive actions are unconstitutional and unlawful and an injunction that prohibits them from enforcing them against jurisdictions that have these policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities. >> why does it only go to the ninth circuit last time there was a decision. so there were actually several cases that raised this. some of them we prevailed at the ninth circuit and the trump administration made a decision not to go further but to actually withdraw the initial executive order. and some of them that they administration changed over before there was an opportunity for them to go all the way up. but these threats to

investigate officials and courts to maybe commandeer local resources are at this point still threats. so why take preemptive legal action rather than wait for years to come to fruition and then seek relief when they do? >> so the first executive order that came down articulated the strategy and that was a number of weeks ago. but this week when the bondi memo came down it made it very clear what would happen. and then yesterday when the city of chicago and the state of illinois were sued by the trump administration, that made it abundantly clear and abundantly real that this enforcement would happen indication that the trump administration officials they said something to justice from our perspective we think any and all sanctuary jurisdictions are going to be targeted. and what has happened this week made that abundantly clear. if bondi is successful in her attempt to strip federal funding i mean how much does

san francisco stand to lose? >> so san francisco on our own we receive billions of dollars of federal funding. this would be catastrophic to our city, to the services that we need to provide to our community and to our local economy. i understand. >> i'm sorry. i'll just add for santa clara it's a similar situation. we have billions of dollars at stake including money that is devoted to our health system. we have the second largest public health system in the state of california. it's critical that we're able to provide those health services and the community services that federal funding helps support. so our core mission really is at stake here. >> this is still a threat at this point and that's where the funding for sanctuary cities and these orders they're there has certainly been communications that have been issued. you know, one thing i'll say to that point is what we have seen the administration moving so fast and oftentimes so chaotically it's difficult to tell when they are putting

something forward or withdrawing it. so rather than be caught flat footed, we definitely felt like we needed to be proactive rather than wait for the impacts to our residents in our in our community stops as a result of these numbers. yeah, that's correct. my understanding is that the commandeering sort of interpretation is what's played out in this law right under the 10th amendment. i'm just wondering if you guys are worried about the supreme court and just how many judges trump appointed the first time maybe making a different interpretation of the 10th amendment. i'll start by saying it's our perspective that judges that follow the rule of law will side with us particularly given the precedent that we have here. we'll obviously see how that happens as we proceed. >> but but the laws on the books are clear. expecting more jurisdiction to join this lawsuit? >> we are absolutely and we're

in conversations as we speak. we'll be filing the complaint later today in part because we're still gathering names and information that we can put into our complaint related to other jurisdictions or any other bay area jurisdiction that are a part of this. >> there is very likely at least another bay area jurisdiction and we are will we're awaiting will likely have more to say about that in the in the near future. so we're going to worry about this action and see in support of it. >> i have advised mayor leary of this. we had a very good conversation. he understands why we're needing to move forward at this time to defend our city. are there any other actions that trump has taken or is that you expect for yourself or other jurisdictions to actually present? >> i think what i would say is as countless legal observers will tell you, donald trump has been openly violating the law and the constitution on almost a daily basis. he just to give a number of examples he is trying to ignore the constitutional right to

birthright citizenship which our office is litigating. he's violating separation of powers by trying to cut off federal funding that congress has authorized and shutting down agencies that congress has also authorized. >> he's violating the law by firing inspector generals and federal prosecutors without notice as well as giving billionaires access to private financial data. we of course are monitoring all of these circumstances and will take action when we need to defend our city. >> does your office have the capacity to do that work? well, i have to just thank the incredible professionals in our office who are literally working around the clock and not sleeping at this time. >> we need to do whatever we can to uphold the rule of law. >> i'll just say that, you know, we're very privileged to be working in coalition with a whole host of other local jurisdictions and we fully anticipate that there is going to be a flood of necessary litigation that we're going to need to bring forward and we

are going to be working hand in hand with partner jurisdictions in making sure and making sure that we push back on the unlawful and unconstitutional policies of the administration. >> were there any conversations with attorney general bonta in california in the sanctuary state or is that just entirely different? >> we've had conversations with the ag's office on a number of topics. i'm not going to go into what those are but we certainly have been in communication with our ag. >> and with that unless anyone has any questions appreciate you being here. >> i know there are folks who can do individual interviews. >> thank you so much

