Across the bottom of the screen. Comments or opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period are available by calling that number 888 2733658. When you are connected and would like to speak on an item that is up for Public Comment press one and then zero to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. When you have thirty kekds secos remaining eum hear a chime indicating your time is up. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, mute the volume on your television or computer. Id like to call roll at this time. War ba. ralroll cal. roll call . Thank you everyone. First on your agenda is items for continuance. Descritionary review. Items 2a and b discretionary review and variance are proposed for july 30th. Staff was requesting that we actually continue it just one week to july 23 and add this matter to the consent calendar. All parties will be advised that if this falls off of consent on july 23 if so continued it will be placed at the end of the agenda or need to be continued into september. Further commissioners under your descritiodiscretionary review cr item 14a the discretionary review has been withdrawn. Item 14b, just the variance portion will need to be continued by the assistance Zoning Administrator. I have no other items proposed for continuance. We should take Public Comment. your conference is now in question an answer mode. this is your opportunity to call in to the eight hundred number. Press one then zero to enter the queue. you have two questions remaining. hi. Im sorry. Point of clarification. Whats happening with the 590 items. Its being pushed to july 23 does that mean were not discussing that today anymore. plans that satisfied staff, were continuing it one week. okay. Im sorry. What indefinite continuance means. Are we discussing that today or not anymore. it will be on the agenda next week. If you are opposed it may not stay on the consent calendar. It will be on next weeks agenda for consideration. okay. Is it on this weeks agenda still or not. Im sorry. it is not. It is on this weeks agenda but being proposed for continuance. okay. It is still on the agenda today well have an opportunity to talk about it today this is your opportunity to speak to the continuance right now only. okay. just to the continuance of one week. im absolutely against it. Im really concerned about the impact on the pregnancy i wan tt to have. I dont understand entirely what the continuance means. Id like the opportunity to discuss this matter today if thats possible. it is being proposed for continuance for one week to jul. we would rather discuss it today. i understand that. Thank you. thank you. lets go to the next caller. you have one question remaining. hi. I called to see if i can request for a delay of the hearing one2 project. It was scheduled for july 23 due to lack of public notice. It was scheduled for today due to the error in scheduling. People are supposed to enter the meetingotherwise they wont know. They will miss opportunity to speak out. It causes trouble to our neighbors. My question is that can we reschedule the meeting for this fall. Because of the corona virus pandemic. Thank you. you have zero questions remaining. sorry. Commissioners. If i could get a point of clarification. I dont think we received a notice for elizabeth being withdrawn. we all received an email that it was withdrawn. yes. david and elizabeth were withdrawn. 219 has been withdrawn. as well as elizabeth. i will add 219 as being withdrawn as well. The matter is now before you. wish to continue items as noted. second. thank you, commissioners. Continue items as proposed. sorry. Including acknowledging that elizabeth and missouri has been withdrawn. roll call so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously search to zero. The assistant zoning commissioner can comie chime inn those variances. item 14b continue item to the next regular variance hear hearing. This is also a remote hearing and a link will be available on the Planning Department website. The intent is to have this item heard to approve the revised plan dated july 15th 2020 the corresponding conditions of approval. Thank you. you also needitem 2b. also continue that to the date specified. now we will be on your consent calendar. All matters listed here are considered to be routine and may be enacted upon by a single roll call vote. You should open Public Comment to see if anyone wishes to take either of these items off of consent. This is your opportunity to call into the 800 number to get into the queue. We only need to wish if you wish to remove either of the two items on consent off of consent to be heard on the regular calendar today. you have one question remaining. this is john on behalf of the project 355 bay shore bulled. There was a condition of approval. I want to confirm whether that has been resolved or not or take it off to ensure. all i know is that staff has a revised motion before the hearing earlier today. I do not know if it include the revised motion that you are referring to. In order to take this matter up we have to pull it off of consent. just to be clear that we got the hours of operation correct and not needing to come back to the commission. Iedz like tid like to pull it. It shouldnt take long. very good. Well take it off of consent. thank you. you have one question remaining. is the member of the public im so sorry. The terminology is a little confusing to me. Should the people who are on line talking about 592 avenue, is that not being discussed today anymore . it was on the calendar for continuance. thats all i needed to know. it sounds like its not going to be on next week either. okay. Thank you. okay, commissioners. The matter is now before you. I will remind you that bay shore has been pulled off of consent. Its only item five. It sounds like we can take bay shore first under the regular calendar. move to approve the van necessarness on the consent cal. thank you on that motion to approve item five under your consent calendar. Awe. Clerk seeing no other requests to speak, we can move on to item 7, department matters. I am here for director hillis who is out of the office this week. There are a couple of items that i wanted to share with you that the department is engaged on postcovid work. Director hillis has told you about the marriage Recovery Task force. Hes cochairing an Economic Working Group with the office of Economic Development and wo workforce and this group is focussing on Housing Production and Small Business recovery. They are planning on presenting ideas to the economic Recovery Task force in early august so we can