>> we've had a lot of history, nita and i. we've been friends and we have been enemies and we've had conflicts and we always gravitate towards each other with a sense of loyalty that maybe family would have. we just care about each other. >> many of the street corners in all the districts in san francisco, there will be a painting job i have completed and it will be a beautiful paint job. it will be smooth and gold leaf and just wow. and you can't put it down. when i first started, it was hard to get employees to listen to me and go along -- but now, i have a lot of respect.

okay. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday ,march sixth, 2025 when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30s remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when you're a lot of time is reached i will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. there is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and finally i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. this time i'll take role

commission president so present commission vice president moore commissioner braun here. commissioner campbell here. mission imperial here. commissioner mcgarry and commissioner williams here. thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one case number 2025 hyphen 000426 pc and map for the alexandria theater special use district planning code and zoning map amendments are is proposed for continuance to march 13th 2025 items two a and b for case number 2023 hyphen 005187ca and v r 50 for fourth street and 525o nine minute street conditional use authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to march 20th 2025. i have no other items proposed for continuance so we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed for continuance again you need to come forward. seeing none public comment is closed and your continuance

calendar is not before you commissioners commissioner braun move to continue items as proposed. >> second thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams high commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. >> zoning administrator would say or acting zoning administrator i i move to continue thank you commissioners that are places under your consent calendar all matters listed here here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

item three case number 2024 hyphen 010504c or 200 rhode island street conditionally use authorization item for case number 2024 hyphen 0096 4 or 5 c way at 1375 howard street conditional use authorization in item five case number 2024 hyphen 006283 q8 to 25 lee avenue conditional use authorization members of the public this is your opportunity to speak under public comment and request that any of these items be removed from consent as is your opportunity commissioners seeing none public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you commissioners commission imperial move to approve all items as proposed. >> second thank you commissioners on that motion to approve items on consent. commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry high commissioner williams i sheena braun mission imperial i commissioner more i am

commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under commission matters for item six the land acknowledgment the commission acknowledge that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the roma church. aloni who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions the rama touch alone we have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory as guest we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the to a lonely community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you. >> item seven commission comments and questions commissioner moore i would like

to ask that we close today and memory of ellen jacobs how many of you know who he is? for those of you who are not familiar with his work i want to briefly summarize some of his outstanding contributions to san francisco's planning and served as san francisco planning director for eight years from 1967 to 1974 and as director he believed in the people centered approach to design of cities. during his tenure as san francisco planning director he created the san francisco urban design plan a much used document that was on the table of many four person four professionals for decades he developed major elements of the city's comprehensive plan at that time and he developed

urban design guidelines for downtown development which still today until today linger in many of the things we talk and aspire to his work focused on revitalizing neighborhoods throughout san francisco and to make them more livable. and as a planner he was concerned with creating places for communities physical manifestations of his work in san francisco, many and i are only going to touch on a few of them. for example the exceptional value of double that exceptional double wall of chinese elm trees on folsom street reaching from bernal height almost to downtown. this is the longest double row of trees in san francisco street and pedestrian improvements in the devil's triangle are known to all of us and so are the 24 mini parks was a memorable one at 24th and

york street as few people know that actually under his tenure the south san francisco opera house was saved from demolition actually they bought it and creating the state park at candlestick park also fell in this time of oh oh most known to us close to city hall is obviously the design of octavia boulevard and patricia green and we all know that at that time he was not a city planning director anymore but he led the design of that particular project and as professor of urban design at uc berkeley, many of you may have studied under him. he served from 2075 to 2001 and actually it was under his leadership that the department established urban design concentration at uc berkeley and he helped then found the school for master for the

master master of urban design program attracting students from around the world in his career he was a tough visionary as his colleagues labeled him and he was one of the world's best known planners and urban design practitioners who attracted many, many important designers to the san francisco planning department and had it had opened doors for world wide participation in major project support. >> many are familiar or own some of his remarkable books. the most fun one is actually written in the early mid mid-seventies making city planning work which chronicles his tenure at san francisco planning, said the san francisco planning director and for for all of us you haven't read this book it's worth a read the many good loves

including the real struggles by which planning really took off and became one of the more most remarkable planning departments in the country. there are the books the boulevard book, the great streets book, the good cities books all all memorable and wonderful for people who are interested reading about urban design and planning in all of us accomplished accomplishments there is wisdom and a sense of humor in this urban musings and i'm going to give you two which always make me chuckle no great city has ever been known for its abundant supply of parking and it makes me laugh and then is something which makes me think and that is cities are to be the ultimate manifestation of a society's collective achievement. jake western power the

retailers just just add thank you for those words commissioner moore because we've been reflecting on on his work and i think much of what we do today we take for granted because of what he pushed for when he was when he was planning director you know because of during the 60s and 70s many cities were or were focusing more on the automobile and how we could accommodate more auto oriented uses in in you know at that time he had to push back on that to maintain enhance san francisco as very much focused on people in pedestrians in our neighborhoods again things we we do fairly easily today but were were you know he had to push back against kind of the prevailing winds at the time just a couple if you read great street today there's a there's

a small small couple of pages on market street and kind of why it's not a great street in some of the problems that are still resonates today and i think there are still issues we need to address on on market street so he was also willing to kind of call out some of the issues we have in san francisco know each street when you walk down i mean is just a wonderful place to be one of my favorite favorite streetscapes in the city, you know that is directly attributable attributable well to his work i had the pleasure of meeting him. maybe it was a pleasure. well, because we were getting yelled at as city staff when i was a project manager for octavio boulevard and he wanted to ensure that kind of the vision he had put forward for octavio was actually implemented by the city staff and bureaucracy and i was the project manager on the economic development side. but as you could see it is you know although traffic has to move through there it's a great place to be even as a pedestrian on on the on the on the side side streets.

so thank you for that for that discussion and we'll we'll adjourn today's meeting in his honor absent only my condolences i'm i would like to also share with my fellow commissioners and everyone what i had attended this past saturday i joined our planning staff in the historic preservation department to the sunset to help them to continue their effort in the san francisco citywide cultural resource survey and they were collecting historical surveys and oral stories of chinese american in the sunset and also all the other ethnicity that are also part of the history. >> sorry as i've got can we go to the overhead?

>> so that's there were 40 people i would say or more a lot of them are bilingual and majority of them are chinese american descent and there were some irish american represented and the team did a really good job and with collaboration with swami who was generous, sally hosted the whole space for us and so you can see that here the group divided into different subgroup sessions to really dive deep into hearing what they had to say and their memory of how life was going up in the sunset. and i like to take this opportunity to give some credit to our staff in our historic preservation. francis macmillan, alex west all maggie smith, elizabeth gordon, chuck kinnear, mary

woods and then of course there director richard sue gray and my gratitude to lily wong who is the executive director of swami generously host her entire space and her staff working overtime for us and providing all the equipment for us to enable the recording and i cannot thank enough about the translator that we have tracy wu and leon chao. lastly, i was really delighted to see the executive director of the united irish cultural center also present as is mr. liam reidy. so it was great. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you commissioners if there's no other comments we can move on to department matters item eight directors announcements item nine review

of past events at the board of supervisors i have no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. good afternoon commissioners their and staff manager of legislative affairs atlantis this week the committee considered the mayor's ordinance co-sponsored by supervisor dorsey that would amend the planning code, zoning map and general plan to remove the two thirds requirement for office development in the central soma plan area commissioners you consider this item last year on november 7th and recommended approval with modifications those modifications included to first modify the ordinance to exempt project 600ft in height and under from the mandatory office allocation requirements in the central summer study instead of eliminating the requirement entirely and two recommending that the sponsor and the board of supervisors encouraged the retention of benefits that focus on complete streets and neighborhoods for these sites. during the hearing co-sponsor

supervisor dorsey spoke to the item planning staff gave an overview of the central summer plan and the commission's actions and recommendations and then the office of the comptroller gave a presentation on the ordinances economic impact. >> there are about 11 people who commented during public comment representing various neighborhood groups and the developer community. public comments were generally positive with most voicing support for the commission's proposed recommendations. the sponsor of the ordinance intends to incorporate the commission's proposed amendments but are still working with the city attorney's office on the final form of those amendments as such the item was continued for one week then at the full board this week the third street alcohol restricted use district ordinance passed or sponsored by supervisor walton passed its second read the creation of the leland avenue neighbor commercial district also sponsored by supervisor walton passed its second read and the development impact fees and requirements for nonresidential to residential conversion projects ordinance sponsored by

the mayor also passed second reading. that's all i have for you today . there are no questions from mr. starr. >> we can move on to your or excuse me there is a report that we're going to be anti-climatic because the report is that there is no report. the board of appeals did meet last night but they did not take up any items that are of interest to the commission. thank you. >> very good general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners bridget maley on behalf of neighborhoods united san francisco we have a letter it should have a letter in your email but i'll just summarize that or read from it.

we urge the planning commission as a coalition of organizations representing 6060 groups across san francisco. we urge the planning commission to support robust public engagement, clear notification requirements and a data driven approach before any rezoning changes move forward. our letter which i'll leave a hard copy with jonas outlines key considerations and recommendations to ensure a balanced and equitable planning process. we understand that mayor luis administration and the planning department are moving are working towards a revised zoning map which would include extensive up zoning and density decontrol changes. we've commented previously and we urge the planning department to conduct a robust outreach with specific focus on educating the public about the zoning plan and density decontrol a concept most san franciscans are unfamiliar with . we ask that the planning department hold town halls

in each impacted supervisor all district with district supervisors and representatives from the mayor's office as well as the planning commissioners to ensure residents are fully informed. san franciscans should be provided with clear and accessible information regarding the estimated number of housing units generated by existing policies and approved projects such as all of the approved and entitled projects in the pipeline. units generated by already legislated local four and six plex up zoning across the city newly legislated office to residential conversions in downtown residential units in a reimagined central soma as mr. starr just mentioned and the state density bonus a powerful development tool already in place that can increase height and density using existing zoning bases further in the spirit of offering additional solutions. we ask that you consider the following actions before extensive up zoning and density

decontrol are implemented. >> change the building code to support single stair exiting to encourage four and six flexes adopt four and six plex as the maximum density in most residential neighborhoods. create a housing element monitoring report. align the demolition the definition of demolition in the building code in the planning code and collect neighborhood input and recommendations for sites that would be ideal for development. >> lastly, the board of supervisors has initiated legislation that will come to the planning commission soon regarding notification requirements for the proposed rezoning changes. we urge you to support this legislation. lastly, in memory of alan jacobs i'll just say urban planning is not check check box planning. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the planning commission. my name is thomas roderick. i'm a 15 year member of carpenters local 22 and i represent the nearly 4000 members in san francisco. i appreciate this opportunity to speak about the values us union members hold dear such as our dedication to a statewide apprenticeship fair and livable wages for all in our industry with a focus on employing local carpenters and a comprehensive health care plan for all our members and their families. our apprenticeship program is integral to our core beliefs ensuring that the next generation of carpenters is properly trained not only by the last generation of carpenters but also through a state recognized apprenticeship training program. this is how we ensure that the caliber of our work is second to none along with our commitment to training the next

generation. we also take great pride in advocating for local hire to ensure that the people that live in our community are the ones building it as well. another way we help contribute to the local economy is by reinvesting the money we earn working on local projects back into the businesses in our community. this is why it imperative that a fair and livable wage can be had. lastly, another one of our beliefs is providing a livable pension for our retired members. this helps to ensure that once a carpenter retires they can afford to stay in those communities they've helped build throughout their careers and not be forced to retire elsewhere. >> these are some of the ways we can help enrich, build and assure a prosperous future for our communities. thank you. >> good afternoon, georgia

sheriff. i think this demolition definition discrepancy is taking things sideways. >> as i mentioned in the emails i sent planning code section 317 b to be and b to c is cited as the demolition in the building code under violations. i feel like a loophole is being created by giving d b i to be an arbiter of what is a demolition as what happened in two recent projects. >> this is a planning commission power not a d b power. here's a guide that your staff has prepared and they're going to update it soon with db ii and it talks about the demo counts. the demo counts are the should be the definition. so what we're losing is we're not playing focus to what's going on and the flats are increasingly for sale. >> and that's why the flat policy must be strongly codified. you need to protect housing

from demolition for people for today for tenants there today and in the future. there's going to be major demographic shifts going on with 60 to 90 year olds. the city's going to change dramatically in the next 10 to 15 years. >> where are the rezoning financial feasibility studies. there's been huge price increases in from spec the development abusing the demo counts over the past decade and a half, avoiding the commission scrutiny and that's why they need to be adjusted. there's no reason not to adjust the demo counts per section 317 b2d the average increase in housing taking advantage of these demo counts as alterations has been about $4 million. >> can i have the overhead really quickly please? >> okay. that's 5050 to oakwood. >> that was one of the early projects i showed to the commission that had demo counts below the thresholds but

they're keeping the two sidewalls. that's exactly what's going to happen at that project on de street that was approved several weeks ago and those demo counts are above the threshold. >> that's a really nice pair of flats. this is a pair of flats too sold ultimately for like $6 million the first time and then $7 million the second time. >> here's the day street project. >> i don't think that deserves to be torn down. i just don't i'm sorry. i really don't. >> the demo counts, as i said, should have been adjusted. if not once at least twice those were some about what's going to happen in the regs because your staff report in october 2021 said that people could cash out due to sb nine in those neighborhoods. so the most important thing is preventing evictions and loss of housing as opportunity for current and future tenants. i really don't understand why the demo counts weren't adjusted after crown terrace

but that's another story. there's my 150 words for the minutes. thank you very much. >> okay. last call for general public comment you need to come forward. >> seeing none public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar commissioners item ten case number 2025 hyphen 001027 pc a conversion of hotel excuse me of residential hotel rooms to tourist hotel rooms at 447 bush street. this is a planning amendment. >> good afternoon commissioners air and start manager of legislative affairs. the item before you would amend the planning code to make a tourist hotel a principally permitted use for all 51 hotel units at 447 bush street known

as hotel the arts way the requirement for conditional use authorization for the conversion of the current 38 residential hotel units at that location and waive otherwise applicable impact fees and application and permit review fees for the conversion of the 38 residential hotel units to a tourist use. the planning code amendments and waivers are part of a settlement of litigation to resolve litigation brought to in federal court challenging the board of supervisors 2023 amendment to the hotel conversion ordinance. under the proposed ordinance hotel the arts would not be subject to the conditional use requirements for the conversion of residential units to hotel use. the proposed ordinance but also other ways applicable impact fees and application and permit review fees for the conversion of the 30 residential hotel units to hotel use. the result will be to make a tourist hotel a principally permitted use for all 51 hotel units at 447 busch. in exchange for these concessions, the entirety of the building's located at 412

hayes street and 319 ivy street would be subject to the hotel conversion ordinance creating 34 new residential units and associated amenities. these amenities include laundry individual mailboxes and common courtyard access along with other provisions of the settlement agreement. the result would be that the residential units at 412 hayes and 319 ivy street would be subject to a minimum tenancies of 30 days as well as all other provisions of the hotel conversion ordinance. the settlement agreement also requires the operator of the treated units to adopt certain operating terms in order to encourage the rental of those units for residential purposes at all times. it also requires the plaintiff to record a notice of special restriction to memorialize the obligations of the settlement. the department is recommending approval of the proposed ordinance. that concludes my report and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you.

