Emergency declared due to covid19 and the City Commission and chamer will is closed. The mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws and to boards and commissions hold hearings remotely. On april 3, 2020, the Planning Commission received permission to convene remotely and pertaining to infrastructure, housing, and Small Businesses. This will be our seventh remote hearing. Further more, the Mayors Office authorized the Planning Commission to meet jointly with the recreation and Park Commission later this afternoon. I am requesting everyones patience inned a vance. The merged platforms are not perfect and at times may even become clumsy. If you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn your video camera off. To not hit any controls that may effect other participants. To enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the toll free number at the bottom of the screen. Comments or opportunities to speak during the Public Comment are available by calling 8882733658. Punching in access code 3107452. Then pound and pound again. When directed, you should hit 1 and 0 to be entered into the queue to submit your public testimony. Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When the allotted time is reached, i will announce that the time is up and direct the staff to take the next person queued to speak. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and please mute the volume on your television or computer. At this time i would like to take roll, and that was a classic example of people should mute their microphones. [taking of roll] thank you, commissioners. First on the agenda is items proposed for continuance. Item 1, 2020003041pca for review and process planning code amendments are proposed for continuance to may 28, 2020. Item 2, 201901421ddrp at 667 mississippi street, discussion area review is proposed to may 4, 2020. And items 3a andb for case 2017009796drp and var discretionary review and variance are proposed to june 4, 2020. Item 4, 201902151drp03 for 486 duncan street is proposed to continuance to june 4, 2020. An item five, 2016003164gpa prothosed for the Health Care Services master plan to june 4, 2020. Item six, 2020001294cua at 2441 mission street, initial use authorization is proposed to july 9, 2020. Item 7, case 201901421drp at 457 mariaposa street, discretionary review is proposed to july 9, 2020. Items 8a and 8b for 2018008397cua and var at 2005 17th street and conditional authorization and to postpone to july 9, 2020. Item 9, 2019005176cua at 722 steiner street is proposed to continue to july 16, 2020. Items 10a and b for 2020000052pca and the standard environmental requirements and standard environmental requirements related to air quality code amendments are proposed for jont 30, 2020. Finally, commissioner, item 11, case 2017011214cu, at 9 apollo street, conditional use authorization, is proposed for an indefinite continuance. That is all i have proposed for continuance. And we should take Public Comment, so if we can go to q a. [operator speaking] mrepress 1 and 0 to speak. Members of the public, this is the opportunity to get in the queue by punching in 1 and 0. We will take those persons who would like to submit testimony on the matters proposed for continuance, only on the matter of continuance. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is mark willburg on behalf of the sponsor for one of the dr matters asking you to hear the item today. This project has been pending since 2017 and the team has worked in close coordination with the staff. The d. R. Request was filed in my january and we are already into mid may. This is the second time we have been continued without a hearing. We agreed to the first continuance at the request of the dr requester. Assuming it would only be a month. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to hold the hearing today and present in moderate size 24unit, mixed Income Project now instead of having to wait another few weeks. Thank you for your time. You have zero questions remaining. Clerk very good, commissioners. The mater is now before you. Do i hear a motion . Commissioner johnson . Commissioner thanks. Just to the commenter who asked to be heard today. Unfortunately, we dont have the packets in front of us, so i would just personally say i wouldnt be able to hear that case today, so for that reason i would move to continue item 1 through 11 to the date specified. Second. Clerk there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60. Placing us under the consent calendar. All matters listed hereunder constitute Consent Agenda and are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission, 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. In this particular case if anything does get pulled off of consent, it will be heard at the end of todays agenda or continued to a future hearing date. Item 12, case 201801668cua at 585 Howard Street, conditional use authorization. Item 13, 2019013418cua at 526 columbus avenue, conditional use authorization. Item 14, 2020001384cua at 1650 polk street, conditional use authorization. And item 15, 2020003090cua at 1299 sanchez street conditional use authorization. We can hear someone if you are not speaking, please silence your microphone. Thank you. Much appreciated. Commissioner, we should take Public Comment for anyone who would wish to pull any of these items off of consent, including commissioners. Lets go to q a. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to press 1 and then 0 to enter the queue for any item you would wish to wul pull off of consent. A you have one question remaining. Hi. This is Julian Castro from the 1088 Howard Street project. I know that the commissioners just voted to continue this this is not for comment for 1088, howard. But this is for matters proposed for continuance. Im sorry. I couldnt control my phone. I just wanted to thank the commissioners for your service and thank you for the continuance. Thank you. Linda chapman, noting hill neighbors. I would like to comment on 1650 polk. I dont want to delay it or oppose it. Ms. Chapman, please be advised if we pull any of the items from consent, they will be heard at the end of todays agenda which we expect to go very late or will be continued to another hearing date. Thank you. We will then pull that item and hear it at the end of todays agenda. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The mater is now before you. Commissioner moore. An i move to approve itemed 12, 13, 14, and 15 on the consent calendar. Commissioner moore, we did receive a request to take item 14 off of consent. I heard ms. Chapman saying that she just wanted to voice support, but that is all i heard. I did not feel that she was asking to take it off consent. That is kind of what i heard as well, jonas. Okay. Very good. I must have missed that part of it. Very good, then, commissioners. Is there a second . Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion, then to approve all item under your consent calendar. [calling of roll] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60. Placing us under commission matters, item 16, consideration of adoption for draft minutes may i please be heard, commissioners . I put myself in the queue. And i was unable to be heard at the time that you were dealing with 200 517 street. Can you hear me now . We can. Were not dealing with 200517 17th street. That is items on consent. An it was not on consent. I put myself in the queue to be heard at the time you were doing the continuance for that. I do not oppose the continuance. But i wanted to make a record and request it be moved to a closer date. I was unable to get the phone to function or was not listened to and tried to be heard at that time. So i would ask the commission to please allow me to be heard on that issue now. And i will state my appearance and herbert terrei, attorney for the homeowner at 2005 17th street. Will the commission allow me to make a brief statement on the record regarding that and request a closer hearing date . You just did. Thank you. It is a matter of extreme hardship for the homeowner to be delaying this. We do not oppose the continuance because it was requested by the tenant, and we were told that we would be getting a date of either june 4 or june 11. Were fine with june 11 or any other date that we can get before the end of june, but it is a hardship for the homeowner. Okay, commissioners. I dont know if any of you would like to go back to items to continuance. If i dont hear an order, i will go given as you call it, jonas, the clumsiness of the technology, i am willing to consider a continuance if the understanding was it would be continued to early june and now to later july assuming we have room on the calendar before july. An i am not sure who he spoke to as far as an early june date. But i dont know if thats just an assumption, but i never provided him with any other date. Your june calendar, commissioner, is the continuance to today has really impacted the future hearing agendas from the mayor. This is why these items and the smaller items are being pushed to a date much further out that had previously been anticipated. You can add to it to any hearing you would like, commissioner, but please keep in mind they are all impacted by other projects due to the remote hearing schedule, due to the continuance of a massive project, and the joint hearing today. Again, any hearing you would like to continue it to, we can do that, but just keep in mind it will extend any hearing in june. Allow me to just add the planning person sir, sir, your opportunity to speak is over. I did receive an email regarding the 4th or the 11th. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore, you may be on mute. Yes, i was. I apologize. The if we are talking about the 1088 Howard Street project. Is that correct . No, i dont believe he is speaking to this last this last person is speaking to 17th street. An oh, 17th street. I am sorry. Forget my comment. Seeing no other further comments, commissioners, i dont hear a desire to reconsider the continuance for 17th street. I will ask that the acting Zoning Administrator please continue the variance items under the continuance calendar at the time. President so continued. Clerk thank you, commissioners. That will place us back under your commission matters. If i recall correctly, we left off on item we left off on item 16 for consideration of adoption of draft minutes from may 7, 2020. We should take Public Comment on this. Please open the q a. Press 1 and 0. Again, members of the public, if you wish to comment on the draft minutes, please push 1 and 0. We are taking Public Comment only on the draft minutes at this time. No calls. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is before you. Commissioner johnsson. Move to approve draft minutes. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the minutes from may 7, 2020. [taking roll call on draft minutes] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes 60. Commissioner, item 17 is commission comments and questions. Seeing no requests to speak, we can move on to department matters. A commissioners, good afternoon. I wanted to follow up on a request last week to get more information on a bill moving through the state legislature. So we sent a memo this morning and you should have received it from Ann Marie Rogers who was also posted with the agenda on tomorrow for next weeks agenda. Basically out of line there are a number of bills moving through the process, but bills at the state level will need to be moved out of their house of origin by june 19, so relatively short timeline. And also is a press release issued by tony atkins who is the Senate President highlighting five bills that have taken priority in regard to others that are moving forward. So we can eventually provide more information on those five bills as they work their way through the process. I just wanted to give you some initial information on the request agenda next week. That is all i have. Very good, commissioners. We will go to item 19, review of the past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission and there are actually no reports to review. Good afternoon, supervisors. Aaron star, manager of legislate uf affairs. At this weeks Land Use Committee hearing, there were no Planning Department items and at the full board this week, supervisor manelmans conditional use authorization requirement for unAffordable Housing passed the second read, and the new colleague on the Planning Commission dylan chan was approved by the full board. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Starr. If there are no questions for mr. Starr, we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission expect agenda item. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. When the numberover speakers exceed the 15minute limit, the general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. We will open up q a. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into queue by punching one and then zero. You have four questions remaining. My concern i mentioned earlier is names of neighborhood support and notification and so on, not with regard to that project, and i will have to defer that away from this for three minutes. Anyway, i did promise you when i came to oppose the project and tried to appeal that you certainly would have had support from the neighbors regarding the no parking. And just as a courtesy i will briefly mention that i dont have the traffic engineers report at this time, but i had a summary of it, and essentially the study that we paid for of a condo luxury condo indicated that 72 units of condos generated 13 blocks of traffic to the homes with comparison to a Single Family home. Our neighborhood cant afford that kind of congestion and it is at least a benefit to eliminate parking wherever you can. Otherwise, the fact that it exceeds the height limits that we established is certainly a concern. And i was assured when i first heard that an 87foot building was proposed there, the staff assured me that 65 feet was the height limit there and all of the surrounding district. [inaudible] covered a whole number of years if we were able to present things as we normally would, i would show you the state Assembly Proclamation created for the various height limit reductions we did in order to save Affordable Housing principally. Between 1980 and 1986, but we began in the mid 70s and that is probably when this came in and more in the 90s and to suddenly hear that the height limit was raise and to find this out in may after the project was approved this really comes as a shock and i have been trying to get a map from your stages and emailed me things that were not useful and finally say i will have to come over there. And then the shutdown occurred. I continued to ask for copies of maps and when did i get a map showing they had raised the height to 80 feets or whatever it is . May. And not only that, they raised the height on they, somebody, raised the height on part of my block and on other areas around here. This gerrymandered and spot zoning. There is only one block on polk street with the height that is not 65 feet. How convenient. You can see that every other building thats opinion built on polk street was within the 65 foot limit. And there were reasons which i think i explained to you last time why that is important. And then, you know, to have you have six questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jason henderson. I want to speak generally about how you do ceqa analysis and specifically the vmt impacts. The department defends the use of threshold of significance of 14. 5 miles a day to analyze per capita daily vehicle miles traveled. It claims threshold is adequate because with it aligns with the regional Sustainable Community strategist and also reflects recommendations, but not requirements, established by the state. Well, the sfc, the Sustainable Community for the bay area has failed to reduce vmt and associated transportation emissions across the state. All of these Sustainable Community strategies are not working. Vmt is up and so are Carbon Emissions from cars. You can see that in the California Air Resources Board 2018 Progress Report on sb375. Why does the Planning Department use a failed mode to defend the use of a suburban threshold of significance . The states recommendation on selecting a vmt threshold of significance is advisory,. It is not required. San francisco can choose a threshold more appropriate for dense transit rich, bikable, walkable areas of our city. San francisco can choose a threshold of zero or something more in line with the per capita vmt of 2, 3, or 4 miles per day in the denser parts of the urban core. The vmt metric if operationalized correctly defines the problem as driving. Mitigation would be things that reduce driving like not providing parking or making streets car free. The Department Even admits that less or even zero parking reduces vmt. So given the urgency of our climate emergency, vision zero goals, Citywide Mobility goals of 80 noncar mode share and the threshold of 14 miles a day is very contradictory. I would urge the Planning Commission to take this issue up this year and revise the citys transportation analysis to reflect thresholds of significance that reflect the density and multimobile nature of our city. I thank you for your consideration on that matter. You have five questions remaining. Good afternoon, Commission President koppel and fellow commissioners i am district bay tenant calling you from noi valley. Preserving our existing Housing Stock is key to keeping housing affordable as the economy is spiraling downward worldwide and our budgets take a drastic hit. As commissioners, you evaluate, deliberate, shape, and decide which projects to move forward each week without knowing for sure if a property is tenant occupied or has ever been tenant occupied. Thats one reason why planning staff and housing advocates are coming together to create a Housing Inventory formally dubbed rental registry. A Housing Inventory would provide the department and the public with the kind of data needed to make analysis studies and provide the basis for informed planning policy decisions. Most of all, it would ensure that all tenants given a measure of protection from eviction and displacement from their Affordable Housing units when Developers Seek your approval of projects to file for a Building Permit application. I hope every commissioner and the planning director recognizes the value of a Housing Inventory and supports one. Second, the housing balance report for april 2020 has yet to be presented to the commission and the public. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. Hi. This is laura foot from n. B. Action. I would like to i didnt know we were working on a local rental registry, but the commission should also know there is a statewide bill moving forward by Assembly Member buffy wix for a statewide registry and it might be helpful for the commission to do a resolution to support that effort especially considering that tenants rights are much looser enforced and much worse in other parts of the state. But the other thing i wasnt able to dial in properly, i guess, for 10a and 10b. Given that every department is being asked to make extreme budget cuts and being asked to do things more efficiently, i think it is not a great idea to postpone things like 10a and 10b that will help the Department Work more efficiently and be able to do the same things but with more efficient decision making. It is not a great idea to postpone that in what seems like kind of indefinitely a you have to july 30. These are the kind of things that the department should definitely be seeking to do given that theyre going to be increasing budget constraints. And really we can permit the same we have been talking for a long time about doing things more efficiently. And doing things to make the Department Work better to permit the same and more housing with less amount of sort of make work of paper work and that is especially true with the Environmental Review in the city. There is no reason for our ceqa process to be three times is what Jennifer Hernandez estimates other jurisdictions put into their ceqa findings. I also hope that you all see that permitting housing is going to be a key component of an equitable recovery. Especially market rate housing allowing especially Small Projects to move forward without delay is going to ensure that we are able to do as much o as we can to have Counter Cyclical to bring forward to the city. I think the economics are really different than we were six months ago. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. Is the member of the public prepared to submit their testimony . Caller hello . Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Sarah ogilvy with nb action. Housing construction is key and and is causing overcrowding and the Current Public Health crisis. And my district is devastated to covid19 and overcrowding and lack of sufficient units for essential workers have been identified by supervisor ronen at a recent virtual listening session as playing a major part in the impact. I am disappointed that supervisor rose rose has agreed to hear an appeal that was unanimously approved by this commission on april 23. General Infrastructure Projects play a huge part in increasing the Housing Stock in San Francisco. With large scale and opposing rezoning, upzoning and cooking the legacy of exclusion and concern for vulnerable populations. Comfortably housed people need to make greater good and Housing Demand for construction in historically exclusive areas. Thank you. I am a resident who wanted to build on what the last caller had to say and look out my window in district five and a lot of Single Family homes and a lot of empty parking lots. A lot of completely empty lots where we could have housing and district five has parts of it that are wealthy and very comfortably house and near the best public park in the country. And there is a ton of opportunity here and also we need those neighbors. We need when i look down visedero and will they come back . And what will help is more residents and more construction workers who can go to grab lunch in the middle of the shift. And what we can be doing to keep the housing and improve projects whether there are a couple of neighbors and to have housing built for the most vulnerable and as another previous way to save the budget. And new housing has brought in billions of dollars to the city budget over the last decade. So we will really need that money now. Understand that every project is opposed by a couple of neighbors but we need this housing for equity sake and safety sake and need it for the budget and dont have to lay off a bunch of muni drivers and lay off a bunch of teachers. And we need Public Housing and we needed it yesterday. Thank you and please continue to approve projects. Good afternoon, commissioners. I would like to draw your attention to the announcement that was made by major employer in San Francisco and their employees are allowed to work from home forever. That alone with the same announcement from twitter made a few weeks ago should give some pause to the plannings business as usual. If the highly paid white collar workers are no longer required to show up daily at the effect, they are effectively liberated to live anywhere including more affordable areas. So this begs the question, who are you approving these entitlements for . Sure, we keep hearing the same rap we have been hearing for years from speculators lobby. They are titled to their opinion and Everybody Needs a job so it is expected for them to lobby. This is not right. It is widely been reported that the stock market has been hunting while our unemployment right raits have been climbing. By one account, stocks have rallied 30 off the march lows even in the middle of this terrible Economic Data and in gloomy earnings prospects. This means one thing and regarding the current exodus facing San Francisco, they tied up the investor class and the ability of foreign cal tap was not and will not be curved any time soon. And once again, who are you approving the projects for . I urge you to please ask the Planning Department to take a nexus study to assess the situation underground and figure out the impact of covid19 on the economy of San Francisco and exodus that we are facing right now. This is not just people being evicted and talking about people laid off from the white collar jobs, 20 airbnb workers, or the people who are freed up to live anywhere. So once again, i believe that whatever were doing right now is and incidentally, the previous, i dont know who was it that mentioned the legislation to borrow the term from senter to biden is a whole bunch of mularkey. It is basically saying owners of five plus apartments five plus units are required to register their buildings. Well, in San Francisco that requirement is for four plus units. We are really dont need that bunch and we do need thank you. Thanks. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. And there is no more Public Comment and to move on to the regular calendar. And please bear with me as i read the items into the record. Item 20, case 201500940env, 20170080151env, 2016014802env and the hub plan, 30 van ness avenue project, 98 franklin Street Project and the hub housing sustainability district. The Public Comment period for the draft eir ended on september 9, 2019. Public comment will be received. However, comment submitted may not be included in the final eir. 21201500940env for the market octavia area plan amendment and ceqa findings. Item 2a through e for 2015o 00940gpa, pca01, 02, and map, and 02, and the cwp02 with the adoption of amendments to the planning code, adoption of amendments to the zoning map, adoption of amendments to the tax regulation code and the planning code and adoption of an implementation program. Staff, are you prepared to present oh, and just for clarification, commissioners, we will be taking up these matters together. However, we will be if we get to the point to certify the Environmental Impact report separately and take up the remaining items related to the planned amendment. Staff, are you prepared to present . Jonas, just before they speak, i want to make a couple of introductory comments for this item. The commission knows and the public that the project before you is an amendment to the existing market octavia plan that was originally adopted back in 2008. It is a relatively small area which is already zoned for high density housing but has the potential to provide an additional 1600 Housing Units including 400 affordable units and other important Public Benefits. We acknowledge that this effort was launched prior our department, racial and social Equity Initiatives and our prior tiization before i started and you asked me to have the coalition who raised concerns around the issues and the plans potential impact to the vulnerable population in and adjacent to the plan area. Over the last couple of months we have met with many in the coalition to hear and address their concerns. We havent agreed on the issues, but we have made substantial changes to the plan as well as commitment to enhance our work and ensure that plan doesnt result in additional housing but addresses issues of equity especially as they relate to housing, affordability, housing stability, Small Business retention, and ensuring that the Public Benefits from this plan respond to the needs of the current residents and the plan area and the surrounding neighborhoods including the mission, tenderloin, as well as the Western Addition who havent been enacted in these discussions. We believe the value in the plan is in the comprehensive approach and the complete suite of Public Benefits if approved. Our Community Engagement effort wills continue as we move forward to build the improvements envisioned in the plan. We look forward to continued Community Engagement as we shape the implementation. I am happy to answer questions during your deliberation about the discussions we have had and the changes to the plan. You will get more information and details during the staff presentation. So with that i will turn it over. I have a question. Commissioner moore, do you have a comment . Does the commission on their own decide whether or not to pool all items into one and whether or not the commission discusses what they see as being advantageous for that rather complex matter . Commissioners, i believe you have the option of determining how you vote on the matter. The only strong recommendation i have and as does the City Attorneys Office is to separate the certification of the final impact and how you take up the remaining matters is entirely up to you. Perhaps we can raise that issue when we can get to them. I had so many questions with no ability to really engage and that is only my opinion at the moment. Staff, are you prepared to present . I am. We can see your image, but you havent shared your screen yet . Good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. I am alaina from Planning Department staff and coordinator for the eir or Environmental Impact report for the hub plan 30 van ness avenue project, 98 franklin Street Project and hub housing sustainability ability. It is a long title for when eir and i will generally refer to it as the hub plan eir as sake of clarify before presenting. First, the hub plan eir which i will present on and the second is the van ness mixed use eir scheduled to be heard for certification later on. The department has heard there is some confusion about why the mixed use project has its own eir and is also in the hub plan eir. The 10 south van ness is analyzed programmatically in the hub plan eir and at a project specific level in the 10 south use mixed project eir. It was submitted two years before the hub plan eir was defined. Later they approached the project sponsor team and encouraged them to participate in the hub plan eir where the 10 south van ness project would be analyzed as an individual project at a project specific level similar to how the projects at 30 van ness avenue and 98 franklin street would be analyzed. The sponsor team decline and stated their preference to continue to have their own independent project level e. I. R. To maintain flexibility and as the 10 south project site is always part of the hub plan effort, it was analyzed at a programmatic level as one of the 18 sites in the hub plan eir and 110 south van ness eir continued on its other schedule. And the 10 south began the Environmental Review prior to hub plan. And now i will move on to the hub plan and 98 Street Project and housing sustainability direct and for brevity sake, i will refer to it as the hub plan eir. I am the staff and will be joined by other Staff Members. After i conclude my presentation on the eir, my colleagues will make their presentation. Today staff brings the following items for the commissions consideration. First, to certify the Environmental Impact record. Then adopt the California Environmental quality act findings and adopt resolutions recommending approval of general plan amendments, planning code amendments, zoning map amendments, planning code, and business and tax regulation code amendments and implementation program. For my presentation i will first go into a project overview and touch on the Environmental Review with key dates, significant and unavoidable impact, alternatives and clarification about Population Estimates used in the eir and finally a staff recommendation. This eir contains both analysis at Program Level and project level. Programmatic analysis was conducted for the hub plan which proposes to amendment the market and octavia area plan and for the housing sustainability district, hsd which would be passed by the board of supervisors ordinance. Per the California Environmental quality act guidelines a program eir is appropriate for a project that will involve a series of actions that are, one, related geographically, two, logical parts in a chain of contemplated abs. Three, connected as part of a continuing program. And four, carried out under the same authorizing statute or Regulatory Authority and have similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Project Level Analysis was conducted for the hub plan streetscape and Street Network improvements and two individual projects at 30 van ness and 98 franklin street. This map shows the location of the hub plan in San Francisco in the upper left corner. The red line of the main map shows the boundary of market and octavia area plan and the yellow is the hub plan area. The eir evaluates designations of portion rs or all of the hub plan area as the housing sustainability district. The two individual projects are called out in the hub plan area. 30 van ness avenue and 98 franklin street. The project would also excuse me. Zoning districts. The eir evaluated extending the downtown general commercial, the c3g district to the whole of the hub area. The only exception is retention of two existing sites zoned public p and rezoning four parcels of p. The four parcels are publicly owned and under the 101 freeway. The project could also extend the van ness and market residential special use district to the whole of the hub area. The eir analyzed the potential effects of increasing the maximum height for 18 sites. The figure on the left is the existing height and bulk zoning and the figure on the right is the maximum height studied in the e. I. R. The 18 individual sites are in the yellow dots. There are two individual project, 30 van ness and 98 franklin street which i will denail a moment and 16 sites studied a programmatic level. Streets highlighted in blue have proposed at a project specific level in the eir. 30 van ness. The first individual project i will detail is 30 van ness for which you will hear more this afternoon at the joint recreation and Parks Commission and Planning Commission hearing and later for the commission. This figure shows the north and west elevation. The site has frontages along market and van ness avenue. The eir analyzed at project specific detail retaining portions of the office story retail building and constructing a 520 foot tall, 47 story mixed use building with the podium and ground floor retail and stores above that for office space and a residential tour with up to 610 residential unit. The eir stead u studied below grade basement levels and 148 Parking Spaces. 98 franklin street with the west and north elevations of the project. The project site has frontages along franklin, oak, and Market Street. The eir analyzed at a project specific level demolishing 100 space parking lot and constructing a 365 foot tall, 36 story, mixed use building which would have a fivestory podium to be podium to be occupied by the International High school which is grades 912 of the frenchamerican international school. And would accommodate the relocation of 380 students at 150 oak street site and when completed the development would accommodate an additional 60 students and up to five Staff Members for a total 440 students and 65 Staff Members. Above the fivestory podium would be a 31story residential tower with 345 residential units. The eir studied three below grade basement levels and 111 vehicle Parking Spaces. Next i will detail the Environmental Review conducted for the project. The key dates. The notice of preparation of an Environmental Impact report was published may 23, 2018. An eir scoping meeting was held june 12, 2018. The draft eir was published july 24, 2019. A public hearing on the draft eir was august 29, 2019. The Public Comment period on the draft eir closed september 9, 2019, and was a total of 48 days. The responses to comment document was published on march 12, 2020. And it was published april 20, 2020. And today we are hear for the eir certification hearing and it is may 21, 2020. The responses to comment document and combination with the draft eir comes to the final eir. Significant and unavoidable impacts. This table summarizes the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. You will see the hub plan with plan level or programmatic impacts. And the two individual projects with project level impacts identified. For all three components we also present the impacts under the cumulative scenario and that components contribution. Access to the summary table are impacts with the hub hsd, the housing stimulating district, and the streetscape networks as the eir found no significant and unavobd voidable impacts would occur from those components and focuses on the significant and unavoidable impacts. First, under Cultural Resources the hub plan at a plan level and cumulatively would have a significant and unavoidable even with the application and mitigation and impact on the built environment. For transportation, the hub plan would have an impact that would be significant and unavoidable after the implementation of excuse me, after the application of mitigation, there would be significant and unavoidable impact at a plan level and a cumulatively considerable level for construction. Similarly t30 van ness avenue project and 98 franklin Street Project would have significant and unavoidable after the application and mitigation impacts related to construction. The hub plan would have significant and unavoidable loading impacts at both the plan level and cumulatively. Significant and unavoidable and no feasible mitigation that could be applied. The hub plan at a plan level and cumulatively and 30 van ness avenue and 98 franklin street cumulatively would have significant and unavoidable impact even after the application of mitigation during construction. For air quality the pub plan would have plan level and cumulative impacts for operational criteria air pollutant and Operational Health risk and those impacts would be significant and unavoidable after the application of mitigation. For wind, the hub plan, 30 van ness avenue and 98 franklin street, cumulatively would have significant and unavoidable impacts after the application and mitigation. For shadow, the impacts for the hub plan at a plan level and cumulatively would be significant and unavoidable and for which there is no feasible mitigation. [please stand by]nil alternative e, the 30 vanness includes partial retention of the existing Office Retail building and construction of an approximately 11 story building. Alternative e does not include a residential tower or residential uses. Alternative g, the 98 franklin intensity alternative. Under this alternative, the International French American School would be located under the first five levels, and above that, 47 residential units would be constructed in a fivestory tower. Environmental review population projections. A number of comments were received on the draft e. I. R. Regarding the residential unit estimates. For the e. I. R. , we looked at the ceqa existing conditions, were underground now and determined construction. Numbers are shown