look forward to seeing the benefits of that work. Number two i know you are familiar with the citys shared Spaces Program that mayor reed launched in may. Wanted to give you a little update on this one. This is a program that helps support neighborhood particularly neighborhood businesses for the business and community activities. This is the reallocation of the public rightofway, sidewalks or part of streets and Public Police in a safe distance and with fresh air. You have probably seen restaurant pick up and at this point were pleased to share over 800 applications for the permits. And to make the need and i want to let you know that Planning Department staff for current planning and the key role and the city wide design group is managing and coordinating the program for the city at large. And we also have Planning Department staff with the department of economic and Workforce Development putting together the Equity Program and insure full participation in communities. So far we have given updates to the Small Business commission and the Entertainment Commission and if this commission is interested, we could share more with you about these efforts in the future. So that concludes my update for you. We can review past events board of supervisors and there is no record from the board of appeals. The Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday. The land use amendment and also called the hub and recommended on approval with modifications and the commissions modification and the department and the board to pursue a nexus study and in response to the commissions action and the mayor introduced june 9 during the land use hearing and expressed during Public Comment and improved by the commission and encouraging supervisors to move forward with the legislation. The other was a request to put the legislation on told until further equity work is complete. After Public Comment there was not significant discussion on the proposed plan by the committee members. They continued the item until july 20. The rules Committee Held a hearing on the mayor Ballot Initiative and save our Small Business or s. O. S. And the lack of controls and certain destination type uses and uses not impacted by the online competition and general entertainment, movie theaters and arts activities and remove 311 neighborhood notification and principally use. And these controls have to stay in place after which time to change them. And less restricted in the time period. And supervisor ronen had the most questions for staff and the Planning Department and oewd. Supervisor ronen stated the support for most of the items and questioned why the changes are not being done for legislative process as could be done legislatively. The mayor worked at the board and would have been able to fine tune the legislation that is more foes kued. Public comment was fairly split and supported legislatively and through the emergency ordinance and others supported the initiative and could get a far reaching changes like these through. I would note it is not clear if any of the changes could be done the emergency ordinance as those are usually reserved for more restrictive controls. As of just a hearing and the mayor can place the initiative without board approval, at the end of the hearing the Committee Filed the item and didnt take further action. The board considered supervisor peskins ordinance that would allow the expansion of the Central Police station and the north beach and that passed the first reading. That is all i have for you today. They adopted a resolution centering preservation planning with racial and social equity similar to what the Planning Commission had done and adopted recommendation for the approval for the planning Code Amendment on your agenda later today regarding continuation of certain nonconforming parking lots in the Mission Street and supporting 1315 waller street. Seeing no questions, we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time members may address the commission. With respect to agenda item, 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 three minutes. When number of speakers exceed the 15minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Lets open up the Public Comment line. [instructions] again, members of the public this is the opportunity to call 800 number and press 1 and 0 to enter the queue. Caller hi. My name is katie and i am a counselor at hoover middle school, and im calling in support of prop e, Affordable Homes for educators and families. San francisco is in a severe housing crisis right now and were in desperate need of Affordable Housing. Every year at my school we have about 20 from our educators and have to leave the city because they can no longer afford to keep their family in San Francisco. This is devastating for us and the complete presentation as we know relationships are how we keep the students engaged in the classroom and these relationships are broken every time an educator has to leave San Francisco. I currently own below market rate condo. It is essentially a studio and the standing family and i am looking to move so i can live at an affordable rate. We need more solutions here in San Francisco. If i moved in navado and i am one example of so many educators being forced out of the city. We spend all of our time every day and youth in San Francisco and as an educator and support they need for other educators and in the city and we need your support to make sure there were opportunities that are educators who want to expand their opportunity to have opportunity to do so. And specifically i am interested in hearing about two bedroom and three bedroom condos and apartments for rent for that part of thing. We spend all of our time educating San Francisco youth and keep relationships and not hearing them down for our educators and families in San Francisco and expand their families. Thank you. Caller during the recent decades the loss of existing housing has been a significant issue of San Francisco land use, unchecked, such housing laws have have profound effect on neighborhood character and on the financial accessibility of housing. Now, those are not my words. Those o your words and they are in the summary of the updated and revised part of implementation document for section 317 and they have been there since 2009 since that document and the 2010 version and to the june 2010 version. And as i said, this is updated and i dont know if the staff alerts you to this and i sent you a copy of the summary page in an email about an hour and a half ago. With a little note attached. As i said, it is revised in the clarifications