thank you. with that we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. >> good afternoon commissioners . i am. since i'm here i'll just say i don't know the whole back story behind this project and i understand that this current item in front of you is the result of a lot of legal action . >> but i guess i would just say to you as a commission on the whole we should not be encouraging eliminating affordable housing in this city. >> these are affordable temporary units and i understand there's a trade off and that there's going to be sort of a a shift here. but my concern is that the powers to be in the development community are going to see this as an entry to do this in other locations.

so i would very much encourage you to make it very clear that you're approving this but you're approving it with great concern that others are going to follow suit. >> thank you. last call for public comment seeing none in the chambers will move to our reasonable accommodation request for this issue after i wish to. second, the unnamed person who spoke behind me before me you were scheduled to have another case so would use this. it was continued have the continuance calendar who was continued last week 54 reports three and five bone i'm going to our shadow cases people are doing this already making a way to cash out value of her

property in the case of the other things 54th fourth street is getting a big windfall and 5o9 ministry which had the ridiculous characterization as a tourist hotel has rented out to people from the jail pardon me they housed people from the jail there i would ask that the room is private pardon me the the meeting you had before this passive report out because you had an i, i want to coexist closed session not executive session a closed session on the 447 right before this you commissioners so people don't know what came out of that i ask for that to be basically disclosed because already you are doing this we have hotels

that you can make a lot of money and show locations having a tourist hotel destination and this is an encouragement of that oh i'm sorry that it was a legal settlement but the planning commission has some obligation to give a loud and strong message that people are not able to do this because it's not allowed the hotel legislation may require a conditional use a public hearing for tourist hotels and residential hotels are incorporated into that. i i have been involved with hotels for over 30 years and no one contemplated tourist hotels

pardon me residential hotels being changed for tourist hotels ever. >> thank you very much. okay. final last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners commissioner williams thank you. i just like to you know, make clear how important our sro hotels are throughout the city and and just put an emphasis on the the importance that the they they create an affordability that's not created anywhere else and that affordable mobility is really desperately needed at this point in time in our city.

and so i just want to put an emphasis on that and i also share some of the concerns that ms.. hester has as well as others. so i just i just wanted to make that comment. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner imperial yeah. you know this is part of a settlement and therefore i would support the planning recommendation to adopt the recommendation and although there is a concern and is part of the you know there's a part of analysis that we have to in terms of affordability and also in terms of racial social equity analysis as well. but in this case i think this is a unique situation where i

would support the planning department. so i'd like to put a motion to adopt a recommendation second, commissioner o'brien it's difficult to distinguish the legal settlement issues from the commission action on the legislation but looking at it through that lens, i do want to you know what i take from this is that this legislation does apply very narrowly to this very specific situation and the properties that are being affected through the legislation. so i share the concerns about the potential of whether this what substance or precedent or something like that. but my understanding is that this is a very narrow response to a very specific situation and so i will support the legislation. >> thank you. seeing no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion.

commissioner campbell i mr. mcgarry i commissioner williams all right. mr. brown. i commissioner imperial high commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing as an item 11 for case number 2024 hyphen 011417 pca continuation of nonconforming parking lots and cmu oh and you are zoning districts planning code amendment. >> good afternoon commissioners audrey maloney planning department staff we have madison tam here from supervisor dorsey's office to introduce the ordinance and then i'll give staff's presentation. >> good afternoon commissioners . i came in at the end of the comments about central soma so even though that's not what this item is about, i want to thank the commission again for your engagement and the department for your incredibly hard work to make the amendments possible. >> so thank you for that. on this legislation we are seeking to solve we are seeking

to solve a problem and prevent future issues with abandoned blighted lots by allowing parking lots in soma that are already operating but not currently permitted under the code to continue their operations while parking lots may not be the most desirable use for downtown land, the controls that have disallowed them were passed at a time when the development market was a lot hotter and we really thought that these parcels were going to become housing and they were really primed for housing development and at this time if we were to disallow parking lots there these lots are probably going to be vacant and create all of the associated issues with blighted vacant properties. and the city also collects a generous 25% tax on these lots. so we think that at this time this is the right tailored approach to take on these lots. >> so for those reasons we're asking you to allow these lots to continue operating through december 31st, 2026 and then you'll hear about some language we incorporated at after working with the department to allow the lots to continue for another five years after that through a conditional use so

that allows the commission and policymakers on the board to assess is this still the right call for this area? is the development market more likely to take off? so we have some flexibility built into this if housing is a better use to be pursued at that time. so this legislation we think allows for that flexibility and maintains the status quo of the conditions for the customers of the lots, the operators and the neighborhoods that they operate in. so we hope to have your support and i'm here for questions again. commissioner is audrey maloney planning department staff as ms.. hamm already summarized for you the proposed ordinance would g lots in the central soma mixed use or cmu. oh and mixed use residential or commuter districts to continue operating until december 31st of 2026. after this date qualifying park parking lots could apply for

that five year conditional use authorization extension that must him mentioned. the ordinance stems from a provision in the downtown plan which was established in 1985. so typically when zoning changes render an existing use nonconforming that uses allowed to continue as a legal nonconforming use. the 1985 legislation, however, required parking lots within the downtown plan area to cease operations within five years and 90 days of becoming a nonconforming use parking lots became not permitted in the cmu so in 2018 and in the m u r in 2008 however the enforcement of this provision was largely overlooked until 2024 when a particularly astute department staff member noticed this little known provision in our downtown plan. so as a result several parking lot operators continued to receive annual continued continuation of use permits beyond the allowed time frame, the department recommends that the commission approve the

proposed ordinance. while we remain committed to the downtown plans goal of prioritizing public transit transport over private ridership, we also acknowledge the current challenges facing the downtown and while we believe parking lots are not the best long term use for these sites and we prefer their development into housing or other higher and better uses, we also recognize that this interim active activation of the space is both beneficial to the impacted neighborhoods and the city as a whole. the ordinance also provides a gradual transition for businesses that prevents the abrupt financial hardship that would hit them if we were to start enforcing on the parking lots today. >> and then lastly the option to apply for that temporary queue after the initial period ensures that the city retains the flexibility to assess market conditions and prioritize the higher value land uses that we still want in the future which will align with our long term planning goals. and as always everyone here is available for questions. >> thank you.

thank you. with that we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. >> good afternoon commissioners. tom toni affirm and junior tim rose speaking today in support of the proposed legislation. actually aware of one of those property owners that fits the profile and identified perfectly where they had no idea about the the original legislation and for some reason were granted approvals for four straight years without anybody knowing and continuing to operate until they discovered this year that the use was actually prohibited. and so it was a big surprise

and and potentially very, very costly to them and this would be a a narrow window of opportunity for them. you know, as you will see that the extension of the amortization is only until the end of 2026. in this case it would give these property owners an opportunity to figure out what to do with the property next and the legislation at the same time really maintains the the broader city policies for these properties so i just hope you would support the legislation on behalf of property owners like like this one. thank you. >> last call for public comment

seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners commission commissioner more if possible i'd like to ask either ms. maloney will ms. tam to give me a little bit more context how many parking lots are affected by this legislation is affects cc and works exactly either. >> thank you commissioner more the the legislation was initiated because the supervisor's office was made aware of i believe two parking lot operators that had been denied their permits by planning after having had them approved for many years. >> when staff looked at the two zoning districts that would then allow these parking lots to operate we found that there are at least eight total parking lots in this area within the same cmo and the mode among our districts excuse me that could benefit from this legislation. >> this is kind of a double edged sword for me. what we're doing is the elimination of parking lots was

targeted to put an emphasis on on transit and transit only as we need to obviously respect and help property owners to deal with land in a productive way. >> we are leaving the use of the private car again much present in downtown. further to this was as of mta struggling was the ridership of this kind of like further exacerbates the problem and my question to mr. kim would be was there an interim way that a supervisor dorsey could have helped those two particular owners rather than making a policy district wide legislation? can you repeat the second part of your question? you said if there is an interim way to do this instead of just looking at two particular properties and creating support for these two owners instead of extending it broadly to all

parking lots in the district? well, commissioner moore, we're happy to look into if there's more lots if there's other neighbors that are affected by this and collaborate with other supervisor offices. >> i'm not sure if that was like getting to your question about the two specific lots i wanted to so perhaps support the two specific lots without making it a district wide situation. >> oh sorry inverse of the way i answer the question. so i think this legislation is trying to solve for the issues that we the existing lots that we know won't be able to continue to operate if we're not changing like this is only for existing lots. so we're not trying to say like more parking lots can be allowed in these neighborhoods. it's really about targeting like we know of cases where these lots are not going to be able to continue to operate and as i mentioned like it's broader than just the parking lot and what the like what the parking means to those customers. like if these lots were to be abandoned, they're not going to

most likely like magically turn into housing developments. there are really we've seen in other places in our district when uses are abandoned like those lots really struggle and then there's a lot of consequences after that. so we think that this is a very targeted way to address the issues that we are aware of in our district. >> thank you. >> sorry about that. >> no, i did not make a vote. >> forceful comment but my my monitor fell over. >> i think it's going to be listening to what my fellow commissioners will be asking. >> thanks, commissioner campbell. >> or so this struck me as common sense legislation. >> i mean i feel like the only thing worse than a parking lot is an empty lot. so i appreciate that these

amendments expire so we make room and space for development as the city turns around and we have other housing or mixed use projects that can fill these lots. and i liked hearing that these are going to be revenue generating in some capacity for the city at a time when we really need funds. so i'm in support of this and curious what your fellow commissioners think but would even make a motion to adopt the recommendation for approval. >> commissioner imperial have a question to mr. maloney in order to support the two parking lots does it need to have a legislation or what does it need in order for the two existing parking lots to continue their operation? >> thank you for the question. so the permits that these parking lots continue to apply for on an annual basis are actually through the police department and then they are referred to the planning department and the planning

department has to be in order to sign off on those permits. the planning department has to be able to say that they are allowed to exist there under the planning code and unfortunately today they are not because of this 1985 provision that says that they need to cease operations within five years and 90 days from when the zoning made it nonconforming in these two districts between 2018 and the 2008 zoning changes that's more than five years and 90 days for any of those. so without a legislative change a planner could not sign off on that referral permit from the police department and it cannot be done through a secure process as well. unfortunately not now. okay. my i'd like to support the two existing parking lots. there is a sentiment that i shared with commissioner moore, vice president moore on this as well. i mean it seems like the project sponsor amortization and in 2026 it sounds like that

and at the same time sounds like they are also trying to figure out and i'm assuming that's the five year that's why the five year timeline exists. >> can you give me some background? why five year i guess? >> absolutely. so the the idea behind the december 31st 2026 date is to say the parking lots as they exist now can continue and have some time to wind down if they want to remain kind of a temporary use the see you option at the end so after december 31st 2026 any parking lot of these presumably eight that wanted to continue operating we wanted to offer a temporary q option that says we understand the market maybe has not changed development demand is still low or the commission has the opportunity through that see a process to say you know what, downtown is booming again we have the ability for building to become feasible on

these sites again we think that there actually might be demand for higher and better uses on these sites and so we don't feel a parking lot is still appropriate on these sites. i'll also note that we did put extra conditions in for any parking lot that wants to operate under that conditional use that require them to kind of upgrade the lot, to plant trees, to have more spaces, to have it become a little bit more formalized of a lot. and so the commission will get to weigh in on that as well. whether that is still an appropriate use for another five years while we're waiting for things to kind of pick up again or whether the market has picked up to just to clear the temporary see we will apply after five year the temporary so you would apply for from essentially as long as they receive it on time from january 1st 2027 and then for five years after that and then the seaway would expire after that so they would have those five years under the seaway would not be a permanent seaway. >> okay. that's a good clarification