as the second row as the proposed ceqa project. My colleagues in the Citywide Department division, excuse me, of the Planning Department who worked on the hub plan and be responsible for Long Range Planning looked at the number of units that could be reduced as a number that could be built under existing zoning which is not on the ground now versus proposed purposes. We understand these can be confusing, and for this reason, i am presenting what can be studied in the e. I. R. , including projects that are already under construction. Further, the r. T. C. Updated the numbers slightly and for residential units, the numbers were updated to 8,530 units. The draft e. I. R. Had 8,100 units, and an update to show a loss of 1,920 jobs, whereas the draft e. I. R. Showed an increase of 1,275 jobs. This draft e. I. R. , response toment coulto comments data, we believe provides the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the Environmental Impacts on the project. On this spaces, we recommend that the commission adopt the e. I. R. And that the procedures through which the final e. I. R. Were prepared comply with ceqa, the guidelines, and chapter 31 the San Francisco administrative code. This concludes my statement on the e. I. R. I will be on after my colleagues lily and luna have made their presentations. Ill now turn it over to lily. Thank you, and i will stop sharing. Just one moment. Thank you, elena. I am joined here today by jessica, josh, maya, and joseph. We petitioned the commission on may 13 to allow amendment to the area called the hub. We all recognize the challenges of working from home while sheltering in place and acknowledge the unique circumstances facing every resident in the city during this pandemic. The action before the commission today is to recommend approval of amendments to the general plan, planning code, business and tax regulations code, and zoning map and approve the implementations program. Today, we would like to acknowledge the feedback from the community received and provide an overview of the proposed legislation. The hub area was included in the boundaries of the market and octavia area plan, a plan adopted in 2008. It was envisioned as a High Density Residential development. Numerous plans support this vision, including the creation of a special use district, which allows for towers and High Density Residential development at market and vanness and mission and south vanness. In addition, the project also established new impact fees to fund Affordable Housing and infrastructure. While the market and octavia plan set the framework for development, the Planning Department didnt receive Many Development applications until 2012. This was largely due in part to the recession in 2009. On a very basic level, this project is about increasing heights on 18 sites. This increase could generate significant new housing, new Affordable Housing, and revenue for the state. Over the last year, we have deepened our conversation with the community and this commission to understand how physical changes affect residents, particularly lowincome residents and people of color. We have tried to gain a better understanding of who benefits and who might be burdened by this project, and through this effort, weve identified specific strategies to advance racial and social equity. We are committed to this in the hub and neighborhoods adjacent in the city. Over the last few years, we have participated in a planning process to look at the area holistically. This adoption hearing is a significant milestone in this process. There are three goals that have formed this planning effort. First, to increase the amount of housing and Affordable Housing near transit. Second, to develop and coordinate designs for the public realm, to look at the streets holistically, rather than block by block, and last, to define and prioritize how moneys will be spent. This will result in changes to the existing market and octavia map as well as changes to the planning code to reflect these planning changes and implement the market and octavia plan. Today, we will discuss the comments and provide you with specific examples of how the department is addressing this, either through the proposed legislation that is before you, the department, or city efforts. The comments were grouped by seven categories. I will address existing conditions, racial and social equity action plans, Equity Community stabilization, and housing. I will then turn it over to jessica to address transportation, ground floor and Community Serving uses, and Public Benefits. At the initiation hearing and subsequent requests, there have been questions about gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of the existing population. The hub is a relatively small area that intersects seven sections. The hub represents several portions of this geography, and ill note that the data shown on the following slides represents a much bigger geography than the hub plan area boundary. The demographics of the hub area when compared to the city as a whole show slightly higher percentage of both black and latino populations, a smaller percentage with graduate degrees, a higher percentage of residents that live in poverty, and fewer children and seniors. Looking at income and household data, we see a lower percentage of singleperson households, indicative of the current Housing Stock, lower median income, and lower car ownership than the rest of the city. Looking to unit data and housing size, we see a much lower percentage of singlefamily homes. 70 of the units are one bedroom or fewer which is really different than what we see in the rest of the city. According to the department of homelessness and supportive housing, the most upto date upto date is up to date information is from 2018, and most of the population falls in district 6. At the initiation hearing, there were a lot of questions about the departments racial and social equity action plans and how this planning fits into this effort. To address these questions, weve had a series of internal conversations as well as with our new planning director, the Departments Community and equity team, the director of the office of Racial Equity, the Mayors Office of housing, and the Mayors Office of economic and workforce development. The Planning Department launched the racial and social Equity Initiative in late 2016, and it is an essential component of the departments look. In 2019, the board passed legislation creating the office of Racial Equity and required all city departments to create a Racial Equity action plan by 2020. Phase 1 of the departments plan has already been adopted by this commission and is focused on the departments internal functions, such as hiring and contracting. Phase 2 is currently underway, and this is focused on the departments external function, which is Community Planning and community legislation. As part of phase 2, the department will complete and finalize an Assessment Tool for looking at a specific project, to consider the project and implication from a racial and demographic point. This tool does not provide measurements, nor does it contain specific policy suggestion, however, the process of applying this tool can produce changes to create racial and social changes, promote equities across all groups. The department was planning outreach this summer on phase 2, and were adjusting the schedule with the current covid situation. This project launched prior to the departments racial and social Equity Initiative. The Assessment Tool has been applied to this project and many of the social changes that i will discuss are in direct response to the application. Weve heard a lot of concerns about equity and Community Stabilization and a desire to better understand how citywide Community Stabilization efforts are related to this plan. The department is working with community and city Agency Partners to advance racial and social equity and Community Stabilization through a number of different accord notre dames initiatives and profits coordinated initiatives and projects. It also includes specific Planning Efforts underway in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the hub. This includes cultural districts work, map 2020, and a Community Planning effort in the tenderloin. This map shows the existing cultural boundary and the boundary of the area plan and the boundary of the hub. It borders neighborhoods that are historically and currently historic neighborhoods, including latino, filipino, lgbtq, and african american. There are several existing programs led by mohcd and oewd to stablize and protect existing businesses and residents, both in the hub and the adjacent neighborhood. A few examples of programs include the small sites program, which is created to protect low and moderate income tenants, the legacy business program, which is designed to retain and stablize longstanding anchor businesses and institutions. Both soma and the mission are sflsed throu serviced through the invested neighborhood programs. A full service explanation is included in this stabilization report, which is included on the Planning Departments website. In addition, it can sort projects by type and by time frame. The legislation before you includes specific legislative changes to improve equitable outcomes in the hub. This includes expanding the boundaries in which impact money can be spent, providing outdoor space in the Western Addition and soma, identifying sites for 100 Affordable Housing, and allowing a land dedication option to allow more Affordable Housing options in the adjacent neighborhood. Your requirement to support Community Serving uses at the ground floor, expanding unit mix to support more families, and adding a new policy to the area plan to apply a racial and social equity lens to future land use decisions. As i mentioned, one goal of this project is to create more housing and more Affordable Housing, and weve received a lot of questions on that topic. At the hearing, the initiation hearing, there were a number of questions about creating a neighborhood area median income, a. M. I. Its typically calculated at the county level. It is updated every year by h. U. D. , using data from the census and is used by mohcd to determine eligibility for below market rate units. It does not account for household size. It is based on census tract data and does not correspond to a. M. I. Levels. The existing a. M. I. Tiers and required percentages are set citywide. The tiers are intended to support a Diverse Income range and to ensure that there are working and middle class residents and ensure that there are not just very high income and very poor residents. Varying neighborhood a. M. I. S to make it harder for developers and see staff to align different Funding Sources to building in the neighborhood. Varying a. M. I. S to also make it harder for residents to know what homes they qualify for in different areas in the city. A neighborhood a. M. I. Does not allow information on homes that would be affordable. This map shows stablized housing in the hub, a half a mile from the hub boundary and in the market octavia plan area. Stablized housing includes property subject to rent control and units built before 1978 and subject to rent control. The percentage of stablized units in the area are higher in the hub. This indicates that a larger percentage of their Housing Stock are rent stablized. We approximate that 22 of the existing units in the hub area are affordable. As the city builds more housing onsite affordable units, this percentage will grow. This map shows the below market rate in the hub, half a mile of the hub, and within the market octavia area. This includes existing units, units under construction, and proposed units. You can see that in tthere is sizeable amount of units proposed to be built in the hub area. This site has been identified for 100 Affordable Housing. This includes projects such as the affordable freeway parcels, and 98 franklin street on the hub. These new sites are in addition to the 100 Affordable Housing projects that are already in the pipeline or under construction, and these are shown in orange. If we zoom into the hub area, this map shows existing and proposed b. M. R. Units in the hub. With the neighborhood preference program, households that currently live within a half mile or the same surprised district as the project are eligible for affordable units. We estimate there could be up to 2200 affordable units in the hub or funded by the hub. Projects in this area are subject to two Affordable Housing fees in addition to their inclusionary requirements. This is unique, and this requirement in the hub is higher than anywhere else in the city. If we add the impact fees to the existing requirements, we are able to achieve 29 overall, and this is with land Value Capture rather than with city funds. This policy has been existing for quite sometime, and this plan would create both new onsite units and new Housing Options for the city. The city has options to meet inclusionary requirements, either site, offsite, fee, or land. Most of the projects recently entitled that are under review are proposing onsite requirements. The proposed legislation includes two new requirements. A land dedication option to meet Affordable Housing requirements and meet Affordable Housing in the adjacent neighborhoods, and a requirement for more two and three bedrooms. The existing Housing Stock is mostly rental and mostly studios and one bedrooms, requiring more two and three units in the Housing Stock, and over time, these units will hopefully become less expensive. Thank you, lily. Hi, commissioners. My name is jessica, and im a senior planner with the Planning Department. So with regards to transportation, we heard about on street loading impacts. We also heard interest in restricting uber, lyft, and deliveries in the plan area. We also heard concerns about transit capacity with the new development, the desire to have zero parking and not allow additional parking for additional heights, and questions about the t. D. M. Program, understanding how residents are educated about the Sustainable Transportation options and under the menu of t. D. M. Options, including transportation measures. This is a transit rich area, an area that makes sense for density. This policy direction has been in the place for quite sometime. Today, the areas served by multiple transit line, numerous bike routes, bike share stations, and is in close proximity to b. A. R. T. For regional trips. This plan summarizes planned and proposed projects that could be implemented to respond to the increased density and to provide additional transit capacity. This includes, first, improvements to the muni and metro station and sfmta has completed a study of the station and has identified ways to improve capacity and circulation to and within the station. The city also looks at transit capacity and assesses transit ridership h ridership holistically through the citys longterm sf. Weve also identified new complete Street Projects on major streets as well as improvements to alleys that could be funded by impact fee money, and the plans proposed legislation also proposes to lower the parking ratio to reduce the number of private vehicles in the area. The hub is centrally located, and in addition to transit, people can walk and bike to jobs. Weve heard concerns about deliveries and have discussed t. N. C. Sentencing with m. T. A. It would require holistic studying by sfmta of the existing and proposed projects. The implementation of this is beyond the purview of the commission and the board and would need to be led by sfmta. In addition, there are regulatory challenges that would need to be addressed. Education is also part of the menu of t. D. M. Measures that a sponsor can choose. There is a projected 160 million in impact fees associated with transit improvements which include the t. S. F. Fee. And part of the proposed legislation before you includes two new requirements to address parking unloading. The first is a driveway loading and Operations Plan, which would be required for projects of a certain size. And this was done in central soma plan, and theres pending legislation to require it citywide. And the second is to lower the parking requirement for half the plan area. Weve heard a lot of concerns about the types of uses on the ground floor and wanting to ensure that the uses serve both existing and new residents. Active ground floor commercial uses are currently required per planning code section 145. 4 on Market Street and portions of vanness in the planning area. Example of active uses include Community Facilities, child care, public facilities, institutions, and retail, and as part of this legislation, we are proposing to make changes to this requirement by expanding the definition of active uses in the area and add arts activities and Institutional Community uses. This map provides a bit more context about the existing area. It highlights existing Community Serving uses in green and proposed Community Serving uses in blue. This area has a large concentration of existing health, social Government Services that provide services both to the neighborhood and to the city at large. There are also a number of proposed Community Serving uses, including a ballet center, a new high school, new art space at 30 vanness, and all of these projects are significant additions to the neighborhood. There is a shared desire to ensure that the future uses serve both existing residents and future uses. The proposed legislation includes new requirements to support neighborhood serving retail, and this includes first a conditional use for retail over 6,000 square feet or fore formula retail, and secondly, a requirement for for formula retail, and secondly, a requirement for project levels including arts facilities, child care services, or neighborhood oriented retail. Weve also heard how is the hub different than the central soma plan in terms of Community Benefits, and we also heard to have to exploring a new Community Facilities fee. This planning effort is often compared to central soma, which was the last area plan this commission adopted, and we would like to clarify how these two plans are different. For central soma, it was a new funding fee that can Fund Maintenance and programming. It also included a significant amount of Office Development and had a large geographic development of 232 acres. The hubs plan is amending an existing area plan, and much of the area was captured when the market octavia plan was adopted in 2008. This area allows primarily Residential Development and the Geographic Area is about 85 acres. We have heard feedback about wanting to have more Community Serving uses and Community Facilities. As such, we are proposing a new Community Facilities fee. This fee could fund, design, engineer develop Community Facilities including Cultural Arts facilities, social welfare facilities, and Community Health facilities. A similar fee was adopted in the central soma plan. We have completed an assessment of the Community Facilities for a broader southern part of the area of the city and are committed to building on this work and completing a Community Facilities assessment for the broader soma, including the hub, over the next year. Establishing a fee is dependent on a nexus study to support the fee, and full support of the fee amount and Fee Structure would need to be worked out prior to the board adopting any legislation related to fees. The Public Benefits from this project include funding for Affordable Housing and infrastructure. This includes 958 million in direct Public Benefits, a 30 increase in Public Benefits compared to the existing zoning. It also will provide 682 million in Affordable Housing resources for the city, 164 million more than what would be generated under existing zoning, and lastly, 264 million for existing infrastructure, 71 dlsh mill 7 more than what would be generated under existing funding. And now, lets hand it over to luna. This was an opportunity to update the general plans for key topic areas to reflect the latest policies of the city. Examples include a new policy to advance racial and social equity, new policies around Climate Resilience and sustainability and language around supporting families with children. There are two changes since the initiation hearings that are adopted in the proposed ordinance before you. This includes a change to the title and minor changes to the Family Friendly policy. There are a number of amendments to the planning codes that are needed to reflect the proposed policy changes, and ill highlight just a few. Amending the names of the special use districts and removing the word downtown to clarify this neighborhood is distinct from downtown. Expanding the area in which impact fee money can be spent, and establishing the progress r process f process to seek additional e. I. R. Through section 309. All of these changes were included at the initiation hearing. Nine changes were made between the initiation hearings and when the Commission Packet was due on february 7. These changes were incorporated in revised ordinances that were submitted to this commission yesterday. I will highlight a few. New requirements for a driveway loading Operations Plan for projects of a certain size, a land dedication option for projects to meet their inclusionary housing requirements, and allowing two members of the market and octavia safe team to live in the plan area or within 250 feet of the plan area. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following. Rezoning the n. C. T. 3 parcels to n. G. T. 3, expanding the vanness and market special use district to the entire plan area, and establishing new maximum height and bulk districts on 18 sites. The housing the hub housing sustainability district would allow for ministerial approval of some housing projects. There is one other h. S. D. In the city, and that is in soma. The h. S. D. Would only apply to buildings 120 feet or lower, and for buildings that do not seek discretionary approval by the Planning Commission. So any buildings that are seeking additional height that was analyzed in this e. I. R. Could not be approved under the h. S. D. Projects also have to immediate certain criteria, including onsite Affordable Housing and a certain percentage of very lowincome housing for those households. The department has preepsopose several changes in the ordinance, including, adding services to the list of services a school can provide. For projecadditional language p determine the fee waiver for the land dedication options, and allowing rooftop screening on certain options, given certain updated elevator requirements. All of these changes are summarized in the memo presented to the commission and also included in the revised ordinances. The department is also presenting proposed changes for your consideration. These changes have not been incorporated into the ordinances and are being shared today for your consideration only. For the mass amendment, were proposing to amend or presenting for you to consider amending the height and bulk on lot 3511. Residents of l. M. N. , lafayette, maine, and natoma are asking to address these concerns. The revised proposal which shifts height around the site, it would maintain the 250 foot tower, reduce the podium height on top of vanness from 125 feet to 85 feet, step down the Building Height on a portion of the parcel adjacent to lafayette from 120 to 45, and increate height look increase height along 12 street from 40 feet to 85 feet. Other amendments include establishing a new facilities fee, which jessica just mentioned. The full details and implementation of the Fee Structure would need to be worked out. Remaining the conditional use authorization for g. S. A. On inclusionary units. These changes are also summarized in the memo presented to you prior to this hearing. The Department Recommends approval of the general plans, planning code, zoning map, and business and tax regulations code and the implementation audits. Staff will have some minor amendments. Theyre not substantive changes, but we wanted to make the commission aware of these minor edits if you allow them. That concludes my presentation. I will now turn it over to maya, principle urban designer at the Planning Department. I am happy to answer any questions, and i look forward to hearing from you. Clerk you may be on mute. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Im joining lily to further explain how the zoning and policy changes in the market octavia amendments have been designed to compliment the context of the build environment of the city. We recognize that physical changes in the neighborhood have a real effect on people that live and work there, and this design has been used to both better understand and respond to those impacts. The market and octavia plan recognizes that these contain the intersections of three of the citys most important streets market, vanness, and mission. The streets define the edges of the unique and smaller neighborhoods of hayes valley, the mission, western soma, and civic center. These three conditions continue to guide us in urban form, shaping unique qualities of the city, marking and increasing traffic at transit nodes. This amendment builds upon goals, looks to modifications to adapt to changing conditions. The first is to increase the variation in height to avoid a tabletop at market and vanness. The second is to adapt bulk controls to accommodate changes in the building codes and safety requirements, and the third is the most potent. Projects concurrently elect the use of state density bonus, which could add 35 to a 400 foot tall building, easily pushing it to 550 feet or more all through a more limiting process through the commission. This amendment is specifically meant to not be combined with the state density bonus, could provide an alternate pathway to housing mapping that is more intentionally designed for this place in the city. Coming full forward, we anticipate a set of projects on several of the 18 parcels being rezoned to both respond to this intentional urban design framework and the context of projects that have preceded this adoption. This includes 1550 mission, 49 south vanness, which came through with 1500 mission, 1554 Market Street, and [inaudible] that are all under construction, as well as one oak and 1620 market that are both entitled. Today, well hear more about 10 south vanness and 30 vanness, followed by 98 franklin. We further coordinated the intersections four corners, including canopy designs to create sheltered sidewalks and block wind and transform the streets into more familiar spaces of adjacent neighborhoods. That concludes my presentation, and we are available for questions. Clerk thank you, staff. Commissioners, barring any questions for staff immediately, we should probably open up Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue. Operator you have nine questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is katie, and im here to represent s. P. U. R. Thank you for supporting s. P. U. R. S effort to improve the hub. [inaudible] market octavia has created thousands of new infill Housing Units, and visible improvements for the public to enjoy. In the years since market octavia was adopted, it has become clear that the city overall has not produced sufficient housing for those who want to be here. The hub is a sufficient effort to provide services in transit oriented locations but is appropriate for jobs and housing. Adding more height to key sites in the hub will help create significantly more benefit to the community at leveraging the private sector. We also urge the Planning Department to embark on a new set of plans across the city [inaudible] thank you for the opportunity to weighin on this important amendment to the market octavia plans [inaudible] thank you. Operator you have 14 questions remaining. Hello, commissioners. My name is david wu, and i am a district 5 resident and work in district 6. As part of the central citys coalition, i oppose the current version of the hub plan. The hub is a current version of how San Francisco thinks of and treats the poor and working class, touting a plan that will benefit everyone while ignoring the concepts of Racial Equity. The luxury resident will continue the citys march towards displacing the middle class. This has highlighted the class inequality, clearly showing the priorities of the planning arm of San Francisco and how it plays a key role in creating and exacerbating class inequality. The city says thank you, essential workers while putting your life on the line while actively planning for their displacement. Planning is making it clear who it does and doesnt want here. The hub plan must be amended to address community concerns, which include limiting height increases on the three sides detailed in our letter to the commission. As proposed, i oppose maintaining the current n. T. 3 zoning, having a detailed racial and Equity Analysis, having a Community Realm plan and a public realm plan that is meaningfully developed with community and removing the current housing sustainability district from the plan. Thank you. Operator you have 13 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is melinda den, and im the head of French American International school. Im calling to express my support for the hub and e. I. R. Zoning amendments. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with this dedicated team of professionals over the last three years. Our School Includes grades k12 with over 800 families. Over 33 of our students receive financial aid. We have deep roots in our city. Were almost 60 years old, and weve been here in hayes valley since 1997. We are committed to our central urban location. The 98 franklin project is a unique opportunity to create a World Class High School for our diverse, Innovative School in the heart of San Francisco. Our new campus will turn one of the last parcels in hayes valley into a distinct landmark while creating housing for our city. It is the kind of development that will serve San Francisco well into the future. This is not just another market rate project, its a special combination of education and mixed income rentals consistent with the citys and the communitys longterm vision for the hub district. I encourage your support, and i thank you for your service to our city. Operator you have 13 questions remaining. Zbargood afternoon, commissioners. This is tom radulovic. Basically, our three comments are around parking and the plan. Weve watched developer after developer come to you for hub projects and say oh, we want to maximize the amount of parking in our project so we can charge the units more money. We think thats been really destructive of the neighborhood, the way to view it. We ask you today to look at it as a whole neighborhood, not as a collection of zoning projects, but as a whole neighborhood. Think about marketing and traffic in that context. If you do, youll probably realize theres enough parking in the neighborhood to meet the needs of folks in the neighborhood. A lot of projects on the edge of the hub already have a lot of parking in them or are building more parking in them. Adding more parking in the hub, its going to create more traffic, and is a really bad idea, so were asking you to allow no new parking in the hub project. Secondly, active use on the ground floor. A lot of projects in the area some Old Buildings like fox and some other new projects dont have projects on the ground floor. The only way youre going to make that existing is promoting storefronts. We think that if you look at things again in a different way theyre outlined in our letter you can create stronger incentives onsite, for green building, by affecting exterior all thickness, and some disincentives for onsite parking. We hope that youll make some of those changes. We think theyll serve the public better and make this a green, more sustainable, more equitable project thats better for the whole city, community, and citywide. Operator you have 14 questions remaining. Hi. I am tess wellborn. Ive been involved in the market octavia plan since the beginning, and i attended the hub plan meetings. First of all, the Equity Analysis, as director hill ils pointeils hillis pointed out, was implemented after the project was started. Weve got to protect the people that live there now. This means also a detailed socioeconomic study. Other points id like to make. A housing sustainability district would remove the discretionary power to this commission to ensure this project would be a positive to the community. The construction of 18 luxury towers here would displace lowincome residents. I oppose increasing height requirements to 110 vanness, 98 franklin, and 30 vanness. The rest of the plan should retain their current height limits. Finally, i recommend implementing the n. T. C. 3 zoning, which is what is around the area and will help be a buffer to the smaller scale neighborhoods. Thank you. Operator you have 15 questions remaining. Good afternoon, president koppel, members of the San Francisco Planning Commission. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. [inaudible] we agree with the plans objectives to encourage housing, including Affordable Housing, with a range of services to meet peoples ne needs. The plan addresses two needs we have right now housing and jobs. We really need housing, and we really need jobs. Development such as 30 vanness, which comes with a commitment to labor, a partner with a long history with the union, and a lock long track record of making sure that projects get built will be a help to the economy. We believe that the e. I. R. Is appropriate and sufficient, and we ask that the commission approve this legislation so that the plan can begin to take shape. Thank you for your time. Operator you have 16 questions remaining. Clerk caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Let lets go to the next caller. Operator you have 15 questions remaining. Hello. My name is dan terrell. Im the secretary at the red stone temporary labor association, which is a little south of the hub district at capp and mission streets. Im calling to oppose the current version of the hub plan. I would echo the previous comments of this is an example of trickle down economics, and our organization supports the central city coalitions more equitable proposal to allow either increases at just height increases at just three of the parcels named in the central city coalitions plan. Thank you. Operator you have 15 questions remaining. Hi. My name is jeremy linden, and im a homeowner. I live in d6, in soma, pretty close to the development. For me, this development reflects more opportunities to have activities and businesses that i can walk to and building a more vibrant community in this area that kind of feels pretty dominated by the wide streets, Office Buildings, and car infrastructure. Im excited to have more neighbors that can contribute to supporting my neighborhoods Small Businesses who i think have been struggling from covid19 for a while. My only complaint is i wish that it could be bigger and taller to accommodate more neighbors, but weve already had a talk about that, and overall, im pleased with the result. Operator you have 15 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners, and commission staff, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the hub plan. My husband and i have been residents of the mission for 14 years. In a few years, our son will attend his sophomore year at National High school, also on oak street. Like many of our friends, we chose french american for our son based on curriculum and shared values. Also because of its urban location in hayes valley, proximity to Public Transportation and the opportunity to walk and bike to campus. Im also a member of the French American International school board of trustees, and im reaching out to you today to express my strong approval for the hub plan amendments. Ive been closely following the evolution of the hub plap for the past four years, an effort that began when we attended two Community Meetings in april and june of 2016. And from that time up until today, ive been very impressed by the effort and hard work put on by the Planning Department staff. I wanted to specifically thank them and let them know we appreciate their hard work. Weve been careful to grow our campus over the years with a keen eye on neighborhood improvements and opportunities to strengthen our contributions to the public realm. This next step to build on the proposed site and replace surface parking will give us an opportunity to continue our streetscape and security improvements to franklin and oak as well as to extend them down to lily street. Weve been working collaboratively with neighborhood institutions as well as the civic center c. D. B. On these issues. C. B. D. On these issues and we will continue to do so. With that said, id kindly ask your support of this plan that is before you this afternoon. Thank you. Operator you have 16 questions remaining. Hello. Do i have three minutes . Clerk yes, you do. Okay. When do i go on . Clerk youre on now. Hello, commissioners. Sorry for that miscuing there. My name is jerry yamamoto, and i live in the mission. I am proposing mitigation to the e. I. R. As weve all been aware, covid19 has brought us some horrible things, but theres been some Silver Linings there. The reduction in traffic, and the reduction in deaths on the streets and injuries on the streets. Im concerned with the construction of these large buildings, about the wind blasts, the wind blasts from such Tall Buildings without architectural mitigations. I think the staff mentioned the difficulties of that. Singletrack vehicles like bikes, skates, motorcycles, scooters, people on skate boards will struggle with the unpredictable wind around these large buildings, as anyone whos spent time in Downtown Manhattan or just downtown San Francisco will know this. So wind will be a big issue, and id like to encourage you to take parking out of the hub. No parking in those buildings, no parking in the hub itself. No cars means less traffic, more wind blasts mean we need wider bike lanes, meaningless space for cars. The market and Octavia Community Advisory Committee asked the city to consider these items in a resolution from february 24, and the hvna, hayes valley neighborhood association, has consistently urged the city to rezone the area for no parking. Also, a lever was referenced about zero parking hub. Also, westward to as well, expedite the study of the central freeway removal as an Affordable Housing strategy for the hub and the mission. So more details on extending the hub on octavia. Thus, im drawing to an end here. Any way, so this this extended car free market is part of the western ferry into the Market Street plan, so please make it happen. Thank you very much for your consideration. Have a good day. Operator you have 15 questions remaining. Good day, commissioners. Anastasia