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manners. special guest is david chu. hi i'm chris manners and you're watching san francisco rising the show that's about restarting rebuilding and re imagining our city. i guess today is david chiu, the city attorney for the city and county of san francisco , and he's here today to talk to us about the opioid crisis, reproductive rights and the non citizen voting program. mr chu, welcome to the show. thanks for having me on happy to talk about whatever you want me to talk about, so can we start by explaining the difference between the city attorney's office and the district attorney's office? i think it could be slightly confused. that is a very common fusion with members of the public so um, if you get arrested in san francisco by the san francisco police department, all criminal matters are dealt with by the san francisco district attorney . we handle all civil matters on

behalf of the city and county of san francisco. what that means is a number of things. we provide advice and counsel to all actors within city government from our mayor. every member of the board of supervisors to the 100 plus departments, commissions boards that represent the city and county of san francisco. we also defend the city against thousands of lawsuits. so if you slip and fall in front of city hall if there's a bus accident if there is an incident involving the san francisco police department, we defend those matters. we also bring lawsuits on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, where most famous for litigating and obtaining the constitutional right to marry for lgbtq couples have sued gun manufacturers, payday lenders, oil companies, you name it, who are undercutting the rights of san franciscans and the city and county of san francisco. so now moving on to the opioid crisis. i understand you've had some success in court, um, dealing

with manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. could you elaborate a little bit on that for us, so the opioid industry and by that i refer to the legal industry that prescribes pain pills. um over years. uh, deceived americans and resulted in literally thousands upon thousands of deaths and tragedies that we see on our streets every day when it comes to the addictions that folks are experiencing. many of the addictions really stemmed from what happened over a decade plus period where the prescription pain industry marketed prescription pills in ways that were false. we were one of thousands of jurisdictions around america that brought a lawsuit against the opioid industry. but we've had a particular set of successes that others have not. ah we initially brought a lawsuit a few years ago against every part of the opioid supply chain, and that

included manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including pharmacies over the course of four plus years. a number of these corporate defendants settled with us. we've as of this moment brought in over $120 million of cash and services. to the city to help address the root causes of what we're talking about. but a few months ago, we had a really historic verdict against the pharmacy, walgreens and their role walgreens was responsible for literally over 100 million pills, flooding the streets of san francisco over a period of years where they flouted federal law that require them to track where they're pills were going to. they had a what? what we refer to as a phil phil phil. pharmacy culture where folks would bring in their prescriptions, and the pharmacist would just fill them without checking why someone was coming in multiple times without checking why certain doctors

were seen a 100 fold increase in the number of opioid prescriptions that they were prescribing. so we had a historic judgment against walgreens recently, but it's been a very intense lawsuit. and we know that will never bring back the lives that we have lost to opioid addictions. but it's critical for us that we get the resources that we need. maybe one other thing i'll mention because it's often confusion. a large percentage of folks who are addicted to street level drugs say heroin or fentanyl started their addictions. with painkillers, opioid medications that were prescribed through doctors provided through pharmacies and so literally the suffering that we're seeing on our streets was caused by the opioid industry over many, many years and has created the significant crisis that we are dealing with right now. right right now moving on. i understand after the recent supreme court ruling, striking down robust as wade that you've

put together an organization that's designed to help mm. provide free services to people who are both. seeking abortions and providing them can you tell us about the organization? sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country,

and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these lawyers can bring against various states. in these areas that are looking to deprive women and patients and providers of their of their rights. um it is a very dark time in america, and i'm really proud that that barrier attorneys, the legal community care have stepped up to answer the call. it's very important that's great. so now the non citizen voting program that was passed by voters just for school boards has faced them court challenges recently, but it was in place for the most recent election that we've had. how do you see that situation panning out? in fact, it's been in place for now. five school board elections. um so a little

bit of background in our san francisco schools over one out of three kids. has a parent who is a non citizen who doesn't have a say in the election of the policy makers that dictate the future of our san francisco public schools, and so over a number of years, there has been a movement to allow immigrant parents to vote in school board elections. few things i'll mention about that is our country has a very long history when it comes to allowing immigrants to vote. from 17 76 for 100 and 50 years until after world war. one immigrants were allowed to vote in most states in our country on the theory that we want to assimilate immigrants in american democratic values and institutions, and it wasn't until an anti immigrant backlash in world war one that that sort of ended. but in recent years, um cities across america have allowed this to happen. in fact, at this moment, believe there are over a dozen cities that

have voted to allow non citizens to vote in a number of context. now, this is particularly important in our schools just given how challenge our schools are, and given that we know that when we engage more parents in her school system, regardless of their citizenship it helps to lift up our schools for all parents. and so in 2016 the voters of san francisco past about measure that allowed this to happen. unfortunately earlier this year, there were conservative organizations that came to san francisco to bring a lawsuit to try to overturn this , and i should also mention it is obviously the perspective of our office and our city that this is constitutional. nothing in the constitution prohibits non citizens from voting. and in fact, there's an explicit provision in the constitution that allows chartered cities like san francisco when it comes to school board elections to be able to dictate the time and manner of those elections. and so, uh, we are involved in litigation on this issue. there