in that case because i'm you know, for me i would like to support that to you know, the two existing parking lot space seems like there needs to have a change in order to do that. >> but if you know if the legislation is designed in a way that it's narrow that it also allows flexibility, i think i would support with that modification as well added modification that's being added by the planning. thank you, commissioner brown. >> i have to mr. imperials last comment i'm not sure i follow about the added modification was that i don't think there's a staff recommend a modification, right? >> that's correct. there's there's no staff modifications. so what we described with that five year seaway is what is in the ordinance before you today. >> i understand. okay. thank you. so yeah and also thank you

commissioner barrow for those comment those questions about the 2026 date versus the five year extension the seaway i have the some of the same questions. that was a helpful clarification. i appreciate it. you know, i think i seem to be on board a lot of my commissioners here. you know i don't love these parking lots in a place that is supposed to be our best transit served location in the city and a place where the land could be puts a much better use especially housing. but at the same time i, i see a couple of things going on here. i don't know if it's entirely fair to suddenly impose a requirement after the fire department has been approving for a long time extensions of these these uses of these parking lots and so it seems reasonable to provide a little bit of time for that transition to occur for hopefully transitioning away from these parking lot uses. and i also appreciate seeing the short term nature of the extension that this is just through the end of 2026 and to me at that time this commission

in many ways doesn't have as much discretion and flexible as it used to. but this is an area where with that seaway if they come before us we do have the discretion and flexibility to decide whether or not that time this area should be granted. so i think that it's actually really helpful that we'll be able to look at these lots again within less than two years from today especially at a time when it's difficult to get projects that pencil. so what i'm also taking away from this is you know i also don't want to see these lots just become abandoned uses. i think that's not going to be helpful for anyone in in those neighborhoods. >> so i'm i am supportive of the legislation and i'm actually going to adopt a recommendation for approval or make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. >> secondly, commissioner campbell actually beat you to the making the motion so that i get a second. i wasn't sure if that was the motion but i will second that motion. >> okay, great. >> commissioner williams, i

have a question for the city attorney in regards to the car share requirement for these these parking lots. there was some concern and i was just wanting to hear a little bit more about that so thank you for that question. commissioner williams you know in general our advice to the commission is confidential and only the commission itself acting as a body can disclose that confidential advice. >> so i can't really get into the specifics of what that advice says here but so yeah, i would just stop there. >> oh, i apologize for putting you on spot like that. >> i didn't but thank you that there is there is a concern about the requirement for the the day car show requirement i

should say and since it wasn't brought up here i just thought i'd mention it. >> but i'm on board with with everything that's been talked about so far. >> so anyway, thank you. well thank you thank you for supervisor stasis office medicine time coming here and then thank you erin and audrey this is again another example of how our staff work really well collaboratively with our supervisors office to craft out such a conscientious legislation to adapt to what have been happening and anticipate what we need to do in the future. and i think this is really reasonable and sensible and i also really supportive of my

fellow commissioners sentiment here that i am in full support of this. there's nothing for commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. commissioner campbell i should have gary williams i commissioner braun i was an imperial i am commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us and i'm item 12 for case number 2025 hyphen 001416 pwp for the san francisco municipal transportation agency joint development program goals and policy informational presentation i believe commissioner braun did you have a disclosure? >> i'm sorry. thank you. just so i have a disclosure to making this item my employer strategic economics is part of a consultant team that submitted a response in january

to an sfm t.a.r.p. for as needed joint development program services. the team submission is currently under review by us of mta but there's no reasonably foreseeable direct connection between this item and future decisions or work coming out of that rfp and i was also not included in the proposal or involved in its production. >> i am able to be fair and unbiased in hearing today's item. >> good afternoon president. so when commissioners i met snyder of department staff today i'm introducing wade witt griff a previous staff member of the planning department but now the project manager for 50 years joint development program . wade will be presenting the joint development program goals and policy which establishes an overall framework for developing sfm to use owned sites for non transit uses such as housing. and a key objective for this program is to generate long term revenue for the a78 while also contributing to the city's

broader planning goals. again, like the delivery of housing. so this discussion is especially relevant to us now as we move forward with the housing elements rezoning efforts particularly in the well resourced neighborhoods where 17 of these potential development sites are located. >> and with that i'll turn it over to wade. thank you. good afternoon, chair. so vice chair moore commissioners director hillis even commission secretary i own and even wow. >> thank you. >> i'm excited to be here again. nice to see you again for those i know. and nice to meet you. others again. >> my name is wade metcalf i am mta is joint development program manager. and after months of outreach the s.f. mta board of directors unanimously adopted our first ever joint development program goals and policy.

and last month. and then just this week the san francisco board of supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution in support of this program as well. and i want to thank matt and josh and others at the planning department who i've been working with over the months on this program. >> they've been great as this is another example chair so of great collaboration and interagency to really work towards shared goals. >> so as matt just stated, i'm going to give an overview of our joint development program the context for it and our goals and policy and the purpose of the goals and policy is to define the desired results that we're seeking from our program over time. and the approaches for how we will achieve those results it's really foundational for us and it provides transparency to

various stakeholders of knowing how, where and when to engage with the program. >> so what is it joint development is has a developer use s.f. empty land for uses such as housing and commercial uses? and the developer typically owns and finances the improvements for those uses and then provides lease or rent payments for the land back to the sfm for joint development projects may also include s.f. mta uses such as a new bus facility which the developer payments can help pay for. it's really a way to help ourselves through diversifying our funding sources without burdening taxpayers. >> we've heard a lot of enthusiasm for this program and for our policy. as i mentioned, our board of directors and board of supervisors have shown unanimous support.

we've also gotten support from the san francisco youth commission and the muni funding working group which is a group of diverse stakeholders led by the comptroller's office to provide recommendations to our agency to address funding needs . >> and i think one reason we are hearing support is people care about muni. i think most people understand that muni is a community benefit and investing in muni is an investment in equity. so our program would use private investment to fund muni facilities and muni service. and it goes without saying how important muni is to the city. but i'll just highlight a few items here. it provides freedom for people to get to their jobs, their friends, their schools. it benefits all of us. but we know that seniors low

income and working class residents use public transit the most. and really a robust public transit system makes them more affordable city transportation costs are often the second highest household expense and muni is a relatively affordable option which can save $1,000 a month compared to car ownership. and we know that our city won't address our housing goals, our economic goals, our downtown recovery goals without it. >> we have since muni has been recording satisfaction rates we have our highest ever rates right now and we want to see it get better not get worse but that that risk is real. we are facing a structural deficit of and it's $320 million starting in july 2026 to give some context and frankly to be alarmist. $320 million an annual deficit

it is the equivalent of 5 or 6 planning departments. >> so the primary reason for this structural deficit is that the cost of providing service has exceeded the revenue with covid. and ride hailing services really exacerbating that trend with less transit ridership revenue, less parking revenue as you all were just talking about on that last item. we've been supported propped up by federal state and regional funds the last few years but those are set to expire. >> so one way to address our deficit over the long term is through generating revenue from our land. and so this map shows public agency land in san francisco with the land under mta jurisdiction highlighted in red which consists of more than 90 properties. and the purpose of publicly land is to serve the public good. and it does this through many ways including for our

transportation infrastructure. much of our land though contains some aging facilities that need to be modernized and expanded to meet our agency's goals. those facilities have desperate repair needs. two of our bus yards are over 110 years old and hundreds of our frontline staff work hard in these facilities every day to keep our system running such as through bus maintenance. and they are doing that in facilities that were sometimes not built for busses at all much less modern busses, facility projects often are more challenged to get funding than other types of transportation projects. and we can move forward with projects on those sites unless we have a way to fund them. >> so that brings me to joint development which is just one of many solutions to these various challenges and our

three goals for the program. >> the top priority is to use private investment to maximize public good. that's to leverage our existing land to generate substantial long term revenue that we can then reinvest back into improving our system. again, that investment is an investment in the public good. it's an investment in equity and we need it to meet all our other city goals. >> the second goal is to create inclusive and well connected communities. this goal is intended to address the city's housing equity goals by adding new housing and while resource neighborhoods as matt stated. and then the third goal is about building sustainable and resilient projects. we want projects that improve working conditions for our staff and use green and resilient practices and reduce the need to drive. >> those are the goals. now the policy the policy provides a framework for clear

decision making. and three of our strategies in the policy that will guide our work and advance the program are shown here. the first is portfolio development. >> this involves us identifying mta properties that are subject to the policy based on several considerations. so we've done that by narrowing down the 90 plus properties that i showed previously to 25 that i'll share in a moment. >> the next strategy is portfolio evaluation. >> this evaluation would include the development potential all by land use including affordable housing as well as projections of job creation and revenue to the agency. this is something that we will be working on over the next year in collaboration with your staff. and the last strategy highlighted here is portfolio requirements. this has two components related to affordable housing. first, it requires residential projects to comply with our

city's requirements for affordable housing. and then second, it requires the mta to comply with the more stringent requirements of the california surplus land act. >> that act required us and which we've now done to designate at least 50% of the land at large properties in the portfolio for residential uses of which at least 25% of the units will be for affordable housing. >> the 20 5% is double what the city is. current requirements are at 80%. am i in on below for most residential projects? >> so this provides the city a significant amount of affordable housing and flexibility to us in how to achieve that percentage instead of an ad hoc project by project approach and the ability to generate revenue for many. >> and then last but not least, what most people are waiting for is the portfolio itself.

so this is the portfolio properties that we believe have the potential to advance our goals through future projects. the sites in green are the 25 properties in the portfolio of those 24 of them are either downtown or in the areas the focus of the rezoning that you all are leading for the housing element. >> another way to look at them is what is and is not there now. none of these properties would displace existing residents. that is something i know this commission cares deeply about and and will be concerned about in implementation. >> instead these properties are used for our public agency today 14 are parking lots, seven are parking garages and for our facility related. and these properties are necessary today to operate and maintain our system and through the revenue that they generate. parking revenue is vitally

important for our agency and for muni. it's actually a really equitable way to fund transit service. so we will need to consider the revenue impact as we redevelop these sites from from parking uses. >> this portfolio is large development of it is not an immediate solution to our financial challenges but it's part of our our long term vision. and so that's why it was important for us to adopt the goals and policy. >> again, it's a foundation for us to build upon as we advance projects and then provides more transparency to the to the process and flexibility to our agency and meeting our goals. so thank you for your time and staff time and i'm happy to answer questions if there aren't any immediate questions for mr. witt griff we can move on to public comment. members of the public this is

your opportunity to address the commission on this informational item. again, you need to come forward . >> seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner imperial. have a question to whoever. >> i guess mr. kraft i'm sorry to hear that you're not in planning anymore but happy for mta. >> my question is around the surplus land act and i guess you know i'm reading the resolution is done by the mta and approved and there is a sense there where you know under it where the offering will be to lease or sell it for affordable housing. >> but as you can see, you know the funding when it comes to affordable housing is very unpredictable and maybe takes

longer. >> so if the selling or leasing to affordable housing doesn't work then i guess my second question is what you're presenting that there the 25% fordable housing that will be through inclusionary is that can you i guess my understanding is that the mta will draft in terms of how to implement the surplus land act and what are your thoughts around it? how to prioritize the affordable housing and my my concern is that affordable housing developers may not be able to afford sure. >> these days so just for those who don't know the california surplus land act is a state law that generally requires public agencies to offer land to affordable housing developers prior to selling or leasing the land to someone else. there's been exceptions to that law for years.

one of the exceptions is all other types of special districts besides transportation agencies are allowed to generate revenue except for transportation agencies. they the state legislature amended the law in the last few years to create an exemption for transportation agencies to do what i describe today designate at least half the land and a portfolio for residential uses and of which 25% of the units for affordable housing how to get your question commissioner how we achieve that percentage is to be determined. it will be a combination i imagine of inclusionary housing mixed in with market rate. it could be some parcels are entirely on 90% affordable housing is a long term vision. we haven't figured that out. i have had initial conversation with most kdhe on how they evaluate sites but that's something that we're going to be evaluating more with the planning department most affordable housing developers

and others as we work to actually implement this policy over time and i can say it's not just affordable house. it can be for any public benefit good open space and school facility purposes. how will be in terms of creating that guideline for surplus land act what will be the role will be the next steps for sfm to yeah so we were awarded a grants from the federal that we have a grants agreement for to do this more detailed evaluation so we are procuring consultants to help us with that and we will be engaging a variety of stakeholders to to do that evaluation. and you're right these these future sites could include a variety of different land uses . they could include a variety of community benefits. but one thing that we wanted to make clear in our goals is that

e generating revenue from these sites whether it's from market rate housing office, retail that money is coming back to our agency as an investment in a public good which has muni so that needs to be our top priority in addition to these requirements and then the ability to generate additional community benefits whether it's childcare, open space, other types of uses that are needed at various sites we'll figure that out when we actually get to that stage of the development process. thank you. yeah. thank you commissioner bron i actually have some related questions following on that so i just want to make sure i'm fully understanding and following the requirements of the surplus land act related to the entire portfolio. so when the requirement is 50% of the land at large properties that we develop for housing and

at least 25% of those units must be affordable 80% 80% of am i are below correct that's across the whole portfolio. so that's not an implication that individual sites necessarily are all built out that way. is that correct? it's so you made a key distinction in the large properties. so within the surplus land act there's already an exemption for properties that are less than a half an acre with the presumption that this is my presumption i don't know if this is actually the legal presumption that there's not enough density to do 100% affordable housing on sites of better that size. so this is the 50% across the larger properties of which one we designate the we have residential on those properties . we need to make sure we have 25% affordable units over time . so we always have to make sure that we're at least 25% as we develop. we can't say we need to have a

project agreement in place so we can't just like our first five projects or 100% market rate and then we'll wait 20 years later to do affordable housing like we have to monitor it over time. >> okay. that's helpful. thank you. and on an individual site level, um if a site goes out for an rfq for development let's say and housing developers don't come forward for that particular site, does that is there flexibility within the large site portfolio where now housing gets more concentrated elsewhere but that particular site might not get filled with housing? is that how this works or is it very site by site if you if you know great question to be determined this is newer amendments to this act that's been around for a long time how you described it is how i would interpret it. >> we will see. okay. thank you for asking some tough questions.