iovannopoulos. Constructing 18 upzone buildings and luxury towers will create insur mountable price pressures for lowincome residents and ultimately displace them. I would like to propose amending the plan to limit the proposed height limit increases for future development solely to the sites in discussion today and that all other parcels of the hub area plan maintain the current height limits. Its extremely important to under the implications to the vulnerable communities living in this area who are suffering the most from the covid19 crisis. Planning departments race and Equity Analysis is not sufficient for a project of this magnitude. I recommending ascribing a detailed process that will involve collaborating with communities and or organizations who serve them in conducting the assessment. I would like to request a detailed socioeconomic study conducted for the hub plan area to ensure that we are making the most informed decisions possible. And finally, the housing sustainability district. We remove your discretionary power to ensure that a proposed project will be an equitable benefit to a community, not a burden. It takes away the communitys power to hold both the developer and the citys power to make sure it will be equitable for the neighborhood, so i oppose the housing sustainability district design. Further, in listening to your e. I. R. Comments, what are significant and unavoidable, these need to be addressed noise, air quality, wind, and shadow. Thanks. Bye. Operator you have 14 questions remaining. Hello, commissioners. My name is robin lovett. Im a 25plus year resident of hayes valley. I live about three blocks from the intersection of marketoctavia. First, i want to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the hub plan. Anyhow, i serve on the market octavia c. A. C. The project envisioned a community that is walkable and bikable in our city. First, while we welcome additional housing in the neighborhood, we do not welcome more traffic. The streets in the area are already overwhelmed, so even at. 25, the hub would bring thousands of additional cars to the area, so i would like to advocate for no parking. Second, the frideeway, which i adjacent to the hub. In besides reducing all the traffic myself and my neighbors suffer through in this neighborhood constantly on these area streets, the removal of the freeway would free upland for desperately needed Affordable Housing in this neighborhood, so i would like to urge the Planning Commission to help advance that study in conjunction with the development of the hub. Again, thank you very much for your time, and thank you very much for your service. Bye. Operator you have 13 questions remaining. Im steve mardeau, and im a resident of San Francisco. Im calling in support of the proposed plan. I go to a gym thats right across the block away from this project. I walk by this all the time, and its an area that i know is, you know, really perfect for this kind of development. Its in walking distance to a lot of great public transit. Theres a muni station, a b. A. B. A. R. T. Station. Its really walkable to downtown. Its something that i think could really benefit the neighborhood and an area that could really use, like, a lot of great housing, and i fully support this project. Thank you. Operator you have 12 questions remaining. Good afternoon. Ozzie reaume. I am calling to oppose this project. We dont need 18 towers of luxury condos. As my general Public Comment stated, we do need to think about the aftermath of covid19, and at a time when two companies within a block of this project have announced that they will let their employees work from home forever, it is ill advised to plan a project of this enormity on poverty neighborhoods without understanding whos going to be impacted. So i urge you to reject this. This should be kicked out, and we thought, we dont need 18 towers, and particularly because i am concerned about vacancies in these luxury condos. To date, the Planning Department has not done anything to assess whether or not the projects that have been approved year after year, and im talking about large scale projects, who occupies them, how many of them are sitting there as investment . And at the same time that we are facing a plague that is going to impact our lives, who is going to be able to live in this city, who is still going to have jobs to live in this city, it is ill advised to approve these plans. We need to have a holistic approach to planning in this city, and this is an opportune time to rethink the orthodoxies of the task. We need housing, but we dont need luxury housing. This is 18 towers of luxury housing. That is an insult to the community that is living next door. So please, dont approve this. Reject the project, reject the hub, reject the expansion of market octavia, and lets think about real planning for the city, for the common man, woman, and child that still lives in the city. Thanks. You have 11 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners, president koppel, and director hillis. We worked very heard to send our kids to hard to send our kids to such a unique school that french american affords our children. The school has a unique International Community bringing together many backgrounds, much like San Francisco, and the schools a reflection of our diverse community. In addition to being a parent, im also on the parent association, so i volunteer quite a bit from the school and would like our children to be there for a long time, and this type of project seems like the exact use of mixeduse space thats needed for that area. So i want to commend the city and planning staff for all their work on the hub plan. Im calling to express my strong support. This project at 98 franklin provides the opportunity to serve two major goals in the public interest. Also, number two, place making outdoor space to the area, and providing more space to a world class Academic Institution in San Francisco. We urge you to vote in support of this plan, and we thank you for your service. Operator you have ten questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is dave gordon. Im a resident of district 5 and a member of the haightashbury district council. I know there have been different voices from my neighborhood about the project, and i just want to point out that those of us that are renters in the neighborhood who are concerned about being priced out of San Francisco, who are concerned that we wont have a place to raise our kids are concerned about this project. This is going to mean thousands of new projects, which means thousands of more families can live in San Francisco. Thousands of more market rate units, and it would be crazy to say no to that, which makes me love it even more. Its a great location. Its close to jobs, housing, transit. I urge you to get it done as quickly as possible. We need the jobs, we need the tax revenue, and we need the housing. Please dont listen to those of us in our neighborhoods who actually have homes say they dont need more because those of us that fear displacement know that we need the homes. Thank you. Operator you have nine questions remaining. My name is carlos bocanegra, and im a member of united to save the mission. We do not support corporate give aways that will cause devastating harm to communities that are already suffering the most during this crisis. This commission should place the highest priority to rejecting projects impacting communities that are already marginalized and facing extreme pressure. It is important to design for a diverse set of users and to have a more inclusive conversation. The public realm components of the plan should not be included in its approval pending further engagement in its planning and design. The Planning Commission should create a more prescriptive and detailed improvement plan. I also oppose the housing sustainability district designation. The housing sustainability district would remove the power of this district and the community to make sure that all projects would be a benefit and not a burden. The commission should not adopt the proposed zoning changes of n. C. T. 3 to r. G. T. That will remove a critical buffer zone needed to protect small scale neighborhoods. Further, the construction of 18 upzoned buildings and luxury towers will create impossible price points for many residents and tenants. The rest of the plan should maintain the current established height limits for all other parcels. I oppose the proposed upzoning of all 18 parcels within this plan. It is also highly inhe cequita if the public cannot present slides during Public Comment. Finally, an area plan has longterm implications. We have to ask ourselves what future are we envisioning . Are we envisioning a future of only white color workers in this city . A city without communities communities of color. It is important that we plan in a planned area such as this, especially in areas like the commissio commissi mission, the soma, and areas like this. I ask that we set a high bareqy bar in the city. Operator thank you. You have nine questions remaining. Corey smith on behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. Im looking at this market octavia project, and i see that the first public workshop took place five years ago, so after a fiveyearlong Community Engagement, thats going to result in 18 towers of lowincome and Affordable Housing at no cost to taxpayers. We think thats fantastic, and we are in strong support. This is close to muni stations, close to b. A. R. T. Stations. Im looking at the slide from the presentation. Its literally thousands of units, and thousands of subsidized affordable units that we would get from upzoning the entire area, and thats the entire point of this Long Community process when were looking at basically area plans at a whole. We dont generally think its a good idea to then require projects come back to planning after that. That doesnt really make sense to us after going through this Long Community process, but we understand that compromise is needed with everything. And one last thing i really do just want to emphasize, we are getting a lot of additional voices to this process because of this online format. Its obviously tragic in so many other ways, but we do believe at 3 20 on a tuesday or on a thursday, rather, that this is a much more inclusive process that allows more of the working public and people to participate. So strongly in support here today and ask you to move the upzoning with all 18 sites forward. Thank you. Operator you have seven questions remaining. Hi. This is laura from yimby action. We obviously support this and believe this is an important step forward, and i hope that we dont cause megaprojects like this to die at this time. We cant afford to negotiate projects within an inch of their life because we are going to lose projects. I appreciate people saying cities are over. I think were going to need more housing. I think were 50 years into a chronic housing shortage, and that the only way out is by building enough homes for everyone. I do encourage the Planning Department to think through how this project and with another megaproject thats been in process for a long time focuses development in the center and on the east side of the city, and one thing we can hear from the people who are opposing this project is the next place we need to focus more housing being built is in our wealthiest communities. While i think this is a good and necessary step forward, the next step is to say that we should be building thousands and thousands of units in our richest communities. That is literally where the market is telling us that we should be building housing, and we have restricted zoning that is keeping us from building there . If we can rezone the hub, we can rezone the west side, we can rezone the marina, we can rezone cow hollow. These are things that we can do if were committed to integration and equity. Thank you. Operator you have six questions remaining. Commissioners, this is lorraine petty. Im a member of seniors and disability action, very close to the hub. Im opposed to this unless amended. Im not a planner, but i think ive studied the plan, and i find it overwhelmingly out of scale and also out of touch. I dont know exactly how to fix it, but i do know were not housing our poor, were not housing our homeless. We need housing for moderate and lowincome folks. I know were way behind housing seniors and people with disabilities. I know that we already have several ever expanding massive highrise districts. I know we do not need another. I know that i love living in my city, one of the most diverse cities in the world, economically, culturally, racially. But now, were facing racism, displacement, faultering decisions, and out migration. The hub intends to erupt like a towering volcano, erupting from a peaceful plain. I ask you, commissioners, to take more time to amend the hub. [no audio] the legalities were living in today. So please reject any ministerial approval process proposed for the hub or market octavia. Thanks very much. Operator you have five questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is reilly. Even after the shelter in place format ends, i hope you keep this process in place. I am a resident of the market and octavia plan area. Other commenters have called this project out of scale, but i think, if anything, its not big enough. The terrible scale of our housing crisis must be matched by the scale of our solutions. This is just the example of high density housing that we should be building right next to a high transit area. However, this proposal is the result of a long, careful Community Process, and the last thing we need is even more delaying. So i went with the perfect median solution. Operator you have four questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Sarah ogilby. Im calling today in support of the project and maximum upzoning. As san franciscans, we have a duty to prepare this city for the land road ahead. My husband and i were devastated by the 2008 recession and were temporarily homeless. We were saved by the citys shelter system, lucky enough to save up and locate an s. R. O. To live in for a time, and when my husband got a better job, we were able to save and find a real apartment in 2018. My husband has a job in tech, but dont be fooled. He was older and is monocular. He needs to have the services he needs as he deals with heart and medical issues as he works towards what we hope will be a dignified retirement. Even working remotely, there is still a benefit to my husbands proximity to the Downtown Office building home to his companys headquarters. During Public Comment, concerns were raised that workers are being given the opportunity to work remotely, and that it means people no longer need or want to plif live or work in s francisco. That couldnt be further from the truth. I. Operator you have three questions remaining. Hi. Im a longterm resident, and there is so many things to say, but i want to say that my view of socalled yimbys, its not yimby when somebody wants to upzone the entire city. Thats growth that theyre talking about. It is gentrification of the entire city. It is not serving the needs of the people that are currently here, including Sarah Oglesby and her family, and my son, who needs to house with me at the moment, and who was born in the city. And i want to make sure that, obviously, the Planning Department has made up their mind already, and this is Just Lip Service to the public, but i hope that theres going to be tracking in these 18 buildings of of the where the people come from that buy these condos, how many come from the city that get into these homes, what the breakdown is of income level, and that we get to actually see these facts once these apartments are populated. Thank you very much for nothing, really. Operator you have three questions remaining. Hi. Good afternoon. This is Lisa Petrucelli with united to save the mission, and im going to say the same things that ive been saying since director hillis was president of the commission, and that is that we cant have this zoning adjacent to our communities. If it hasnt been apparent yet, i dont know what its going to take, but im sitting in a building at 15th and mission. 82 units are luxury units, are available within 150 feet from me. More than that units are up for sale, and 40 units will be up for sale within 150 feet from me within the next few months, and many of these units, including units in my building, have been sitting vacant for months, on and off the market, because no one is taking these spaces. And at the same time, im losing neighbors, working class neighbors that are being forced out of their homes into their cars and onto the street. And this is we dont need to see this exacerbated and continued by this plan. The race and Equity Analysis plan are completely insufficient. They dont even scratch the surface of what needs to be evaluated, and this plan should not be moving forward unless its amended, and we can have proper analysis about how this should be done and if the community can be more involved. And i you know, director hillis talked about prefacing this, that he has met the community, and yes, he has. But actually meetings are being held off right now. The Commission Community was supposed to meet with him prior to the covid shelter in place, and that meeting has been cancelled, and we havent been able to move that meeting forward. A lot of people are speaking that this is all such a great format, but 40 of our residents dont have internet access, and we havent been able to hold that meeting because we dont have access. So without this access, and without the kind of analysis that we need to have done for race and equity and also, you know, there are three units at 1400 mission right now that are affordable. The minimum income for that is 86,000. The maximum is 150,000, so when we talk about Affordable Housing, you know, were not talking about things that are affordable. Our working class families make 47,000 a year, and so we just cannot move this plan forward without the proper analysis. Thank you. Operator you have three questions remaining. Hi. This is john oberling. The hub plan has a usually component that addresses street design, sidewalk design, and public spaces, and thats okay. But what its missing and is so often missing from the Planning Departments area plans is a plan for the Community Realm. The Community Realm is what the future residents and the current residents of the hub area and the surrounding neighborhoods actually need for their every day lives, for their services, for the things that matter to them, not just the open space, not just the sidewalks. And, of course, that includes neighborhood shopping, for example, and it includes all the various Community Services offered by nonprofits and others that meet their needs as families and households in the future and are very significant. And of course now, with the covid crisis, its never been more apparent how important those kinds of Community Services are. So that Community Realm plan needs to be done. It needs to be done as a follow up to this plan, but it needs to get done as soon as practical, given the current emergency once thats over. And along with it, there needs to be some funding identified to support those Community Facilities at least. And in central soma, the central soma plan did include a Community Services fee. The Planning Department did recognize the importance of that and the necessity of that, and so its a small fee. Its 1. 