was an initial ruling that was not good for us that essentially said at the trial court level. we shouldn't allow this. um we appealed it up to the appellate level. the appellate court made an initial decision to allow this past november election to proceed as it has for the last previous four elections. we're going to be in front of that court soon. stay tuned. we'll see what happens. it was good to hear that the city was able to reach a settlement with the center for medicare and medicaid services are meant laguna honda could still operate. how did you manage to reach that agreement? it was not an easy conversation . just a little bit of background. so laguna honda has been an incredibly important institution in san francisco for 150 years, taking care of our most vulnerable patients are frail, very elderly patients, many of whom are at end of life. and a few years ago, there were some issues in that hospital. some violations of rules that we very much want to make sure

don't get violated. there were folks that weren't using proper ppe, who are bringing cigarette lighters into the facility, who might have brought some contraband into the facilities. we have zero tolerance for that and have made that very clear. we self reported some of these violations to the federal authorities. and unfortunately from our perspective, they took the very disproportionate step of ordering the closure. the permanent closure of lugano, honda. problematic on a number of reasons. first and foremost, there are just no skilled nursing facility beds not just in california but around the country. after their order came down. we literally were putting 1000 calls a day to skilled nursing facilities around california and around the country and could find nowhere to move the 700 patients that we had had in the gonna honda but just as disturbingly as we were forced to start moving some of these patients, a number of them died. there's a concept in medicine known as transfer trauma. when you move someone

who is that frail and unfortunately, folks folks died and we were at a point where we were five weeks away from the deadline for the federal government. that they had provided to us to close the facility. so uh and we have been trying for months to get the federal government to reconsider their action, so i was compelled to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the city and county of san francisco and very pleased and appreciate that we were able to come to a settlement whereby transfers will be delayed at least until next year. we're going to have at least a year of funding. to keep the facility open, and hopefully we can get back up on our feet and ensure that no future violations occur because this is an institution that has to stay open for the good of these patients. quite right, quite right. so finally, congratulations on winning an important public power service dispute with pg and e. um why is it important that the city's rights as a local power provider maintained well, so san francisco has been a local power

provider for decades. we are fortunate to have access through our hedge hetchy hydroelectric system to provide electricity to a number of providers, particularly public recipients of that. and unfortunately, pg any has used its monopoly when it comes to private electricity to try to stop that, and to block that, and from our perspective, they violated federal law in adding literally tens of millions of dollars of expenses to san francisco and institutions that we're trying to ensure um, public power infrastructure. put years of delays on our ability to do this, and so we had to bring a number of appeals in the federal commission. ah we were successful in those appeals, and there was a decision recently that basically held the pg and e could not use its monopoly to unfairly delay or add tens of millions of dollars of cost. to the city and county of san

francisco, as we are trying to move forward with our vision of public power. clearly pgd has not been able to serve not just san francisco but northern california. well we all know that with the wildfires with its bankruptcies, with all the issues that they've had, we think there is a different model to move forward on and we are grateful to the court. and providing a ruling that allows us to move forward. well thank you so much for coming on the show. i really appreciate the time you've given us here today. i appreciate and thanks for your thanks for your questions. thank you. well that's it. for this episode, we'll be back with another one shortly for sf gov t v. i'm chris manners. thanks for watching. yeah.

>> some of the neighborhood in d8 are the castro and glen park and noe valley and diamond heights and coal valley.

>> hello, i'm supervisor mandelman the supervisor representing d8 the board of supervisors. >> i had also been interested in politics and puck life and group in san francisco and when i was in high school i had a 13wrir78 with periphery on the board of supervisors. and as i got involved in um, in local affairs hi was grown up at the some point make sense to run so i did. >> so you had i was running in no charge back. focused on homeless and the mental health issues as priorities for me and the district. my mom suffered from mental illness for a big county executive of hero adult life got sick when us very sick

my was 10 or 11 years old i move to san francisco she was not able to take care of of me by my grandmother i followed her life and try to help her anti she on the other hand, she lived institutions and board cares in homelessness shelters for a period of time and i thought there are folks with those sits needs have informed my governance and priorities as an office official. >> last year the governor newsom and senator egg that man and the pushed proposition one on the ballot in march this is a big involvement in um, in housing and treatment for people with serious mental illness proposition one it is a very large bond 6 nature billion

dollars for housing, and bed placement and wake facilities for people with severe mental illness we have utilized to have stated hospitals we closed those for this is the most significant involvement california made in replacing the state hospitals with something better and more community-based organizations and anyone on the streets of san francisco schizophrenia see folks with really needs and i hoping that prop one with implementing it in san francisco will help us to better meet the needs of some pretty sick folks i think the country clubhouses the castro is known for a number of things a place where camera shops and where the queer civil