>> more for my own curiosity and just trying to make sure that we are just trying to get some assurance that we are likely to actually get housing built in some of the sites and that there is the production of affordable housing on some of the sites more broadly i'll just say you know, i i'm eager to see how the commission can support and providing the revenues for mta that are so important for maintaining our really great transit service. thank you. thank you. and just on that the the the second the last point you made i personally i do not see a lot of these sites in the the housing element rezoning as sites other than for housing i think that makes sense at those sites given their their location their size but we will be evaluating that more closely with that grant thank you. >> thank you wayne. welcome to the mta and sorry to miss you and the planning and

this is i'm really happy to see this presentation to be honest with you with someone coming just from the mta board and there was truly a lot of collaboration and i am happy to see that you're bringing it to the next level this development planning joint development is very much needed as a guiding roadmap for i hope it's you can deploy this within the next five years maybe holy night will be for the next decade, right? i just like to emphasize that i really love to see our agency collaborate closely with our still existing planning staff and directors and i'm really happy to see that you have seek though you've commissions for their unanimous support they are our future generations and they are honestly really

worried how to get around even just now talking to the teenagers and high school so anywhere we can find more funding and resources to keep muni alive and thrive i'm all for it and full support of it and i would like to see if anything you can let us know if our commission could be helpful for this endeavors in collaboration with mta and your specific division i do have a few questions asking you i wonder i really love this map that you quantify how many properties and then how many are going to be really highly potential to put in your portfolio. >> and i'm wondering are you to the point where when you start to look into about the goal of require payment for housing and would you plan to retain the parking revenue?

yes, chair so great question and thanks for your thoughtful comments to be determined. so the what our policy states on this issue is that if a project would be replacing public parking first they need to have a transportation demand management plan because our overall goal is to reduce the dependency on driving whether or not an individual site will have public parking will depend on a lot of factors revenue the existing demand, the projected demand as well as space. some of these surface parking lots are smaller as you were describing earlier, feasibility is challenging today. hopefully that will improve in the near future but whether or not there's actual space to accommodate public parking and

some of those in particular the surface parking lots, we'll have to figure that out. >> i think the reason why i'm asking is that i would like to to keep in mind that when we think about parking we thought about people like us driving. but i am actually specifically looking at people had accessibility issues. >> yes. and people who actually might be temporary injure that they literally can't get on a bike or get on a scooter and getting on our bus might sometimes be challenging. so in in that regard is also the paratransit so just keep that in mind that less make sure that they don't left behind. absolutely and part of that well connected community goal thank you for bringing that up is really around that so it's not just about the revenue but also making sure we're we are making communities that people can access more so that they can still continue to live their life and also if any

emergency happen to their life and if they don't feel that they're being hindered by it. i'm pretty excited about what we already had in in the works we meaning s.f. mta excuse me you have in the works but we as a city for the patrol bus barn and i'm wondering moving forward what's your thought on what type of housing would you be considering when you're evaluating these asset yeah so for those i think probably most on this commission's familiar with the picture yard modernization project but if you're not it is one of those 210 year old plus bus facilities that we're working to replace and that project will not be generating revenue. that project will be affordable and workforce housing 465 units is the plan as we look at our next major site presidio, we we

have to consider these goals as we evaluate what are the best uses at that site because that is our oldest bus facility. just to give you some context that it's been studied for over 50 years and then it was identified as in need of repairs and it's still there. i work there every day. i can tell you it needs it needs a repair. and so again, projects are very those projects are very hard to to fund and so we really need to consider that that revenue generation potential as we we take on that project it's really good. >> my last question and then i moved on to let my other commissioners chime in here when you speaking of like private investment, do you do you have any already have some idea of where the funding

source might be? >> yeah. so in general what that me that refers to is a private developers how they raise money to and their their pro forma is when they do a private development site and but the investments specifically the primary source will be us leasing our land for these development projects so that would the only projects on that portfolio map we have six what we call existing joint developments. most of those sites are affordable housing and other types of community benefits. one hotel on the embarcadero at mission and and speer i'm sorry it generates between 2 and $3 million per year through groundless revenue today. so that's the type of model that i'm referring to with private investment. >> okay. >> thank you. thank you. commissioner williams, thank

you for your presentation. i just brought a smile to my face looking at at the bryant street yard you know we we use that your when i was a kid as a second playground in the busses and and it was it was good memories you know growing up there and in that area and so thank you for that slide i have a couple of questions around a community engagement and collaboration. >> what what is that going to look like in the future? i know you guys are just starting the process but walk me through what that's going to look like, you know, moving forward. >> yeah, great question. so i think about it into context first is this policy sort of program approach and then one is project specific. so first on the project policy approach, the grant that we

were awarded has an express set outreach plan to help us figure out this evaluation and so we will be engaging with stakeholders, nonprofits, stakeholders, community groups that are specific to some of these sites and evaluating some of these these sites in the portfolio. so the actual consultant will help us figure out the nuts and bolts of that. but with that is a key component of that policy program evaluation and then project specific if i'm not sure if you were involved in patrol or yard that project's been going on deep community engagement for 6 or 7 years. i can't say that we would take that same approach to every project every some of these sites are much smaller.

they may have streamlining opportunities but the mta will have an engagement process depending on the complexity of the site. the the composite you know what sort of approvals are being sought, what sort of community benefits that we're looking for. so the policy itself says that we will do community engagement. how we do that we're actually going to define more in detail over the coming year when we develop some guidelines for doing community engagement. so i don't know if that's specific enough to it to answer your question but it's definitely a principal within our policy. >> yeah, i appreciate that given you know it is city city land i think that's a very important aspect that you include the residents, you know the surrounding wherever that's around the area.

>> absolutely. you know, as to get everyone on board and have a successful project commissioner imperial mentioned the affordability aspect as you know right now according to our housing element to achieve our affordable housing requirements and our state mandated requirement which we supposed to be building 57% affordable housing. now i know that's that's you know a pretty large number but my question is is you know because it's it's city land and i know you mentioned the 25% that's there as far as the state land use requirement. >> but are you looking for ways

to boost or you know, the affordability given that the city is in dire need for affordable housing and you know, this is a real good opportunity to to achieve some of those requirements that we've, you know, fallen so short on? >> yeah. thank you commissioner. that's that's a question that's come up and many forums and first the resolution at the board of supervisors just adopted i don't have the specific language in front of me but it it urged us to evaluate an alternatives of community benefits when we do this evaluation and that's exactly what we're going to do. so we're going to have this floor of 25% how can we achieve it? what sort of revenue would that provide to the agency which again is a community benefit and provides for a more affordable city versus if we were to increase that percentage, what does that do

to meet our housing goals as well as presumably reduce the revenue that comes to the agency because of the subsidy that's needed for affordable housing? >> so we will be evaluating that. and one other just clarification is that 25% to get in the technical weeds as for 80% am i and below i josh and may know i don't know what the exact housing element required or targets are for 80% am i and below but i believe that 57% you were saying is that a higher am i which that 25% is not in relation to i just said a bunch of numbers but yeah yeah yeah no no i appreciate that. i just i just want to emphasize you know we have an opportunity with city land that's owned by the residents of san francisco. obviously you guys are in charge of it.

yeah. and you know we appreciate all your work that you do, but i think that, you know, this is an opportunity to to again look towards what we need desperately in this city and that's affordable housing. and so i just want to, you know, make that point and i'm sure you've heard it over and over. yeah. >> thank you. and and yeah, i just wanted to just make the point again because it's that important somebody that's growing up here and seeing kind of how things have played out, you know, unfortunately for us our affordable housing goals have really been something that hasn't been addressed is as much as i think should be. and so i'm going to keep advocating for that because i know the need is so great and so yeah.

thank you. yeah. commissioner imperial yeah i don't have a question but it's more like a comment and emphasis and again thank you for this maps and i'm i'm really happy that the planning and mty is joining in this effort there is definitely going to be a more complex as we're talking to the housing element and also other area plans i you know as you mentioned many of these special parking spaces are bigger are in the downtown area and so it makes me think about of course the central soma plan and how we are reimagining the central hall plan and i definitely can see planning department together with mta working on this but i do also want to highlight about the fifth and mission if you if you're not aware there's been a lot of talks in the community especially the um in the

filipino cultural heritage district about the use of fifth and mission in how it can also benefit the cultural district. so i think you know again dusseault and there's always been discussions within the communities on how it can be, you know, reimagined. >> there's always been an interest as well on the fifth and mission garage and not just that but in other garages as well. but i just want to highlight that and give you you know, kind of like the conversations that's been happening over the last five years or so. so yeah, so i'm looking forward to this and please, you know mta if you give us and you know i guess it's to be determined in terms of like your reporting process to the planning and how can the planning be enough effect please let us know. >> thank you, commissioner campbell thank you and thank

you for the presentation. i think these this kind of joint development program is incredibly exciting and obviously gives us much needed housing while also supporting public transportation. so i think this is great and i can't think it's i love this map as well and it's very insightful to see how much of the portfolio is actually dedicated to parking. so i can't think of a better use for existing infrastructure that's mostly dedicated to cars and giving it back to the people. so i think the only thing that stood out to me was the ambition around the affordable housing percentage that's highlighted and i think we've talked a lot about it already and i was surprised that it wasn't more aligned with what we are requiring at the city level. so interesting to learn about the california surplus land act but i think a lot of what we're doing at the city is that is informed by what developers can actually accomplish so it

sounds like this is something that we're going to see evolve over time so be interested to see what happens there. >> those are all my comments. thank you commissioner. >> vice president more thank you for the presentation and thank you for speaking about really solidly considered policy and programs. >> well it's interesting to me i'm looking at this map at a slightly larger scale is to really look at not the number of 25 sites but the actual size which in the small footprint is very difficult to read and it's actually quite surprising that aside from the yards themselves at kirkland, flynn and woods there are only two sites which are significantly over an acre and those particular sites are garages. so the challenge will be to come up with a strategy that embraces relatively small sites and particularly when we are talking about community outreach and effort that it takes to bring stakeholders

together at a level that we're used to to deal really with more than 23 sites here which will be a lot of lifting relative to the size of these sites or in and i'm wondering if there could be an approach by which the site size is quite particular challenges relative to building significantly larger numbers of housing sites ,cheap access utilities, etc. and i'm kind of wondering if you are already starting to categorize these sites relative to certain types of feasibility various very astute commissioner yes we've started so we did an initial evaluation of 4 to 12 of these properties depending looking out like how many could we deliver over the next 25 years and and we worked with an architectural firm and

economic development firm hatch and kennerly to do that evaluation for us and we we started to see some feasibility challenges and part of this grants work that we're going to be doing not only in terms of evaluate what is the potential at these sites is evaluating strategically what do we need to do to actually deliver development at these sites from an organization standpoint but as well as a potential legally legal standpoint in terms of requirements? so that would be the the strategic look that we will be doing as part of that grant. but yes, we've started it and i don't have i don't have a solution to that. >> the challenge that you've identified are you planning to keep this commission informed about your work? i think it's fascinating.

i think since is so comprehensive and citywide there has to be a kind of a fabric that ties all of this together build better streets or whatever. but i would love to continue hearing you present to us because i think even the evolution in which you are encountering stumbling blocks because it's rather difficult we would like to know about it because obviously optimistically see at these two numbers is lots of lots of clean dots but we would like to kind of stay with the reality of what you really are encountering as potential stumbling blocks. >> yeah, i'm happy to stay engaged with at the staff level and then get their advice on when to to come to the commission. i, i do want to just reiterate a note of caution that this is not a near-term solution to our financial challenges and as this commission knows, the feasibility of delivering projects right now is unfortunately pretty low. so just i guess i'd just caveat on any progress we make may be more on paper right now than

actual projects for the time being i would say for myself good ideas help to keep us uplifted anyway so the rest we will figure out how to drag it along but good ideas help. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. and commissioner williams just i wanted to think about wendy has there been a study like when this project a revenue that that you guys are are working towards when will it come online and when are you anticipating you could see the the that your plans come to fruition yeah so that that evaluation that that initial evaluation that our consultants did for us was looking through the year 2050 between 4 and 12 projects. so realistically if we started a project today to get it approved, get it built to actually have revenue coming

into our agency at the earliest would be five to ten years. >> so this is this is more of a long term absolutely solution. thank you so much. i appreciate that. yeah thank you. >> thank you. thank you. thank you commissioners. with that we can move on to item 13 for case number 2020 hyphen 009915 see wait 237 sanchez street conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon. thank you, commissioner. secretary good afternoon president so fellow commissioners jeff horn planning department staff i am before you is a request for conditional use authorization for planning code section 317 for the demolition of a single family residence with an unauthorized dwelling unit to allow the new construction of a

five family dwelling within the residential transit oriented district. >> the project site is located in the castro upper market neighborhood and within district eight project site surrounded by rta and upper market street and city zoning districts. >> properties are generally low to medium density residential and apartment buildings at 2 to 3 and four storeys in height. commercial uses are located along market street in the corner of 16th and sanchez streets. >> the 3000 125 square foot lot has a width of 25ft and a depth of 125ft. the lot slopes downwards towards the rear and is developed with an existing two story 2963 square foot one family dwelling constructed circa 1900 as well with an accessory dwelling unit at the basement level with unknown when that unit was established but the department confirmed its existence through a youtube screening in 2021.