60 per square foot that would be applied to the future Residential Development of central soma. What is needed is that same approach, and an equivalency at least applied to the future development in the hub to also make sure the Community Facilities that those future residents are going to need to access are available in soma and the tenderloin and the north mission. As that is i think the other big missing piece, and the department and the board of supervisors should add that to this package. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Sue hester. Commissioner Vice President moore asked a question about when this was brought up about spread out in consideration, and its been lost because they just started doing Public Comment after the Staff Reports were done. The Staff Reports included lastminute amendments that no one has seen except maybe commissioners, and so this is highlighting how inappropriate it is to develop an area plan and adopt it while were in a lockdown period. We have no ability to see what is being presented. We cant hear a lot of speakers very well, and we cant talk to each other. This is not the time to adopt an area plan or certification of an e. I. R. And all the actions on there. We have had a really change in direction in the city. Transit has been cut. People have abandoned their housing because theyve been told to work from home. We need to have the Planning Department look seriously at what is happening in housing and transit. This is happening two months after lockdown, stay in your home. So im asking you to not do this amendment today, instruct the staff to do an analysis of how transit is changing. A transit change in this district is major. This is the major part of the city for transit lines. It should be a walkable area, and there will be changes right now and in the next year or two on housing and offices. We need to do serious work, Planning Department, and you need to take into consideration the reality of now rather than the reality of when we started planning this process three years ago. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Hi. My name is robert buckland. I live in district 5, and i am calling in support of this plan. One thing i specifically want to say is that housing is not a burden to the community as some other commenters have stated. It is a benefit. The areas that are being hit worst by covid19 right now are the most overcrowded, and overcrowding is caused by a shortage of housing, and that is alleviated by building more housing so people have more places to live and so people are not taking on, you know, four, five, six roommates, as sometimes is happening here in San Francisco. So i also want to add that i would like if this z if the hub plan would require no parking or less parking. I think its unfortunate that developers are able to build parking right next to muni. That said, i think the improvements that are being made by this plan are still worthwhile. It just could use some tweaking. Also, i want to add that online format from the community is way more inclusive than it was when everyone was required to meet in person. Im working from home. Its possible for me to come in and comment, and attending Planning Commission meetings during the workday is hard. There are times when ive tried to attend, and ive just had to leave before i gave Public Comment because i was waiting hours, and thats very not equitable and not fair to everyone in San Francisco, so thats my comment. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remains. Clerk commissioners, it appears as though the matter is now before you. President koppel director hillis, did you want to chime in first . Director hillis well, i just thought, given the comments we heard, it may be good for lily to touch on some of the issues, especially some of the issues why cg3 instead of nct, and some of other sites and h. S. T. So if we could give a brief response to that, i think that may be helpful and informative as we all start deliberation. Is that okay . President koppel yeah. Thank you. So in regards to the 18 sites, were proposing i just wanted to reiterate the remaining height increases are, you know, between 15 and 30 feet, and most of those parcels could get even more height under state density laws. The next thing to clarify is around the nct3 zoning . And so this is we heard a lot of questions around concerns around creating sort of a Downtown District close the adjacent neighborhoods. So what were doing is carrying forward many of the nct goals to the new Zoning District . So this includes carrying forward number of bedrooms, limitations on use size overall. So while it is joined c3g, its going to be a very restrict at theti restricti district and very close to whats allowed in the nct3 district. An h. S. T. Does allow ministerial approval of projects, but the way that its spelled out is it would pertain to certain projects, and it cannot be used for any project thats seeking discretionary approval by the commission. So if a project is seeking conditional use, if a project is seeking additional height, they cannot be entitled under the h. S. T. , and so that does give the Planning Commission and the public a fair amount of discretion over the future development in this area mix. President koppel okay. So before i call on the other commissioners, i did want to take a minute out and just thank miss lengua, miss smith, and miss small for all the thoughtful analysis just getting to where were at. As youve heard before, weve been working on this planning area for over five years. This is a big accomplishment for the Planning Department and for the new director hillis. In order to keep the integrity of how we have the agenda set up right now, id ask the commissioners if they could field all their questions for the entirety of this topic now, and then later on, if need be, we can take on individual items. But as far as my thoughts, i think the e. I. R. Is thorough and adequate. This is the part of town where we need height, market and vanness. Adjoining with market octavia is a huge Opportunity Zone where we can go high. I dont think we should separate and take a look at all the individual buildings now. I think later on, even building will come to us, and we can address it then, but for now, i think we should im cleaning towards staffs recommendations in keeping all the buildings together. I do like the number of two and threebedrooms im seeing in the proposed projects, and again, this is one of the most transit orients parts of town that we can have. Its ripe for development, and let me call on other commissioners. Commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i have a number of comments, but i want to ask a question first of staff, and i heard you made reference to this, but i want to make sure that its Crystal Clear in everybodys mind. If we dont do this rezoning with the other entitlements that are being proposed, did i understand you to say that the 18 sites, even if they stayed at the current height that theyre currently at in the existing zoning could go higher, maybe even higher than we are proposing by using the state density bonus, and we would not capture all of the benefits that we would if we were to proceed with the proposed rezoning . Yes, thats correct. Commissioner diamond okay. So there were a number of really important points that were raised by staff and the various speakers, both those who would like more analysis done and those who are in favor of the project. So here with my thoughts that i wanted to put out there. I, like commissioner koppel, lean towards approving this project for the following reasons. It is producing significantly more housing, and in particular, more Affordable Housing, and more fees that will benefit broad swaths of the community. It is an appropriate site for density because it is near Public Transportation. This upzoning will allow us to capture more benefits with the height than we would if we didnt do it because it sounds like, based upon what staff said, that the state density bonus would allow many of these developers, if not all of them, to get additional height without all of the additional fees that we are proposed to pay. So it seems like a good idea to me that we get these additional benefits. I do like all the additional work thats been done on the public realm, and i do like increasing the number of two and threebedrooms so this becomes a Family Friendly site. I believe the staffs continuing work on the racial and social Equity Analysis and how it applies to this project as directed by director hillis in his various memos is absolutely critical and it needs to proceed. And i do believe with the community in figuring out the prioritization of the public Realm Projects is highly critical, but thats the way im thinking about this at the moment, and im interested in hearing the other commissioners comments. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung, you want to be heard . You may be muted . Commissioner fung i would. Before i jump into overall comments on the overall plan, perhaps we can separate at this time either discussion and or action between the adoption of the ceqa findings versus the further discussion on the hub plan itself and the this attendant projects. If there is no objections from the rest of the commission, id be prepared to move to accept the e. I. R. As being adequate and to adopt the ceqa findings attendant to it. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i would second that motion. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i personally would like to continue hearing dialogue from commissioners over specific issues. While the e. I. R. Is extensive and well done, there may be other issues that may impact how we feel about ceqa and all other subsequent approvals. If nothing else, i would like to raise a couple of questions, and if this is the moment to do that, i would like to ask that we do not take e. I. R. And the ceqa findings together but vote for them under separate motions. Clerk commissioner moore, that is the recommended process, actually, is to take the action of the Environmental Impact report and then the ceqa separate. Vice president moore okay. Because that was the motion that was before us. Clerk understood. I was going to clarify with commissioner fung that the e. I. R. Findings and ceqa findings should be in a separate motion. Commissioners, this is kate stacey from the City Attorneys Office. The ceqa findings themselves are actually part of your approval action, so you should certify the e. I. R. , but depending on what your approval option is on the hub project, the ceqa findings are a required part of that approval action, so it would make somewhat more findings for you to make the ceqa findings with your approval action instead. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial sorry. I was on mute. So i think we in terms of, like, how we are we are voting today and i do think there needs to be robust discussion, i also want to hear a lot more from the other commissioners, too, on what they think because i feel like this plan is complex, and there are a lot of things to vote on. In terms of voting, i guess i in what we are voting right now in, you know, forwarding with the e. I. R. , with voting when it comes to voting for the e. I. R. And the ceqa findings, and i guess when it comes to the planning code amendments, zoning code amendments, the housing system sustainability district, im just wondering and i want to hear other ideas, too, if those are going to be voted in a way that it is clear on what we are voting on on this. We are a Planning Commission, and we should be exploring all of the comments that are already said today and also all of the comments that were also provided to us before. So, you know, i would like to see in a way for us in voting in looking into the general amendment calling out the vote in general plan amendments, planning code amendments, zoning code amendments, and not lumping into the whole thing. I think the public deserves this kind of discussion because this is a big impact for you know, this going to have an impact, and there are things that need to be discussed. For that, thats my comment in how we are voting. I would like to hear other people, too. Clerk commissioner imperial, in all of the other commissioners, for the public, the only motion that is before you is consideration of the Environmental Impact report. If there is a desire and it sounds like there is among some of the commissioners to take up the remaining items as action items, you can certainly do that. Commissioner imperial okay. Thank you. President koppel commissioner moore . Clerk commissioner moore, you may be on mute. Vice president moore i actually couldnt find my microphone, but i would actually be very interested in a slightly more detailed discussion on the parts and wrote on them individually because there is a lot to put on the record as far as what our concerns are and also have to listen carefully to what the community says. If we just mark it all into one vote, theres no real subtlety and no real reflection on what our challenges really are. President koppel commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson yeah, ive got some comments to make. I hear that there is a desire to take a vote after we make some findings, so i think we should do that, and then, we can get into the other approvals. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond just to clarify, my motion to second commissioner fungs motion was only as to certification of the e. I. R. It is not as to adoption of the findings, it is not as to the general plan amendment, the rezoning, the h. S. D. It is a singular topic, and that is a certification of the adequacy of the e. I. R. Everything else still needs more discussion. Clerk that is understood. And given that request, should i call the question . Vice president moore yes. Clerk very good, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to certify the Environmental Impact report. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60. And now, commissioners, the remaining plan amendments and ceqa findings are before you. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore id like to put to record the number of comments to each of the items which are in front of us, and id like to follow up with having them resonate with things i heard today from the public. The public spoke about modifying transportation and parking, no parking in the hub, expand carfree market zone, and consider studying the demolition of the central freeway as an integrated site for future opportunities of the hub. There was a request stated by a number of people regarding limiting height increases to three buildings only with upzoning of three sides as the ones identified at 98 franklin, 30 vanness, and 105 vanness. There were critical questions made about the housing sustainability district, and there was no support for the h. S. D. There was a strong voice for need of a more detailed socioeconomic studies, together with a race and equity study which finds that the housing analysis is sufficient. Along with that is a request by the community to create a high equity bar. Lastly, there was comment around adding a Community Realm plan, together with Community Facilities fees. That is a summary of what i heard. Id like to chime in with my own observations because many of them resonate with what was presented by the public. Under item 21a, adoption of amendments of the general plan, streets, and open space, i agree, we have a robust public realm plan. I myself would like to see a full Community Realm plan patterned after the exemplary central soma public realm plan, together with robust public facilities fees. Under item 22b, planning code amendments, adoptions of amendments of the general plan, id like to see an automatic annual indexing of Public Benefit fees and the Affordable Housing fees that mirrors the annual indexing of the housing section 315, something we have heard in other projects, particularly central soma. Under item 22c, zoning map amendments, i will ask staff to clarify why we are having the removal of block lot 3513 and the veterans s. U. D. I looked throughout the document and couldnt find an explanation. That is just a minor detail which id like to hear about. [please stand by] with the approval process. One of the reasons why i have difficulty with up zoning the other 15 sites and creating a housing sustainability is for the following. In the absence of hud specific guidelines, and the formal update of the plan fundamental Design Principles to a level of quality that mirrors those essential, it is insufficient to rely on 20182019 urban Design Guidelines for a project for 15 projects to review in the future. Further to that further to the Design Guidelines, i believe that we should take cues from the San Francisco residents from the soma file standards of 2011, that were prepared by the soma citizen Planning Task force. These guidelines were never mentioned, but they are a significant communitybased effort to understand the questions. These guidelines, together with the market achieved guidelines could be supplemented by a specific area guidelines and reciprocal updates for guidance for the planning implementation. Under item 22d, Planning Task force business tax regulations, approaches and code and design and review and approval process, i believe that the ministerial review process for the h. S. D. Is insufficient to deliver 18 projects over a timeframe of 10 years. Or the expanded suggested timeframe of potentially 20 years. As we know, it took more than 10 years for the Transit District and Treasure Island and the areas to get even started, even with robust plans. Its not just the plan, but it is when the rubber hits the road and the project starts. And under item 22d, again, the business tax regulations, for the length of the time allocated for the limitation up to 20 years, i question the proposed ministerial design, review and approval process. Once our current generation of planners and implementers is gone, there will be no institutional to attend to the character of the hub and infuse it with fresh thinking. We can always have timeliness for project delivery but we do need to preserve appropriate review and approval mechanisms during the length and timeframe for this project to be implemented. Again under 22d, in the context of this section, i question the suggested approval processes as proposed in the plan and appeal directly to the board of appeals instead of the board of supervisors. I believe that any board of supervisors has their pulse more on what is actually happening in the respective districts affected and i would say that this proposal, i do not agree with this proposal. Under plan adoption, which is is 22e, theres a question of equity and this question needs to be expanded into a broader equity assessment. And the summary of issues in Community Meetings and as expressed today and i do like the idea of high equity bar. This needs this points to the need for more indepth assessment which involves adding staff and resources to conduct such a study and it should include the communitybased mechanism to properly calibrate the social equity in this particular part of the city. I have a few other questions. I would like to hear a little bit more detail on the Public Storage in our presentation which has changes to that area. I did not quite follow it. Perhaps there is a diagram and you could explain that later. I would like to shift for one second to what i believe are postpandemic planning challenges, opportunities to reimagine the future. Id like us to pause. We have a past, we have a future, but we dont have a present. And it is in that present where we dont have much where we are supposed to make fully informed decisions where we are not fully informed. That goes to the issue of transportation, the transportation discussion, points made, and also made by mr. Henderson from hayes valley. The plan as it exists assumes adequate transit capacity. We already know that the Public Transportation will be inevitable and social distancing, lower ridership, and a drop in fare revenue and capacity reduction, how can we how do we need to be accountable . Will the t. D. M. Be affected in postpandemic reality . Even with the lower parking of 2. 