>> the project proposes the demolition of the existing building and the new construction of an 8933 gross square foot five story five family dwelling which includes two one bedroom units, a two bedroom unit, a three bedroom unit and a four bedroom unit. the project also includes a 167 square foot garage providing one vehicle parking space and also a class five five class one bicycle parking spaces will be provided at the site. >> the product is compliant with the planning code and was found to be consistent with the residential design guidelines since the initial review of the project some modifications have been made included reducing the depth of the building at all force a stepping back further at the third and fourth floors at the rear of the property light wall was added to acknowledge the existing light well to the adjacent property at 21 or sorry 231 and to 33 sanchez street and at the front

the fourth floor was set back at five feet to better match the predominant scale of buildings at the street the zoning for the lot allows for one unit for every 600ft2. so this project is maximizing the density allowed on this 30 100 square foot lot. a staff conducted a site visit in june of 2020 for the you to was vacant and the upper main unit was in the process of being vacated. i spoke with those tenants subsequent to that actually the sponsor found a new tenant and that was part of the continuance for this project. staff did research to verify income for the requirements of sb 330. we also have included in the case work package a letter from this tenant acknowledging their knowledge of the project and potential demolition of this building and the agreements that these two parties have made together as a property with two units. this project is subject to sb

330 and the replacement requirements so two of the five units in this rental project will be subject to rent control. >> no protected units were found within the income verifications at the site and therefore the again the limitation on the on the replacement units will be a rent control status for a rental project. >> department received one correspondence from a property to the rear at 46 sharon street it's actually a gentleman representing a few persons but the general nature of the concern were in regards to construction impacts protection of some trees at the rear, the scale and massing of the project and potential shading impacts that it will have on these adjacent properties. what that department finds the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan although we will the project results in the demolition of a residential building with one dwelling and

an unauthorized dwelling unit. the project provides an improved residential building and a net gain of three residential units. the building will retain rental housing including two rent protected units which the goal of the city's housing element. this concludes our presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. thank you. we should hear from the project sponsor. >> you have five minutes. >> good afternoon commissioner. my name is fiona lee and i represent the design pointer at 237 central street. the property is documented as a one story single family with a basement level and has an active building and the we due to the conversion of the basement level into a more than two separate unit from 2008. after a thoughtful consideration the property owner decide whether to simply legalizing the unauthorized

unit a more beneficial approach will be to demolish the existing structure to construct a new one. the proposal is for first story apartment building with a basement consisting of five residential unit and then the new development aims to help address the housing crisis in alignment with the administrative bill when when 14 foot recreation more residential unit in the compliant for us and the view 332 of the third unit will be attached in the protected unit to ensure that affordable housing for the local resident two three seven central street is the only single storey residential building on the entire block. so putting in a disadvantage compared to the surrounding property the proposed height for the new building complies with the stoning district and fit within the guidelines mandate of the area to ensure the esthetic is compatible with

the neighborhood. the new buildings high will closely match of the adjacent property to reduce interest and to fortify interest. we can see on the drawing a 4.24 for the plan package. the proposed structure will not exceed the height of this neighboring building by more than three feet except the proposed staircase penthouse which under the planning call is allowed to exceed a height limit by up to ten feet. we have been working diligently with the planning department over the past four years to ensure the full compliance with all regulation. >> additionally, we have coordinated with the department of environmental health to ensure the compliance with article 38 and article 22 a as known as the mha ordinance. following the pre-application meeting on june 16th, 2020 we carefully addressed the concerns raised by the neighbor and the planning department. as a result we make significant

revision to create a reasonable balance to fit with the neighborhood expectation. one of the concern was the distance between the proposed building and the real property line which is shared with the 46 sharon street neighbor. our initial design has a distance of almost 44ft and has been reduced by almost 12ft. additionally we have shortened the top to four at the weir whereas the original design proposed only shot in the top floor. >> also in response to the planning department massing guidelines the top floor rear was reset further by approximately 18ft and the original design making the design more compatible with the surrounding property. so this can be referred to the drawing a 1.1 for the detail. >> so in conclusion with the planning department preliminary approval of our proposed design

this allow the project to move forward with the plan check for the remaining requirement from the department of building inspection for addendum we will to the project. >> so all other necessary criteria were met before the permit interest. >> we are confident this project will be beneficial to all parties and to the community as we respectfully request for your approval of the conditional use authorization. thank you. do you have any question or we have to listen to the public? >> if there are no immediate questions for you now yes we should open up public comment and maybe some follow up clarification questions later. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. >> hi, i'm bill tanenbaum and 46 sharon street is the address. my family lives directly east of the development. before i just make a few comments i'd like to thank fiona and her partner mr. and

jeff. been very helpful. a lot of communication back and forth. while we don't agree with everything. we think this bodes well for and we're hopefully hopeful and optimistic about the development and that'll be consistent with what the developers have said they would do. i want to punctuate a couple of our concerns just to get them into the record. jeff is absolutely right. the light and the shadow is one concern of ours. the building will be directly in our over the fence. we've requested a light study. it's still like to ask for a light study just to get some peace of mind about the impact for the for the proposal we're happy to share in the cost of that. additionally, the trees are absolutely important to us. there's a mature growth of trees at the rear of the property line. it's a wonderful buffer between the two properties. it will stay a wonderful buffer as long as it's maintained during construction afterward. again, i'd like to recommend that a licensed arborist be on site while the construction

occurs to ensure that those trees are well taken care of and we'd be happy to participate in those costs as well. fiona was absolutely right. they made adjustments from the 2020 design proposal which are which are absolutely positive and again hopeful that that works out for everyone's benefit. one thing i would like to do with the developer is before they actually start construction several of the neighbors and i would like to walk the project with them to actually get a firsthand feel for the way things are going to work out and the commitments that have been made. other than that i don't think i have any other comments again. >> i just wanted to punctuate the light and shadow and the trees issues and commend jeff and fiona for their responsiveness. as i say, we don't agree with everything but we're hopeful that we can resolve any disputes we have as time moves on. so thank you very much for your time. any questions?

>> okay. last call for public comment. >> again, you need to come forward. >> seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commission lebron. >> i think from my perspective reviewing the project and the action before us you know the project is code compliant. it meets the residential design guidelines and very important to me importantly to me it supports the envisioned density. >> this will provide rent controlled units on site. the tenant history appears to be clean and there's good records for the current tenant and i appreciate plain department staff having done the visit to the site as well and looked into this and you know above all else this is going to be adding three additional housing units to a

very vibrant area that's very well transit served. it could be providing to rent controlled units and so this has my support. >> i came to the request from the neighbor to the rear for me . >> you know, those those requests go above and beyond for a project of this nature. i expect there will be potentially some impacts from light and shadow. it is a taller building. i can see that and it is to the west of of sharon street. um and so you know i would i just and what i would just encourage i don't know other. >> i'm not making a motion at this time so the commissioners may have other comments but i would for my perspective just encourage the the project sponsor to continue working with the neighbors and to entertain uh consideration of the requests that have been made. >> i think they're very reasonable and fair requests. thank you. was that a motion?

>> ron buttons no motion at this time. >> thank you. >> commissioner vice president moore i'd like to support the requests made by the adjoining neighbor particularly regarding the trees. uh, i would like to see a condition added that an arborist indeed not only pays attention to the trees in the rear yard but the street trees are equally important to me. this is two trees in a very mature stretch of trees on sanchez street and i believe that to continue city of that grove of trees is essential to the expansion of the street overall. >> so i feel very strongly about uh new construction protecting uh on property trees uh, and if indeed there is an arborist we would perhaps i

would like to see that that landscaping is very carefully protected when construction. thank you. um, thank you for the sponsor and also the neighbors who show up and thank you for being so collaborative and respectful and it's pretty clear that um for good neighbors and to restore i mean not restore but continue to foster the trust. i think they just really want to have some commitment that this is what we agree to and you will really do it and i think that's really reasonable . i love that neighborhood. castro is right next to where i live and i frequent that street and that there's a really lovely street and i really appreciate it. continue to see the vibrancy of that neighborhood and i am supportive of this project and also emphasize to continue

further project sponsor to move forward and collaborate with your neighbor and committed to make sure that the two trees do goes there and they don't die you water them and the light diagram study could be yeah it could be really simple it should should just i don't i don't think we should put it in the condition but i think it is a really good thing to do. i'm sure that our planning staff will continue to monitor that throughout the process and i could go to commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i'm also supportive of this project and i'm also in support of commissioner moores in terms of having an arbor study. is that something that needs to

be part of the conditions or or can that be implemented through the planning staff? >> uh, thank you jeff warren planning staff. >> that would not be any there are no code requirements for that study to be prepared and submitted to staff so i think a condition of approval would need to be kind of the vehicle the for us to have that for tracking and a reason you know to be requesting this this report. so yeah the the the study would be in a way well be facility will be reviewed by the staff but it's in terms of producing the study it will be produced by the owner with i just want to make we i think us staff know real arborists on our staff would probably most

likely be ensuring that the report was prepared by a licensed arborist and effectively taken their technical expertise and word for that report that was prepared if i think anything was of concern like removal of everything or something i think is not anticipated maybe there would be a need for staff to you know, interact with the sponsor and find alternative solutions. >> okay. um, so i'd like to make a motion to to approve which condition to include an arborist study that the planning staff will review. second, commissioner campbell thank you. i think this is a great project. it's exactly the kind of densification we are hoping to see in the city. >> i don't live far from here far enough away for it not to be a conflict but it is

literally the only single family house on this block. so i echo a lot of the sentiment that i've heard from my fellow commissioners in regards to the benefits of this project. >> however, i am i don't think there's anything extraordinary here that should trigger the project sponsor needing to do these third party light studies or hire an arborist i. >> i would actually i'd be curious to know cause i know we take trees really seriously in the city and is there some standard language around legal requirements for protecting existing trees? i do agree that there are some mature existing trees out front and around the site but just want to make sure we're being reasonable with this request. >> sure thing. so the city typically has jurisdiction over what we define as significant trees. so those are usually two different typologies one street trees and then the second it's usually believe in the front ten feet of a property if a tree is of a certain size the

city does not otherwise typically regulate trees elsewhere on the lot unless in the very rare instance it's a designated landmark tree which is not the instance here when public works public works has jurisdiction over significant trees both for planting new trees as well as removal process and as part of any removal process. they certainly have a whole robust they have a bureau of urban forestry, they have experts on staff and i believe reports are required before any removal is made. but again it's a it's a process that's a very robust process that's administered by public works as it relates to significant trees outside of significant trees. we don't typically have a process expert well i, i know these studies can be expensive so i, i would say if the neighbor wants to pay for these things then if this is above

and beyond an extraordinary i don't think that the project sponsor should have to to pay for this and i totally agree the light studies are going to show that it's the new developments going to impact the neighboring light so i think that's sort of an unavoidable reality. but the truth is this project's working within the, you know, bulk and height requirements that are set forth by the code. >> so would you like to move? >> so i would i would i would make another motion. yeah i would i would make a motion to approve with the conditions per the planning department as set forth and and not include this extra language or you know public comments closed but commissioners may call you up for question is there a second to commissioner campbell's motion and we have two more commissioners would like to speak and then we'll take our vote after that. commissioner vice president and more. >> i like to clarify that the

tree protection i'm talking about is not an independent study but is also a standard tree protection measures taken during construction. they do not require a study except a commitment by the by the by the architect and by the construction company to protect the tree which is in their own interest. a mature trees are almost impossible to replace when they're particularly part of an existing setting. >> there is just no question about it that a tree like that takes 40 years to grow. >> so if these trees own health see condition it is very standard it and i see our architect who was injured that architect and construction companies to take the appropriate protection to not damage trees in construction and that's all we're asking for and so in connection to commissioner campbell's motion ,i believe that the standard protection measures taken by an

architect should be considered and should be and should be carried through this motion. >> perhaps the architect could speak herself to my concerns and is in the interests of her own building to have not just like five inch little sticks in the sidewalk but indeed protect a mature tree. >> and commissioner moore, just to add on to that, the department of public works already does have protocols around protecting trees during construction. for example, if there's any construction within a drip line, there's a very particular set of protections that has to be engaged and so the department of public works will review that those aspects and mandate any tree protection plans if there is construction within it. i just like to see it to be mentioned because many architects mention it because they're interested in it but it's an oversight here. there's a lot of thoughtful presentation here. perhaps the architect can speak for herself to ensure that this project is intending to move forward with those protection ideas and my would you mind you're nodding your head would you mind stating your support

for for that ask. >> hello everybody. yes we would like to leaving the trees at the back yard so because the the pier is neighbor they complain about the privacy issue so we the owner is want to keep the tree for prevent more privacy and you are agreeing was the protection of the trees are the trees in front of your building as well oh yes thank you thank you for showing that to us i think is fine. normally there would be a footnote but i assume that the planning department together with public works will look out for that as we're hearing a commitment being made to that. thank you. thank you so much for taking explaining your position. thank you. it commissioner williams thank