5 per unit, theres 2,400 additional cars which excerbates an already congested area and i would say that id be interested in seeing a zero car zone here. I would like to see the transportation and discussion expanded to consider not only expanding Market Street to gough as being car free, but also looking at the entire hub as being zero car zone. Which would be a very futuristic way of looking into the future. I would like to see a broader discussion on limiting shadow impacts on public open spaces, social distancing will allow fewer will allow fewer people in our open spaces. Id like to expand the discussion on shadow to include Health Criteria for protecting sunlight and for public open spaces and look at the positive Health Effects of the sun. And i would like us to have to consider increasing the number of open spaces in closer proximity to housing. We all realize that shelterinplace did not allow many of us to go to parks that were mere walking distance from the homes that we live in. And if you only look at roof decks with even six feet required on even roof decks, when you have a building with 24 units and in the building i have a small roof deck that barely gets three people on the roof deck. These are all kinds of thoughts that came up in the last few weeks. I believe this is the time for us to consider them. Thank you. President koppel commissioner imperial. Commissioner imperial well, thank you. I actually agree a lot with what commissioner moore said in many things, actually. There are so many things on this. First, to deal with transportation. I agree with what the public has said in terms of the having a transit analysis in terms of, like, the parking requirements. I believe that commissioner moore also brought up having no no parking as part of zero parking. And my thing too when it comes to transportation, especially Public Transportation, is that, you know, as to what has been shown earlier is that many of the the impact fees for transportation. At the same time, we are hoping that we dont have an Economic Analysis you know, we dont know about the behaviors as well. So theres also that when it comes to the Public Transportation in terms of funding. I did not see in terms of like how are we going to with the projected, you know projected population growth thats going to be built here and 15,700 residents does, that mean that theres going to be an increase of services . And, you know, that means if that means Public Investment as well. And another thing too is that, you know, another is what is funding right now at the state and federal level for transportation, that usually what would San Francisco receive as well. And another thing too is that in terms of transportation in times of this pandemic and how do we think about the Transit Development around Public Health . I think that we really need to rethink the Planning Department in terms of how to incorporate health in Public Health, especially in the times of social distancing. And also in terms of architectural design, streets streetscapes. And the idea of the best design around Public Health. Are we setting guidelines for environmental Friendly Materials and incorporating Green Designs in green environment if we are really concerned about the Climate Change . So i think that, you know, there has been a lot of, you know, articles that have come out about this that rethinking the transit oriented development, and that we need to rethink that too. I think that not a lot of issues that the public has input, with the associate Year Economic and the Racial Equity. And i also agree with commissioner moore in terms of, like, providing funding. Providing funding in terms of assessing the equity for incorporating for future planning and also future development. And we have, you know, we have to look for a specific stat in order to do that. Whether, you know, restaffing or, you know, reorganized the staff to do that. And another thing too in terms of what we what we are in right now is that, you know, i think of also here about whether twitter and facebook, that they are also you know, their workers are starting to work from home. I mean, we dont have an analysis in terms of economic impact, what kind of jobs will be lost in here. And what are the projections in terms of the Housing Market and office industries. We dont know in terms of the economic behaviors of different industries. And that is actually a lot of people are for me particularly is worried about in terms of this hub plan. And if were comparing this to what the analysis in terms of the projection growth and theres also, you know, i mean there are things that i feel like we need to wait out in order to really realize and assess the economic behaviors. Because there is an economic impact. Another thing too that i also agree with the community and other people is the incorporation of the Community Plan and i dont think that i know that there are workshops happening, but how are these workshops happening in different communities in tenderloin and in the miss and, like, these are the communities these different communities may have different needs. And we dont we probably need we probably need to attend to those communities on their needs. So thats what is lacking also in terms of the community in this public realm. Theres no Community Realm at the same time. And so in terms of the, you know, the housing sustainability district, i also agree with commissioner moore in terms of the approval. I believe that we need to have with the lack of Community Participation or the comprehensive Community Participation in this area or in this surrounding hub plan, and also with now whats also being provided to us as commissioners, i think that we just received this yesterday of the amendment for the housing sustainability district in lowering that for only 120, its not just enough. Its just because this really needs a Community Participation. And we the Planning Commission cannot decide with a lack of information and analysis to designate portions or all of the hub as housing sustainability district. I think that we need to have i think that the community deserves indiscernible . Another thing too is that it looks like there are also demands in terms of having the three projects to go first. For the bulk and the first three projects instead of all of the plans. Again, it is with the Community Participation and the lack of the Community Participation in the plan. So those are my main things in my comments around this. And in terms of the fees, i agree with commissioner moore in applying the use it or lose it provision that has been applied to the soma plan. And i think thats we need to have those to make sure that the impacts will be. Caller president koppel commissioner johnson. Thank you. And theres so many things to comment on. Im going to just take it slow and go piecebypiece. My first comments are overall comments on the process to date and the implementation and the information that has been presented to us. You know, this is a multiyear planning process that happened many years before we for many of us on the commission had gotten to see the amendment to the initial plan. When we started the conversation its more than housing and Affordable Housing to this area. We agree that this area should be given this with its proximity and now theres more opportunity to add more Affordable Housing and housing and we should maximize that. During the First Amendment hearing, we all had questions, concerns, issues. The commissioner brought up the issues of sustainability, Community Advocates brought up issues and wanting socioEconomic Data and wanting clear stabilization va strategies, and clear understanding of looking at the city programs and code amendments and fees because strategies dont happen without funding. And since then theres been a coordinated effort with the Mayors Office of housing across departments, including sfmta, and our new department of racial and social equity and meetings between the director and the Community Leaders who first brought these issues to the forefront. And the efforts since that time have really been to Work Together to make sure that were planning and acting with shared values of planning for the city and for our Housing Needs and how the socioEconomic Analysis and strategies be there from the beginning and not as an afterthought. That opens up the door not just for the service but for meaningful and tangible funding to do this type of ongoing Community Engagement to equitably and inclusively design this area. From there i just want to say that, you know, that i think that there are really measurable opportunities that have been implemented from the Planning Department in this. You know, in considering this in the context of the socioEconomic Data and the time level with the data and thats something that the commission has been calling for as long as i have been on it. And we have that data in front of us. So these recommendations are not made in a vacuum. The recommendations in front of us in a vacuum and directly responded to the Community Organizations and advocates. And including some things that are up for our consideration that ill talk about later that we can include in direct response to those things. We have coordinated across the city and to look for and to implement changes to create a framework for our Community Process that includes more people, not just folks who have been able to, you know, to be engaged and be in the first rounds of conversation, but folks from all impacted neighborhoods. And so i just first actually want to give some kudos to the planners. And mya and jessica and josh, for evolving this plan and by proxy to work with the department in realtime. Theres absolutely more work to be done and i hear every single commissioner saying that we need to prioritize staffing and funding to continue to deepen our analysis. And that analysis needs to be done in coordination with communities that we are planning in. And so that is not up for debate. That is certainly what several people have said and i just want to add my voice to that chorus. And we were also talking about Value Capture and incentivizing onsite inclusionary land dedication for 100 Affordable Housing, increasing fees for Affordable Housing, more fees here than in other parts of the city. And creating additional funding for public realm and community spaces. Which as others have pointed out are crucial for social distancing. And that will be our way of life. And making transit and those environmental changes that are not just about cuts and are really about supporting peoples quality of life and their ability to engage people of different socioeconomic and Life Experiences and having the benefits of not only impacts who will be living in this new hub, but also surrounding areas. So i just want to get into some general comments and i want to get into some specifics. With parking it has been the priority of this commission to really want to reduce or eliminate parking where we can. And i certainly understand some of the conversation around the specific dates. I understand that one conversation that im very interested in having with my fellow commissioners is how we find balance. And as somebody who doesnt have a drivers license i take transit everywhere. And at the same time i think that we have talked about the fact that when we have family units, its appropriate to have some Parking Spaces to allow for that mix and balance. And i wonder if we might consider a more project project specific thinking around that. Or just thinking about, again, as were increasing family size units in this district, whether parking could be allowable. I hear some of the concerns about limiting the limiting the heights. And i really appreciated staffs comments about what we really are talking about when were talking about maximizing the height limits on the 18 sites. So some sites going from 50 to 65 and others from 85 to 120. And creating more than this at the intersections to really ground the look and feel of the place. And, you know, the additions of 15 to 30 feet. You know, i i at the state legislation and what is provided around that and also thinking about what were trying to incentivize which is making sure that if the projects are not requesting something discretionary and if they are complaint and they do allow for inclusionary the types of inclusionary housing that we want to see, i think its appropriate. I do take seriously the addition of the state and the city bonus level projects coming in more frequently is something that this commission has before taken into consideration. Because, again, we dont get Community Benefits from those things. And i would rather approve projects that, you know, we want to see and have Community Conversations about projects that do require discretionary review, than to just encourage the entity bonus program. I really appreciated the conversation about this and i support the housing sustainability district. I think that for all of the reasons actually that i have mentioned before that its appropriate. Thats my comments for now. President koppel commissioner. Ill be relatively short in my comment. The department responded to the incident of the comments from the commission at the previous hearing, initiation, and the meeting, and the department has also responded to quite a few of the comments that came there and as recently as this week from those comments that have been coming from the community. I find that the plan overall is quite well done. And im prepared to support it for passage. President koppel director hillis. Just one, thank you for all of the comments. I just wanted to kind of share some of our work in the last month and some of the issues that came about during Public Comment. I mean, one, were trying to take on some big issues about affordability and stability, and Community Equity in neighborhoods. Thats want going to be solved by zoning, whether we upzone or down zone, its really, you know, has got to be work that is core to what we do in the department. I think thats what we were trying to get at in our commitment to do this additional work. You know, were doing it in the mission and in soma where were much more engaged and wed like to expand that work to include the hub. And as the commissioners said even beyond to, you know, where we dont apparently have this work going on. So i totally get that that even in these times where we are facing budget deficits and we need to cut 10 to 15 of our budget, we are committed to that work. I think and i hope that you got that from our memo that we sent to you. It will be difficult to kind of maintain our capacity to do that work, but im committed to it. You certainly can weigh in when you bring back the budget to you to make sure that we do that work. So were happy to continue to refine that scope with the community that weve been working with to make sure that we get at the issues. You know, and that were supportive of the Community Facilities and how we spend that to most benefit the community. Well look to the Broader Community to do that as well as to the public realm work that were doing. So, you know, i just wanted to reiterate that support. In parking i think that weve grappled with the same issues. We did that when i was on the commission trying to push and to be as aggressive as possible and reducing the parking ratios. We are at. 25 to 1 here, and requiring 40 or urging 40 of the units to be two and three bedrooms so that balance between kind of providing units for families and minimizing parking. We hopefully struck that correct balance but wiper we were trying to get at that with the recommendations that you have before you. President koppel commissioner imperial. Thank you, director hillis. And, you know, commissioner johnson and thank you for those comments. I i do appreciate as well what the planning staff has done in terms of the, you know, the incorporating of some of the comments that was during the initiation hearing of this plan. And i did appreciate that. However, its not like what has been said, and its not as indepth in terms of the analysis and thats why and i appreciate director hillis in terms of, like, you know, in terms of committing for funding for this racial and social Equity Analysis. And i would hope to also add for the socioEconomic Analysis on that as well as part of that Equity Analysis. So, you know, my ask of the commissioners and my frustration is the process. The process in terms of that like information that are provided in terms of the amendments that were sent like only last night and, you know, i just feel like where is the Committee Process in all of this, in all of this time . You know, i understand that it sounds like there are probably i dont know in terms of the Community Outreach that has been done, but from my perspective in the communities that i have worked, it is also i also did not see that in this time. So there is that frustration that i hope that we are not bypassing the Community Planning and also were not bypassing this commission as well in terms of what we are really thinking. You know, and what, you know, in terms of what we think and how we support the community that we serve. So thats the only thing that, you know, that i i am looking at. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. Thank you for those comments, commissioner imperial. I remembered a couple things that i wanted to address. The first is that one thing that is up for our consideration is the establishment of new communities in the van ness and the special markets and i would be supportive of adding those for the reasons that were mentioned before. Making sure that were identifying that we have more spaces where people can play, can get outside of their apartments, and can engage the community is important. I also want to address commissioner moores recommendation or idea around the use it or lose it clause. I would love to hear you say a little more about that, and i think that this is unprecedented times and i feel yeah, i just wonder about the not only now, but in the coming years, you know, well need a little bit more flexibility for proje projects. And understanding that we all want those projects built as soon as possible, just recognizing that kind of moment and the time that were in. Commissioner moore. Commissioner johnson, were you asking me that question . Yes, i was. Thank you. In my history of having participated and approved the amazingly fabulous projects which seem to be so exciting that youd think that this was a transformational and everything would change. And i mentioned quite a few of them. And some of them were approved decades ago and theyre still they havent been fully started. Its kind of like the continuation of creating high visions and working really hard and very responsibly to catch up with really a kind of pipedream hanging out there and theyre not happening. On the other hand, while having good planning hanging out there, their relevance to changing circumstances, particularly what we have seen in the last five years, particularly right now, makes these plans seem more part of the past that dont hold up today anymore. And as i said earlier im not trying to sound doomsday, but i do think that well have to learn something from the current crisis. And how we then look at old plans and bring new realities to retrofitting or potentially discarding those old plans will be a test of strength and our own ability to manage change. So that would be the best thing that i could say to you in response to your question and i thank you so much for picking up on it and asking me. Im sorry, commissioner diamond. I have two questions for staff. The first is that i thought that i had reviewed most of the conditions most of the motions and the condition that had a 36month revocation clause, if the staff could address that please in order to be quite specific about the useitorloseit clause and how the 36 months would apply. And secondly, commissioner moore asked a question that i was interested in as well too, and thats the situation around 99 south van ness why youre proposing to lowering the heights from what you originally proposed. Could you address that. Commissioners, this is josh with staff. Just briefly on the useitorloseit clause. There was a reference to central soma and i think what people are referring to is the provision in the housing sustainability district in central soma that has a 30month clause of entitlement. Theres not a general useitorlose it clause in the soma plan generally but only related to the h. S. D. And i believe that is what commissioner diamond is recalling in her reading of the ordinance is that 36month provision is in the housing sustainability district legislation. You want to add something . You need to unmute your microphone. Sorry about that. I can respond to the question about 99 south van ness and i can share my screen for a quick second. I can show you a visual that we have prepared. So if you can see here this is the proposal that is included in the map amendment. You can see a tower, at 250 feet and a podium on the corner. Its one parcel so a portion of the parcel as you go towards lafayette is 120 feet. And then the part the section of the parcel on 12 is at 50 feet. And we have a series of conversations with a number of residents that live here and they have concerns around sort of shadow and light impacts because of the development. And so we have taken a look closer and the proposal for your consideration really just shifts the height around. And so it maintains the 250foot tower. It shortens the podium from 1200 to 85. It lowers the heights closer to lafayette to really provide a better transition to the lower heights that are around the alley. And then it increases heights along 12th street from 50 to 85 to match what is across the street. So its really a shifting of heights and maintaining much of the development capacity, but to better meet the concerns of the community and what is a better proposal. If i could answer commissioner moores questions about the indiscernible . So the s. U. D. Has when it was established in the planning code it was at that time one parcel. After the s. U. D. Was established a residential building was built and then the parcel was subdivided. And so currently theres a portion of the parcel that is an Office Building where h. S. A. Has an office and a residential building which is the veterans common building. So were just proposing more of a technical clarification to say that the veterans common s. U. D. Should only fall around the portion of the parcel that includes the Residential Development. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner diamond. Yes, an additional question for staff dealing with the Community Facilities fee, which im concerned about. Are you proposing that if we were to adopt these various motions today that you would do a nexus study and determine the legal criteria prior to the time that it went to the board of supervisors . And as part of that you would consider whether or not this would be a new fee on top of all of the existing fees . Or whether or not you would take a portion of one of the existing fees, perhaps the infrastructure fee and allocate it specifically for Community Facilities . Id like more information on exactly what you intend to do in the time between potential Planning Commission approval of these various proposals and the time that this project would go to the board on this issue, please. I can touch upon it and then josh can maybe add to my response. But to establish a new fee, a nexus study is required and a nexus study was done in central soma to establish the Community Facilities fee there. Weve taken a pretty sort of cursory look at that and we feel that there might be portions of that could be applicable but we need more time to look at that in more detail. We need to do a nexus study and maybe to build on that study. In regards to how the fee would be structured i think that we need to explore both options. You know, weve done we have been doing Feasibility Analysis for this area over the last four years also and that analysis has shown that this area really has limited capacity to add new fees. We also know that theres a need for this type of funding. And so it could be a small new fee or be taken out of the existing category for infrastructure, which would mean that there would be less money available for the other categories. And thats something that we just need a little bit more time to look into. Ill just add to what is said that because the nexus work is not complete, what the commission can do now is to recommend a study, rather than to recommend adoption of the fee itself. Just to expand on the study that exists that supports the central soma fee, we are looking at that nexus study that was done to support the sentra soma Community Facilities fee. While it did just support that alone and was called the central soma central communities nexus study, there are certain aspects that apply citywide and well look at that closely with the city attorneys and others to see how much more work would be needed to to supplement that study. And to pursue a fee in this plan. So its possible that could be done before the board takes action on the plan . But maybe not so well work diligently on that. Commissioner moore. I am very grateful that staff is as informed to provide questions in the moment to very important issues which are coming up here for the first time. While i do share an observation that commissioner imperial made earlier we could have all of those answers already built in. And it is the rush between the memo that came out late yesterday afternoon, not quite knowing how and which way it would work itself into the process today and all of the things that could be done potentially even done before the board of supervisors gets their hands on this project. And we all would be happier. And perhaps it would even answer many of the communities concerns. I worked really hard and tried to shed as much light on every possible angle of working also with in particular the Staff Members who were just wonderful and have been as accommodating as they could be. But theres still so many there are still a lot of uncertainty and so many moving parts that i am quite anxious about how we move about this approval today. Director hillis. Just in response to commissioner moores comments simply because i think that theyre valid. If you read even the communitys request for additional work here, theres a recognition that this work has got to be ongoing. Its not going to happen in a month. Its not going to happen in three months. I mean, certainly, some of the analysis could, but the eventual work is really about implementation in an ongoing commitment to this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods around the hub. Which i think that we tried to reflect. And i think that is really what the community was asking for. So, you know, were certainly willing to take on that work and also even to find more, because i think we can do that in the next 30 days. Kind of what the scope of that work is and our commitment to that work is and how we can go about making sure that is in our budget and our work plan. But i think that theres a recognition by all thats not going to happen in the next 30 days. The work its really a longterm commitment. Commissioner diamond. So i have spent the last several weeks buried deep in these documents. And at this point i am prepared to make a motion to proceed. However, i would like the staffs help in making sure that its comprehensive. And so i would be prepared to approve the various actions that were taking place, general plan amendment, the zoning amendment, planning code amendments, tax resolution, housing sustainability district, staff can add on if theres anything else there. I want to acknowledge the minor edits that have been proposed. I do want to include the zoning proposed amendments to 99 south van ness. I dont know if the Veterans Building requires a particular amendment. And i do believe that the additional work on the nexus study needs to be done on the Community Facilities district. Hopefully prior to the time that it goes to the board of supervisors. Second. Second. Commissioner moore . I would very much vote for full approval, however, i can only look at what is and not what potentially would be. I deal with the reality of whats in front of me and you know how i think and you know how i work, its a seamless architectural plans and because there are particular parts which i already read into the record, i can support parts of what is in front of us because the work is solid and the work is really indepth. But there are also a number of pieces that i cannot support. And if you all would vote in one swoop, i will have to take those parts which i dont agree with and vote no and i would regret doing that. So, commissioners, the way that i understood the motion, it was sort of one motion for all of the action items that remain. I also hear commissioner moore requesting that we take up the matters separately. Is there a a desire to amend the motion to take up the matters independent of one another . Commissioner diamond . All right. I have no objection to voting on each of these entitlements one at a time, if that is what commissioner moore is proposing at this point. Im fine if we do them as a package or if we do them one at a time. If i heard her directly her preference is to do them one at a time because theres certain of the motions that she would not join in. Is that amenable to the secretary . Clerk yes. Very good. So then why dont we try taking them up one at a time and get through these. And i assume that it was part of your motion commissioner diamond . Absolutely. Very good. Lets take that up first, please. On item 21 for the octavia area plan amendment of ceqa findings. Commissioner imperial . No. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. I vote to make a comment and vote no. The impact the impact that cant be avoided are to many and to benefits that dont outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and its for that reason that i vote, no. Clerk thank you. Commissioner koppel. So moved commissioners. The motion passes 42, with imperial and moore voting against. We will take up the matter of item 22a next. For the market octavia general plan amendments. And if i heard correctly these incorporate the amendments proposed by staff with minor corrections and crossreference corrections. On that motion commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Commissioner imperial . Sorry, i was on mute. No. Clerk commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. And Commission President koppel, aye. So moved, passes 51 with commissioner imperial voting against. Item 22b for the market octavia plan code amendments. Again, with the amendments proposed by staff and minor corrections and crossreferencing. Can we can we read those into the record . Clerk is there a desire from the rest of the commissioners to read yes, please. Clerk very good. Staff, could you please read those amendments and note the corrections again, please. This is specific to item 22b for the planning code amendments. Lily, you may be on mute. Okay, sure. So there are six changes that were added into the ordinances since the packet was published. And this includes adding the school to the list of ground floor uses that if provided are larger than a thousand square feet that the microretail requirement indiscernible and adding school to the list of Community Uses that can be provided on the ground floor as a criteria for a project to receive additional height and bulk. For project subjects to a purchase and sale agreement, allowing flexibility for the location of additional onsite b. M. I. Units that exceed the Planning Section requirements. Additional language to help determine the fee waiver for the land dedication options. Allowing rooftop screens on certain parcels to exceed Building Height, given updated elevator vaif safety requiremen. And extending the housing Sustainability Development from seven to 10 years. I wanted to clarify too, would this be or, lily, is the appropriate place commissioner diamond made reference to the language to study that. Is that shouldnt this be part of this or under which item . Clerk 22b . I think this item would be a planning code amendment. Very good, commissioners. As read into the record, the proposed amendments by staff and including the proposed recommendation to pursue a nexus study for Community Facility fee, on that motion commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. Commission president koppel. Aye. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 60. Item 22c for cases for the market octavia plan zoning map amendments. Commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. No. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Nope. And Commission President koppel . Aye. So moved, commissioners that motion passes 42 with commissioners moore and imperial voting against. Item 22d for the hub housing sustainability district code and tax regulations code and planning code amendments. Commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. No. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Nope. And Commission President koppel . Aye. So moved, commissioners that motion passes 42 with commissioners moore and imperial voting against. Item 22e for the market octavia imelementation program. Commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Nope. And Commission President koppel . Aye. So moved, commissioners tha motion passes 51 with commissioner moore voting against. Congratulations, weve made it halfway through your agenda today. Commissioners, i do believe that we have recreation and park on our on our live event. And for the benefit of the public, the Planning Commission will go into recess and we will immediately reconvene into a joint hearing with the recreation and Park Commission. I would like to at this time to welcome the recreation and Park Commission. Commissioners, as well as their acting secretary stacy white. Stacy, if you could confirm that you are on. I am on. Very good. I will remind both members of the staff and the commission that the meeting chat is really only used to request to speak. So i dont believe that commissioner anderson you are requesting to speak at this ti time. And so i will call this next portion of the meeting or this joint meeting to order. And welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission and recreation and Park Commission special joint meeting for thursday, may 21st, 2020. And for the benefit of the public as previously stated at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting, due to the emergency related to covid19 we have been authorized to meet remotely. And the Planning Commission and the recreation and Park Commission have been authorized by the Mayors Office to do so. And i will, again, request everyones patience in advance. And the merged platforms are not perfect and are sometimes clumsy. I will remind everyone to please mute your microphones and turn off your video camera when not speaking and please resist hitting any controls that may affect other participants to enable the participation, sfgovtv is doing this hearing live and well receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. Each speaker will be allowed to speak up to three minutes when you have 30 seconds remaining youll hear a chime indicating that your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached i will announce that your time is up and direct my staff to take the next person to speak. Again, please call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television and or computer. And at this time i would like to take roll. Planning Commission President koppel. Here. Vice president moore. Here. Planning commissioner diamond. Here. Planning commissioner fung. Here. Planning commissioner imperial. Here. And Planning Commissioner johnson. Here. And the acting secretary of the recreation and Park Commission to call roll. Clerk president commissioner buell. Here. Commissioner low. Here. Commissioner anderson. Here. Commissioner bonilla. Here. Commissioner harrison. Here. Commissioner mazzola. Here. Commissioner mcdonnell. Here. Clerk fantastic. We have a quorum for both commissions. And so we should proceed. Please note that the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for the Public Comment to provide testimony on all items listed below. Following the public hearing, the recreation and Park Commission will act jointly with the Planning Commission to consider raising the cumulative Shadow Center of the center plaza and the Park Commission to make a recommendation with the possible adverse impact of shadow on Margaret Hayward playground and the Community Park and Patricia Green plaza and howard and lincoln mini park. And following the action, the recreation and Park Commission will adjourn and the Planning Commission will remain in session and separately consider actions on all other entitlements. Items 1a and b for case numbers 2017008051shd, for 30 van ness, discussion and possible joint action by the Planning Commission and the recreation and Park Commission to raise the cumulative shadow, as well as discussion and possible action by the planning and Park Commission to adopt the resolution to recommend to the Planning Commission that new shadow cast by the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact. And items 2a, b, c, d, and e for case 2017008051shd, and e and d, and osa for the project of 30 van ness. And adoption of shadow findings, adoption of ceqa findings and downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization, and Office Development allocation respectively. Staff, are you prepared to present . Can we does commissioner low need to mention a couple things . Yes. To the recreation and Park Commission, i request to be recused from this matter. It is a client of which im a partner. Duly noted. Do we need a motion, stacy . Clerk i believe so. Commissioner buell . I make a motion to recuse commissioner low from the this matter on the