you. i just like to say that, you know, regardless of the regulation since these are neighbors and you have to live together and the goodwill that is is put forward i think goes a long way. and so whether it's a regulation whether it's a requirement or not, i think this falls into that category of being a neighbor and it you know and so i just want to point that out. it's not always about regulation. sometimes it's just about being a good neighbor. >> thank you commissioner imperial i'd like to rescind my motion. very good commissioners if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the matter with conditions on that motion. >> commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry, commissioner williams all

right. mr. braun high commissioner imperial high commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 commissioners at all places on the final item on your agenda today number 14 case number 2024 hyphen 002087c wait 788 arkansas street conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon presidential commissioners gabriel pinto of department staff the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections two and 9.1303 and 317 for the demolition of an existing two story single family residency and the construction of a four storey approximately 5000 square foot single family residency with two offshore parking spaces, one bicycle parking space and approximately 1500 usable open space. >> the subject property is located within the arch two zoning district 40 x height

in both district and priority equity geography special use district and within the potrero hill neighborhood and was developed in 1910 with an approximately 2003 2300 square foot two unit two bedroom dwelling unit and the subject dwelling unit is currently occupied by the property owner prior to the middle of the listed conditional use authorization the project sponsors completed a pre-application meeting on december 14th, 2023, which was attended by two public members . to date the department has received eight letters in support of the project and none in opposition. >> amongst the letters of support are the two immediate neighbors at 790 and 786 arkansas street. the members of the public expressing support indicate the project ability to provide a family suitable home that meets the needs of the growing family . >> the department does recommend disapproval for the following reasons the project will demolish an existing aged

and sound single family residency which is generally considered more affordable the new unit and will construct a new single family residence within the city's priority equity geography. the project will not provide a multi-unit residential dwelling unit and maximizes rental and ownership opportunities for middle income households and promotes multi-generational living for families. and while the project will provide a family size dwelling unit that includes family memories including laundry obviously parking and use of open space, the project does not maximize the density of the site which is allowed to units. >> this does conclude today's presentation of a bill for any questions and this project manager does have presentation as well. >> project sponsor you have five minutes. thank you gabriella. be very brief and then each on

frazier who owns the property has a few things he'd like to say. i'm hunt with hotel jones architects here in san francisco and my associates andrews lee is here real briefly on the existing house. i think you've all seen photos of it from our drawings. it's in dilapidated shape. it's actually the understory which is on the street level is a garage that's not fully developed and then it's bare underground under floor earth and space. there's no living amenities or even rooms down there beyond the slab for the garage the main of all the living space is comprised on that upper level it's about 600ft2. that house the structure of the foundation cannot be renovated with a vertical addition wouldn't support it so it's going to end up whatever happens to that property even if we're just in addition would end up in that conditional use permit. a real quickly on the new design i don't you know, as

gabriella pointed out, the design itself is not really the discussion. it complies with the planning code and with residential design guidelines and it's written in his wife's desire to have their family lived there with even excuse me we've even talked of aging in place measures so they could be there for the long haul. it is an upslope lot which limits some of the things we can do and that basement level which such as a garden department it's underground at the back. so with that i'd like to introduce a time and let him say a few things and just to be clear the existing house is is a one unit house. >> okay. thanks very much, nick. thank you all so much for hearing me today. i'm been appreciating hearing all your thoughtful comments to the previous folks who stood before you. so i thank you for your consideration. i'm here on behalf of myself my wife who just joined us and hopefully one day our future children and i've been tasked

by my wife to build a nest before we hatch any checks. so i've got a lot at stake here and i'm hoping we can i'm hoping we can do that. i'm a board director at the bernal heights housing corporation. i say that both to support the organization i do wonderful work and also to express that i'm somebody who supports and is part of the solution for increasing housing here in the city of san francisco. it's something that's very important to me and i dedicate my time towards doing that and you know we have a project in construction at 300 mission right now that's going to add 35 more units as well as 532 units that we have brought to the market in the organization's existence. of course i'm here on behalf of myself not the organization. i say that to say that while i'm supportive i do not agree that here is an appropriate place to target for three reasons in particular. number one the neighbors want our plan. it's not just the neighbors

that are directly adjacent. it's also the neighbor that's directly behind. so every single contiguous neighbor has submitted a letter of support for this particular plan and specifically not wanting to support another plan . number two, it is it's fairly onerous for us to be required to increase the cost of what we want to do more kitchens, more bathrooms you know everything that's involved in adding units. frankly it's not something that we probably will be able to do and it would be a real shame for us to be driven out of the community because we are in some ways required to spend more money than we have. number three there's single family home renovations happening all over this neighborhood. it's about 7030 single family to more than one home, more than one unit mix and the community it's the vast majority of single family in their homes all over the neighborhood doing exactly the same renovation. of course it's not a conditional use permit. they're going through the renovation process because

their homes are existing homes are large enough that they can keep to exterior walls which is my understanding the only requirement to do a renovation versus a cup all else being equal it's really the same thing that's happening all over that neighborhood. >> so with that being said, you know, asking for your support i believe if off the record you were to discuss with our you know, the folks at planning who are working on this my general feeling is that they are supportive. i'm not quite sure you know, it was at the last hour that we learned that they would not be supporting after a year and a half of working with them which is really disappointing for us. >> so thank you. very good commissioners. with that we should take public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners

commissioner campbell thank you. >> so this project is completely code compliant in terms of its use, its setbacks, the rear yard height. it's not a historic resource. it's not displacing tenants. it meets all the residential design guidelines and it's zoned in rh to which means it's there can be up to two dwelling units per lot but does not require two units and of course we want to see this site densified but if we want to require two units then that's what we should put in the code and i don't i'm not comfortable with denying this project based on that sentiment. i think if we're going to deny the project it should be because they're not meeting the code. i, i could say argue whether we should be like talking about rules and standards around demo in general.

i think it can be a little objective but maybe that's something i know when we're also looking at this a little bit when we think when we're talking about densification. but generally i think there's actually a lot of positives about this project. it's going to house more people in its in its increase in size and it will be able to accommodate a growing family which is equitable in its own way as we try to accommodate more families in the city. it will be a safer building. it'll have fire sprinklers and it will be seismically upgraded. so i actually am in support of this project. commissioner lebron i have a question for planning department staff. >> there's been a lot of statements and written materials and also the comments by the project sponsor just now that the direction of staff this was heading towards disapproval was shared very late in the game.

>> i'm curious when when was guidance kind of provided that this was heading for disapproval or what was kind of the nature of the conversations along the way that may have indicated that this could potentially happen? >> yeah get into department staff. so this project has kind of been in the works for a while. they came to us both kind of kind of testing the waters and the project review stages which kind of just general like this is what we're planning to do type of thing even at then i think given the kind of climate at the time we indicated it would probably be an uphill battle just because demo new construction not really maximizing density, not meeting our general plan funding. >> so i think that was expressed it wasn't clear that like the department would take a stance because we don't usually typically do that until we are writing a staff report and we get an actual project and so that's where the indication came about like where as a department we would stand. but i think clear on from the

start of the process it was indicated that this wasn't like a slam dunk. >> this was this was going to be a discussion here. as for the reasons we kind of stated in the staff report. >> so yeah so and so when did the did it become did the project sponsor analyze the better response of the city when did the public sponsor learn that this was the recommendation by the department was disapproval? >> yeah this was about two weeks ago. >> two weeks? yeah. when we started doing staff report and publishing and all that is that the budget sponsors experience as well. yeah. thank you. um that's interesting so and unfortunate but you know i think it's not a surprise to me also to learn that there were there was some guidance given along the way that this could be an uphill battle to build this enormous home uh because of the c required for demolition of the existing home. >> um i see you know i agree with commissioner campbell and

stuff. the staff report acknowledges that this is a code compliant project but then we do have broader policy goals and a lot of work this commission has been doing for quite a while now related to diversifying housing stock related to protecting existing affordable are not for protecting existing um single family homes that are relatively affordable. i know there's some as was just stated some issues to work out with our rehab rehabilitation requirements and what's happening there. um and you know we've also had this effort to preserve affordability, maximize density on sites and above all else to produce housing in the city. um now i can see all the effort that went into this design. i see all the support from the neighbors which is helpful to see um and i also can i respect the fact that this is the with a lot makes it difficult to add or expensive to add a garden

unit in this project um where i'm leaning on this i think this is tricky like i hesitate to approve this project right now. um what i would instead prefer would be a continuance of this item for the project sponsor to take a closer look at the ability to add housing units to this project. it's a i think it's really unfortunate that this approval recommendation came through so late in the game because this means there's no the architect has no set of drawings to show us to demonstrate the extreme difficulty that may or may not exist of adding the second unit to the project and i want to give the project sponsor just just a moment to please come up and and uh have you had any discussions with the architect about adding a second unit to the project?

>> those discussions never came up until february 13th and we had to think about it. but we have nothing on paper to show for it. it just was merely a statement. i just want to clarify one thing as well the planner just mentioned that it's a 5000 square foot home that is not accurate. it's a 4000 square foot home. that's that's a big difference . yeah. >> would you mind clarifying so the 5000 is total gross floor area and i can so they've got 4000 is on the cover sheet of the plant you and maybe gaby

while you're putting those up i'll just kind of cut to the chase the planning code defines square footage as as being inclusive of garage and storage spaces. so i think what the property owner is referring to is probably living space as opposed to the planning code definition of gross floor area . so both can be true at the same time the amount of living space but also what the planning code defines it as i understand. >> thank you. make that legible but yeah so the living spaces 4000 and then they've got a garage and storage space is an additional thousand square feet. >> yeah. thank you. i like i said i'm on the verge of making a motion for continuance for the sponsor to at minimum explore options for adding a second unit preferably to come back with uh a two unit project. meanwhile there are a number of commissioners who have other perspectives and comments to share so i would like to hear those. >> thank you. thank you. commissioner mcgarry while i

haven't visited the site pretty much i'm across the road every saturday my one of my checks is playing basketball there and when it's not basketball it is baseball. there is nowhere to hide. you're on top of the hill there. you're not quite on top of the hill. but if basically i know the terrain is it's probably on the steepest hills in the in the city either because i park right across from your house and when i do i see that your house is and i can see why your neighbors are in support because your house is desperate is the one house on the road that is in desperate need of repair all that said 4000ft2 is a thousand thousand square feet more than what our 3000 square foot mandate where supervisor management introduced an idea

you have it's only february 15th since basically we have this change it might be an idea to go back to your architect and see if 1000ft2 could be redesigned into the unit or the entire footprint to see if that could be enough to you. so i would be in while i'm i'm torn here i'd want i want two seconds commissioner campbell but at the same time i'm intrigued by commissioner o'brien's continuance to give you time to actually meet with your architect and get back to planning to see if you can come to some agreement on the second unit. >> thank you commissioner imperial you know we've had a lot of discussions here about when enlarging a single family home unit.

this time it's it is a demolition. >> so in the past you know when we've encountered enlargement of a single family homes we have had in the hearing the commission put a condition in adding one additional unit and do you usually and we've done we've even done that in the area i think somewhere in presidio in one large but the thing is that for me as it is i will go with the planning department for disapproval. i do think that this is a in terms of the the the enlargement it's totaling to up to 5000. so again, you know we've had conversations a lot here in terms of adding new units and also in conversations are reached to that you know like

there needs to have additional unit added. >> however i'm also intrigued by with commissioner bron's for continuing owns and i'm kind of leaning to that and you know i would like to see in a way that if this is a two unit that it still doesn't go beyond the usually you know and we've had a conversation in terms of the unit parity where one unit is bigger than the other but there needs to be some sort of a a parity between those units whether you know, let's add 3000 square foot we a 1000 square foot adu problem and you know looking into that you need to parity i think that would be the kind of direction i would go if we go for it continuance as well i'd like to hear other commissioners thoughts on it

too commissioner vice president more two things. >> let me start with commissioner campbell's reference to code compliance code compliance is at the core of any approval we we make large or small so that in itself is not a free card to getting approval. >> it is a prerequisite to getting an approval. however, what is more important to me is hearing our planning department clearly stand to policies that have been existing since the early days of merely actually being a mayor of san francisco and that has now taken significantly more weight given the fact that we have a housing element, an approved housing element this very, very specific expectations of what we do here and i think we all have tried to attend to that demand pretty consistently in all areas of the city. but sometimes homes are larger

than 3000ft2 kind of as a partially legislated maximum size come across our desk and i personally do not see any possibility for us to make exceptions to what requires objectivity and consistency for us. everybody has his story and i'm very sympathetic to what you're describing as a desire for your house. however, everybody else has a particular aspect to tell us the same story and we really need to create a loving level playing field particularly with an ever increasing difficulty men being made on us to deliver units and a planning is just around the corner and in order to kind of soften the blow of that impact on everybody we need to look for every small angle of where we can get an additional unit or to and i do believe that properly designed

and properly we could be considered your project can deliver that without diminishing the quality of what you are trying to achieve for yourself. and i can only say that because i've seen quite a few housing units on steep hillsides even steeper than news who did a very very good job meeting that demand including having parking sometimes only one space versus two as you're suggesting anyway, i believe that for any good architect that challenge can be met and i'm actually prepared given of what you're describing to continue the project and have you take a second look at your project and i would like you to really understand and perhaps plan it can explain it to you of what the real demands are on all of us living in the city and those demands a bureau and it's in that spirit that i believe everybody has to step up within reasonable measure to help us meet that demand. thank you, commissioner

campbell one thing i meant to mention earlier but i think worth pointing out that i mean the reason that they're here is because of the demolition and i do think they an alternative would be to treat it as an addition and then and we all know the demolition rules are slippery so it could be treated as an addition and then you avoid the conditional use and that's a workaround that exists. well thank you for that. >> i, i think that's this is a very good example where we do need to understand that when we talk about co compliance i think people only look at one piece and have them really look at the whole full picture and i think that a planning staff

actually is pretty collaborative and comprehensive to inform the project sponsor beyond zoning plan there's a thing called general plan and if you can just google it about is general plan part of the planning code in san francisco the answer is yes. >> so when we look at things we need to look at code compliance in in land use. it's not just one piece. it's exactly where you are and then also what else that is related to your property that you need to look into like neighborhood guidelines and design standard and actually the planning code within the planning code lives with the general plan which actually talks about these things that my commissioners had mentioned and also our planner staff have mentioned about unit size and

commissioner mcgarry talked about supervisor mendelson had actually created a amendment to limit the size of the housing residential unit. so these are things that it's not our for it's not the wish list. it's actually a code compliance guideline required. and so i think that this is a really good example of why we're here today. maybe perhaps it's been pretty confusing to your architect that needs to maybe look into a little bit more like what is your property is subject to what type of juristic tions and requirements and i agree with commissioner braun's suggestions to put this in continuance. i think it is really gracious offer to have you to reconsider are what your options are and my other fellow commissioners had also mentioned some other

alternative ways that you can think outside of the box and what your options and choices are. >> and commissioner braun and so i think i've heard all the commissioner comments uh, i know i certainly don't want to deny the project today and so i do want to make a motion for a continuance. i want to ask the project sponsor and property owners if the mandate is to come back with a redesign project that includes a second unit likely an accessory dwelling unit. what is the approximate amount of time it would take to come for you to and maybe this question for staff as well for you to then take that and be able to produce the staff report after that as well. it's about how long do you think you'll need and we can also continue later if necessary if we yes, please

come forward. >> go to it. excuse me. >> i have to kind of get an architect if we go to a date uncertain does it change noticing requirements or anything like yes you would have to re notice the project so it's better to just let's say continue it for a month and then if you're not ready continue it again rather than continue indefinitely with that in mind and knowing travel schedules we just briefly discussed gabrielle we'd be looking at early mid april or 10th 10th so mid mid april yeah . >> the looks of a hearing date may 8th. okay i will make a motion to continue this item to our may 8th hearing with the rent and april 10th was i'm sorry was it april 10th? oh i'm sorry i totally missed her today. >> okay. okay. all right. i'll make a motion to continue this item to our april 10th

hearing with direction to the project sponsor to come back with a redesign project with a an additional unit in it second. okay. and commissioner campbell, would you like to say a few words? >> but good. this is a question for missouri but is while i know we are aiming for densification i want to be clear is the two unit requirement for this particular project codified no. >> so it is part of our recommendation in making the 317 demo findings. there's a series of findings that have to be made. >> one of them is around you know will the project densify the site. so it is one of several findings that we balance. >> it's an on balance consideration for the commission so i would suggest all of you to look at the 317 findings in your packet to see whether you feel like there's an on balance yes or an on balance no. often i think for us the the

density is one we really look at when trying to strike that balance. but also be candid this projects like this are some of them even though they're simple there's some of them more difficult to sort of strike that balance. and so i think those are the considerations for the commission certainly many of our recent policies have for example, we've removed this new requirement in well-resourced neighborhoods when there's a demo new construction. andrew densify as part of the west side rezoning we're looking at policies around minimum densities. so these are all you know policy conversations that are not new overall size of homes again it's not a requirement the 3000 square foot limitation is not a requirement in this geography. it's the district eight geography which is not this neighborhood. but again it's a policy principle that has been discussed. so i think to us it was a combination of the size of the home coupled with the um the density or the lack of density on this. >> but it is these are tough

judgment calls for the commission to make. i think certainly asking the sponsor to go back and maybe be able to bring back more specific facts for this commission around what are the net increase costs of the project of providing a second unit i think would be helpful information potentially exploring you know, what would the challenges be of not having this be a demolition and instead being an alteration because obviously if this is an alteration it's not before you and maybe those facts can be helpful when we come back in a month to help the commission wear those policy benefits. >> i appreciate that and i'd also just make a request from the planning staff to i mean this project sponsor was has invested a lot of time and money in getting to this point and two weeks notice is simply inexcusable in my opinion. commissioner vice president moore used to speak in misuari and want to add to your

considerations at sometimes we also look at to consideration of parking this particular project suggests to parking spaces and there is often a give and take on how much parking we provide as to why they provide two cars in tandem given that we free up a portion of the building there are all kinds of ways to wiggle this. this suggests once and again there are plenty of very, very creative solutions. one could look at where other people have dealt with the same challenges and come up with answers that ultimately create an approvable satisfactory project. commissioner williams i feel feel conflicted to i see you know i see a project that's that's you know that code compliant has been said but i also you know as a commissioner and i just want the projects sponsor to understand that as

commissioners we have to look at the overall policy and as much as i would like to you know that or as much as i would i would like to be someone that furthers your your dream with your family and i understand all that. >> but we have to consider bigger issues and so you know, i think there's a lot of good things you could take away from the discussion we had here. >> i i sympathize with your situation but once you demolish a home it triggers different things. and so when you took that step it kind of you know, it kind of threw you into this this situation. and so but just just to be clear, you know, we we we want you know, we want to be fair and we want to, you know, empathize with with everything that that you've stated and and

so hopefully you can go back to you know, to the drawing board not go back all the way back but kind of see what you can make happen that that will be satisfactory to to the overall plan of your neighborhood where you live in our city goals. and so i just wanted to kind of put that comment out there. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm sorry but i heard commissioner bronze motion. i didn't hear a second second to them. thank you. i'm sure you did. i just didn't catch who commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to april 10th with direction to the sponsor on that motion. commissioner campbell. commissioner mcgarry. commissioner williams high commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i

commissioner moore and commission president so i so move commissioners that motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner campbell voting against commissioners that concludes your hearing today. i will simply note that next week should be extremely short. all of the larger items got dropped and so you will be convening to essentially approve your consent calendar. >> oh yeah. okay. thank you. >> meeting adjourned it up

>> we do in a way which is exciting engaging-the idea is bring the stories to life, because they are so relevant to the questions we all are asking today about where we belong, who are we, who do wree want to be.

we wanted to be do something about food, because it is such a wonderful entrance. to get people to think what are these cultures, how did they come about and how do i relate to them. we can't live the idea [indiscernible] >> there is hundreds if not thousands of immigrants kitchens and we wanted to show how immigration from 1849 through now the different dishes bought here and how it shaped the culture of the city. . not the thing we have to sit down and read for hours and hours, but you get a 2 and a half minute story and the feeling you can eat those foods and never get a dish the same way again. you have the context. >> we decided to set an journey across

the city. the result is [indiscernible] >> san francisco is a place where there are so many different immigrants communities. we are a sanctuary city, a welcoming place to be and the melting spot is a great to get out and explore the city, the history and how we got to have some of the best cuisine in the country and maybe even the entire world. >> my mother and myself and two sisters--we had to leave quick. my mom had one hour to pack and gather her things and gather her kids and head to the airport and evacuate. we found ourself in san francisco. my grand mother was already here. that is why san francisco was the destination for us. it goes back to my grand mother

and who loved to travel and she was also very afraid of the war going on in vietnam. she came to san francisco and she kind of fell in love with the sitdy. city. she visited the italian deli by oakland beach because she loved the beach and met the owner and the owner told her that this place is for sale and she decided this is her opportunity to stay in san francisco and her dream to be a business owner and open a restaurant. >> i was born [indiscernible] i graduated from a french program culinary school, then i [indiscernible] at that time, we had college of san mateo in the back yard and had a program for foreign students

and we got together and went to the american embassy and this woman welcomed us and she gave both. it is not [indiscernible] and then after that i got accepted and [indiscernible] ended up in san francisco where i had friends so i came to college of san mateo. from there, i transferred to chico state college, so i graduated there and that is when my culinary adventure started. i love cooking and also remind me of my childhood mptd >> my father had a dream and grit and determination. worked very very hard. to me, food is one of the most readily accessible to understanding a

culture. i don't think many people have the opportunity to travel to armenia or lebanon. we are lucky in the city, the abundance of asian cuisines and [indiscernible] restaurants are in many ways an opportunity to engage with another culture through food. >> my grand father had his backyard you name it, we had it. [indiscernible] but my grandma's cookie the memories of the [indiscernible] very powerful. when you channel these memories there is a image because it is a experience all 5 senses get if to it. i think that is why city is so important for immigrants.

the first thing you [indiscernible] we got to eat. you got to nourish the body and you remember and i went from memory really. >> i remember my grand mother telling me stories that when she first opened in 1971, people really didn't know much about vietnamese food and she started selling the italian deli food and half the food and half vietnamese food and she stands in the corner trying to pass samples just to lur customers into the restaurant and try vietnamese food. i think when you enter a new place and you have your family and you have each other and food is what holds your family together. at least for my family for sure, that is the time we get to enjoy food, make connections, bond, sit together

and be together. i just remember my grand mother and mom working hard all the time and once a week we would have family dinners. we gather and she would cook the food. all the kids we always look forward to that. my grand mother coming in 1971, she brought vietnamese food in san francisco. we are one of the first vietnamese arrest raunt restaurant in san francisco. >> for san francisco to have this map and look at all the people who came here and made things you can only find in sf. we are the place to get a

mission burete. burrito. that could be overlooked and not seen [indiscernible] >> important because it highlights the san francisco, the diversity for each restaurant and each spot on the map to share their story through food they serve to diners. i think it is special way to highlight the welcomeness and the [indiscernible] san francisco community is bay area has. >> it is one of the project that is so uniquely san francisco that speaks to the long history of immigration and cuisine the city has been known for. the melting spot allows the small businesses that have been around for a while to really shine with their own unique stories and flavors and so we really love it.

the ecosystem in san francisco is very unique and very welcoming of immigrants and immigrant initiatives. san francisco choice to honor us with the legacy business recognition really shows their support of small local businesses. >> a legacy business is a business that has been around and open in san francisco for at least 30 years. legacy businesses are the most foundational businesses in our neighborhood corridors. they provided services and a place for community to gather for often times for generations. they are really part of the culturally fabric that makes san francisco neighborhoods so unique. >> the idea is take what i think is [indiscernible] about immigration, about belonging, about some of the amazing history of the city. [indiscernible] 18.

>> if you're anesthetic think about a career with us in the sffd stands up a remarkable force to save lives the step forward we're not just looking for firefighters but people with the mind to tackle any exchange and oats heart to serve the public. >> i'm p from california and firefighter and paramedic basically grew up at the beach surfing in the wilmar a lot and once i got into clerment i start

to compete. >> my name is a ryan i was with the step forward and comprehensive swimming and from there went it school when my career took off. >> minimum miller a little you firefighter with the university of california berkley and played football for 4 years and after that, i was a undrafted free agent for that they played in the glamz and then after that signed with the chargers. >> are you someone with a passion for pushing your limits do you thrive in high pressure situations ready to transform both a new career and my name is jay i grasp in san francisco and

remembered with engine four i knew i wanted to nod do not an office job but a firefighter from a young age a athletic is like that in general working towards a goal and being goal oriented and this job, you know, are constantly learning and practicing i wanted to job where i used my body and could be part of the team so the firehouse and planning on team priorities on a team are different conditions and have breaks firehouse on is an engine or truck have a place you can be together. >> i tried it done with football and didn't time to do football i choose this and found

elevators between sports and athletes and the fire services a college or a professional team you represent something burn yourself and other people want to maintain a certain level of professionalism and i understand you have to have a higher standard. >> joining the san francisco federal, state, and local is making a difference in light lives of others. >> i thought through the fire department i thought under pressure the biggest one you fell in love with our medication and enjoyed the medical side and helping people. >> my favorite job putting anti fires and helping people were put that many situation so getting them out and this resources they need and then having them at their homes.

>> so i have come across my favorite part of the job i'll say show up to work and run calls and knowing that each day will be different what is the best part of this job. >> i'm on a side of paramedic. >> i'm an athletic and i'm a professional football and now a firefighter. >> i'm a firefighter. >> are you ready to answer the call and combooshg on a call >> the vibrant south of market neighborhood in san francisco is deep lee rooted filipino if fluences to shape the cultural

identity. soma pilipinas known for [indiscernible] night life and art scenes is home to growing filipino community that thrived for generations. >> soma pilipinas is a community, the village that has been over a hundred years in the making. this is home to many generations of filipino from the turn of the century, to the present. continues to be a gateway community for a lot of filipinos just arriving from the philippines. >> one of sth most prominent scines is filipino owned businesses become staples in the neighborhood. restaurants like manila bowl and jp restaurant offer [indiscernible] >> we call it [indiscernible] this is my passion. everybody's who came right now.

we feel good right here. community is like a family. >> the eatery serve mouth watering dishes and provide a sense of home to the filipino community, preserving traditions passed down generation. >> a filipino restaurant utilizing california ingredients we honor traditional family recipe [indiscernible] we shop in the market 2 to 3 times a week. we make the filipino cuisine proud in san francisco. >> along with the culinary deliteds, soma philippine ow is home to san francisco top mix aulgists. filipino artistry is a facet of soma pilipinas rich tapestry. the filipino cultural heritage

district transformed public spaces into canvases that depict the stories and experiences of filipino americans. >> parlt part of the work we do is support filipino artists to work with community to really create and develop community based art. this is murals and designs that really reflect the rich history, the culture and the struggles and triumps of the filipino community. >> the presence of the filipino cultural center which offer workshops, language classes and community resources is a testament to the community efforts to preserve and promote the heritage. >> features the [indiscernible] philippines which is a indigenous community weaving textiles and tapestry for hundreds of years so proud to feech were modern ones and very antique ones and showcase fashion from the community and we are inviting everybody to come experience that with us.

>> the center not only caters to the filipino community, but welcome all who wish to learn about and embrace this culture. >> we want to develop a cultural district where you have the young generation learn their history, language and culture and where you have also the seniors be part of the cultural and share their stories and their traditions, and continue to grow young in the neighborhood. >> the intersection of technology and culture in this part of san francisco provides a unique back drop for a thriving community embracing the past while looking to the future. the filipino influence ingrained in soma serves as remindser of the power of cultural diversity and importance of celebrating in importance of celebrating in

hi, i'm chris and you are watching san francisco rising. this is about rebuilding and reimaging the city. we will talk about revitalizing downtown. >> thank you for having me. >> the initiatives in the downtown area and enjoy

businesses. perhaps you can tell us about your plan. >> yeah, sure. well, you know, first i'd like to acknowledge we are here visiting union scare. this is the heart of the city and people come to celebrate life's greatest moments whether it's the holidays or buying your prom dress or getting married. you always think about union square as a place to celebrate. we would like to continue in that celebration especially postpandemic. this is a great place to celebrate life. we want to be creative getting people outdoors. we are still coming out of the pandemic and enjoying what we have to offer think about the beautiful hotel and historic district. we have world class shopping destinations and theater here

we are using our strike thattic plan there was a time when weus people want r want a bit of everything appeared experience. one of the newest initiatives is union square. in you come down you will see blooms cascading from hotel awnings and blooms on historic building fronts. you will see them on bus stops. you can go to many of our restaurants and they have cocktails. they have food and of course, being connected withification we have our bloom gown that's behind me. so, a announcement f

ways to celebrate blooms. this is another great time of year for union square we are kickoff the holiday celebrations. they bring out the animal window. we have ice skating. music is another great way to come and enjoy union scare. we are a recipient of the latest grant. this is bringing it into the public life. we are doing it here. this is in our park. it's really show this is great when it comes to music.

>> we have been ignoring the fact for the districts it's a pretty common place across the country and opportunity to transform our spaces. >> yeah, i agree with you 100%. >> we have 13,000 hotel rooms. what if we had a school or soccer this is something we couldn't do before. our rates prior to the pandemic was under10%. we are higher now. >> we have businesses like cable car a lot of history and innovation here as well. we want to be ready for the

opportunities. this is where some office spaces will come. we are seeing office leases in union square. the cable car comes through it. why not come to work in a vibrant space. >> a lot of the businesses have been remarkably resilient. can you share success stories and talk about how they have been supporting them. >> this aligned with what i just said about historic neighborhoods. they have seen everything from the great depression on. in fact, the earthquake of 1906. we have been around for hundreds of years. celebrating 116th birthday. open to the public in october. they are not gone. they are just down the street a beautiful store where people

find great fabrics. contemrare just here on powell street. a lot of the luxury retailers are expanding neighborhood print. >> we talk about the area with a rich history. what about the spaces and stronger sense of community. >> yeah, you know. i have to say these challenging times brought the community together. we had a unique opportunity here. was an opportunity to look at the district and assess where we might need something. we need a bit more of everything. we broke it down into different categories. we looked at economic

development and change offering. people were accessing, you know, nightlife, food, or shopping differently out of the pandemic. we wanted to look at marketing and what it meant to get the news out about what we were doing in the district. looking at our own organize as well and what we would need to get that out there. also creating a safe space. we are creating a safe and secure area. our locals in particular you can go shopping anywhere in the bay area. any of those places will look like any other place. in san francisco, you are somewhere special. this is a unique place and we needed to get it right. we have done that work and

continue to support our district and see different ways to do business here. to be creative and innovative. we were able to change the planning code to make it more flexible to do business here. we are the c3r. we have three floors of retail maybe today we don't want two levels maybe we just want one level instead of too much retail we need a school or something else. very exciting times and really interesting people and ideas. >> that's great. >> so, i guess, finally, what do you have for san francisco residents and businesses to be apart of this. >> this is the gateway of san

francisco. it only drives. right now, we are so many and still love our great city and what we would like to see. this is san francisco and the residents. look around, have a coffee. listen to music on the weekends. we have so much to offer union square. with that, support these businesses. we have a number of openings, a number of businesses betting on union square. in fact, we have a new hotel. the owner is from back of house, that's the name of the organize. they brought us several other residents and now this wonderful restaurant, i

italian restaurant. this is on top of the old restaurant. it will have a rooftop and one of the largest in san francisco. it's a london based business abdomen and betting on n square. we have a great bar scene popping up and speak easy and pch. hawthorne, school. this is the place to come down and enjoy. come, don't forget union square is the place to be. certainly in the years to come. a very difficult time of course for any major city. we are dealing with the same thing. explore and support our businesses here. we'll continue to thrive. come on down, you will be wildly, also surprised at how beautiful it is since we are still blooming. >> thank you, that's great.

it's great to hear your optimistic outlook on restoring this part of time. >> thank you for having me and taking a little time to showcase our heart of san francisco. >> thanks again. >> thank you. >> that's it for this episode. we'll be back with another one shortly. thank you for watching. >> (music). >> hi, i'm emmy the owner of emmy's spaghetti i offers working that with some kind of fine dining and apron and feeling stuffy and in the 90s in san francisco it was pretty pretense in a restaurant in the

restaurant scene i want to it have a place to have a place for my friends to guess i started the restaurant a no better place the outer mission spaces were available that's when i opt in two 10 he start with all people and work with them and the events they create one of the events we do every year and backpack give away and give piaget away and a christmas part with a santa and bring 5 hundred meatballs and pa get and we're like in the mission not about them knowing where the food comes from but a part of the

community. and my restaurant emmy's spaghetti and fun banquet and san francisco not the thing that everybody knows about we stay under the radar we show the showcase i take it food and we started to eat we wanted to have comfort food and that a claims friend from i take it and helped me create meatballs and dealing evolved over the years in the beginning one plate of spaghetti and a meatball we tried to make the portions as big as they could be. and now we have quite a few types pasta dishes with a la begin and meat sauce or have

a partition to a lot of food we are at a point with all the favorites i don't change the menu often 0 i eat here so much but everything is fresh your cocktail menu is the best it's ever been one thing on the menu our magazine ghetto we change the flavor one of the fun things it is served in the historically we're known emmy's spaghetti as a friendly place and when i opened i wanted my friend to be welcome and other parents to be welcomed and it is very for this is a place for families especially in san francisco and this is where though hold their celebration important i mean you're coming to a family restaurant and you're coming for

o to a fun place i love being the owner and pretty sure my life i enjoy running the psta spaghetti place i hope to be here a while we'll see how it goes we everyone is a friend we're hoping you'll be a ♪♪ >> san francisco! ♪♪

>> this is an exhibition across departments highlighting different artworks from our collection. gender is an important part of the dialogue. in many ways, this exhibition is contemporary. all of this artwork is from the 9th century and spans all the way to the 21st century. the exhibition is organized into seven different groupings or themes such as activities, symbolism, transformation and others. it's not by culture or time period, but different affinities between the artwork. activities, for example, looks at the role of gender and how certain activities are placed as feminine or masculine. we have a print by uharo that

looks at different activities that derisionly performed by men. it's looking at the theme of music. we have three women playing traditional japanese instruments that would otherwise be played by men at that time. we have pairings so that is looking within the context of gender in relationships. also with how people are questioning the whole idea of pairing in the first place. we have three from three different cultures, tibet, china and japan. this is sell vanity stot relevar has been fluid in different time periods in cultures. sometimes being female in china but often male and evoking features associated with gender binaries and sometimes in

between. it's a lovely way of tying all the themes together in this collection. gender and sexuality, speaking from my culture specifically, is something at that hasn't been recently widely discussed. this exhibition shows that it's gender and sexuality are actually have been considered and complicated by dialogue through the work of artists and thinking specifically, a sculpture we have of the hindu deities because it's half pee male and half male. it turns into a different theme in a way and is a beautiful representation of how gender hasn't been seen as one thing or a binary. we see that it isn't a modest concept.

in a way, i feel we have a lot of historical references and touch points throughout all the ages and in asian cultures. i believe san francisco has close to 40% asian. it's a huge representation here in the bay area. it's important that we awk abouk about this and open up the discussion around gender. what we've learned from organizing this exhibition at the museum is that gender has been something that has come up in all of these cultures through all the time periods as something that is important and relevant. especially here in the san francisco bay area we feel that it's relevant to the conversations that people are having today. we hope that people can carry that outside of the museum into their daily lives.

when i shoot chinatown, i shoot the architecture that people not just events, i shoot what's going on in daily life and everything changes. murals, graffiti, store opening. store closing. the bakery. i shoot anything and everything in chinatown. i shoot daily life. i'm a crazy animal. i'm shooting for fun.

that's what i love. >> i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer for the last i think about 20 years. i joined the chinese historical society. it was a way i could practice my society and i can give the community memories. i've been practicing and get to know everybody and everybody knew me pretty much documenting the history i don't just shoot events. i'm telling a story in whatever photos that i post on facebook, it's just like being there from

front to end, i do a good job and i take hundreds and hundreds of photos. and i was specializing in chinese american history. i want to cover what's haening in chinatown. what's happening in my community. i shoot a lot of government officials. i probably have thousands of photos of mayor lee and all the dignitaries. but they treat me like one of the family members because they see me all the time. they appreciate me. even the local cops, the firemen, you know, i feel at home. i was born in chinese hospital 1954. we grew up dirt poor. our family was lucky to grew up. when i was in junior high, i had a degree in hotel management restaurant.

i was working in the restaurant business for probably about 15 years. i started when i was 12 years old. when i got married, my wife had an import business. i figured, the restaurant business, i got tired of it. i said come work for the family business. i said, okay. it's going to be interesting and so interesting i lasted for 30 years. i'm married i have one daughter. she's a registered nurse. she lives in los angeles now. and two grandsons. we have fun. i got into photography when i was in junior high and high school. shooting cameras. the black and white days, i was able to process my own film. i wasn't really that good because you know color film and

processing was expensive and i kind of left it alone for about 30 years. i was doing product photography for advertising. and kind of got back into it. everybody said, oh, digital photography, the year 2000. it was a ghost town in chinatown. i figured it's time to shoot chinatown store front nobody. everybody on grand avenue. there was not a soul out walking around chinatown. a new asia restaurant, it used to be the biggest restaurant in chinatown. it can hold about a 1,000 people and i had been shooting

events there for many years. it turned into a supermarket. and i got in. i shot the supermarket. you know, and its transformation. even the owner of the restaurant the restaurant, it's 50 years old. i said, yeah. it looks awful. history. because i'm shooting history. and it's impressive because it's history because you can't repeat. it's gone it's gone. >> you stick with her, she'll teach you everything. >> cellphone photography, that's going to be the generation. i think cellphones in the next two, three years, the big cameras are obsolete already. mirrorless camera is going to take over market and the cellphone is going to be

better. but nobody's going to archive it. nobody's going to keep good history. everybody's going to take snapshots, but nobody's going to catalog. they don't care. >> i want to see you. >> it's not a keepsake. there's no memories behind it. everybody's sticking in the cloud. they lose it, who cares. but, you know, i care. >> last september of 2020, i had a minor stroke, and my daughter caught it on zoom. i was having a zoom call for my grand kids. and my daughter and my these little kids said, hey, you

sound strange. yeah. i said i'm not able to speak properly. they said what happened. my wife was taking a nap and my daughter, she called home and said he's having a stroke. get him to the hospital. five minutes later, you know, the ambulance came and took me away and i was at i.c.u. for four days. i have hundreds of messages wishing me get well soon. everybody wished that i'm okay and back to normal. you know, i was up and kicking two weeks after my hospital stay. it was a wake-up call. i needed to get my life in order and try to organize things especially organize my

photos. >> probably took two million photos in the last 20 years. i want to donate to an organization that's going to use it. i'm just doing it from the heart. i enjoy doing it to give back to the community. that's the most important. give back to the community. >> it's a lot for the community. >> i was a born hustler. i'm too busy to slow down. i love what i'm doing. i love to be busy. i go nuts when i'm not doing anything. i'm 67 this year. i figured 70 i'm ready to retire. i'm wishing to train a couple for photographers to take over my place. the younger generation, they have a passion, to document the

history because it's going to be forgotten in ten years, 20 years, maybe i will be forgotten when i'm gone in a couple years but i want to be remembered for my work and, you know, photographs will be a remembrance. i'm frank jane. i'm a community photographer. this is my story. >> when you're not looking, frank's there. he'll snap that and then he'll send me an e-mail or two and they're always the best. >> these are all my p p p p p p

. it's my united center to the public for which it stands one nation under god indivisible liberty and justice for all present i would like to take roll please. >> commissioner clay mr. benedicto president. commissioner jonas as a commissioner you hear vice