have been revised and nevertheless, even with the revised clarifications that does not negate the reality that they should be adjusted. I hope that you read it and the staff alerted you to it and updates you on how they updated it and take care, be well, be safe. Thank you. Goodbye. You have four questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. With the Neighborhood Council and coalition. About a month ago you had a case on your agenda that was continued indefinitely and that was regarding 4211 26th street in noi valley. I continue reminding the planner as well as you during the general Public Comments that this is not a Single Family home and two units where there were tenants living there that the staff keeps representing this as a Single Family home that is being demolished to make room for yet another Single Family home. This is not the case. And after i brought it up to the attention of the staff and there were two Water Department meeters and there is a history of tenants living in the unit in this building and back because there was no record of two units, with the d. B. I. And the planning is not going to consider this two unit building. Even though this director shows that this is the two unit building. Fast forward to today when we have another construction project and this time the director shows this is a oneunit building and nevertheless, they show there is work to be done for a twounit building. So i am asking you, commissioners, for help on this front. We need to have a standard being applied to these reviews at the Planning Department. How do you expect the public to react to this . One, when we bring it up to your attention that depending on the planner and we are not getting anywhere. We do need to have some standards in the planning staff when they review the buildings and the projects and determine whether or not these are Single Family homes and this is really important also and the developers gamed the system and thereby the project is worry and merits your approval. Thank you. In most cases these are multiunit families that are being demolished and by technicality being declared by rhyme or reason and come together in a Single Family home. And i am asking you to intervene in this matter and require the standard or declaring whether or not the house is a Single Family home or is a multiunit. Thank you very much. Caller i am the policy and planning manager at tenderloin neighborhood unit cooperation. And back in 2019 we were definitely excited and a supporter of prop b and the historic ballot measure and our city believes in the need to build and increase Affordable Housing and the trailing legislation amendment and to allow extra height on the parcels and for what can be Affordable Housing across the city. More importantly, the fine tunings to prop b are relevant to the viability for Affordable Housing development and vetted with the Affordable Housing developers and finance experts and purchased a project and in the Due Diligence phase for another potential site in the sunset and streamline approval and increases and the benefits from prop b are combined with Senior Housing funding and this is an excellent example. Lastly, i would like to acknowledge the benefit of educator housing with the need of San Francisco community. Thank you for your time. Caller this is jonathan. And the planning code 317 and quoted a portion of that which says that we should protect Housing Units from demolition and argue that we should expand the demolition units against those things and the demolition calculations that prevent the renovations and units and very little to do with the removal of the housing. And planning code 317 should focus on what the purpose is protecting tenants and insuring that Housing Units and rooms dont disappear rather than the demolition calculation. Instead of expanding this demolition calculation, the Planning Department should propose to remove the demolition and allow for expansion and allow for more units and more bedrooms. And preserving on the tenants and the number of Housing Units on the bedrooms from the calculation business. You have one question remaining. Little bit about the prop b trailing legislation that is before you today. We have in support of the legislation. And elected leaders and Affordable Housing advocates and to make sure that was the campaign with 77 with the the multiple coalitions to make sure that as we know this follows sand really important we focus on truly affordable population. We have many for luxury housing and since i cant afford it. And we need to make sure that everyday working families can stay in San Francisco and i hope you will do the right thing and support prop b and make sure that working families can stay in San Francisco. Thank you. Recovery task force is addressing Housing Production and Small Business delivery and the opportunity residents for the the communities and the important Training Services and the sfmta is on life support and in light of the approval for the reservoir. I ask that retraining becomes an important component of recovery. Thank you. Clerk that concludes the general comment portion of the hearing. I do apologize. I wasnt sure when some of the callers introduced their comments related to prop b, but it appears as though three of those Public Comments related to prop b were certainly meant for items 9a and b for the Affordable Housing and educator streamlining agenda later today on the agenda. Commissioners, that will place us under your regular calendar. Item 4 was pulled off of consent for case 2019021084cua at 355 bayshore boulevard. And this is the conditional use authorization and it seems as though we can take care of this fairly quickly and i did need to introduce you to Claire Feeney and she joined our department on the southeast time and a San Francisco native and thrilled to be helping support communities in her hometown. Claire previously worked with other municipalities and the excite to be back in local government. She has degrees from the university of Southern California and university of pennsylvania. Welcome, claire, for your first presentation. Are you prepared to make the presentation . Yes, i am the clerk the floor is yours. Good afternoon, commissioners. Planning Department Staff and the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 249. 65, 303, and 303. 1 to establish a formula Retail Grocery use in the pdr2 core production distribution reZoning District. The project proposed would authorize 14,792 square foot general grocery formula use dba grocery in the onestory commercial building. And operated by a National Chain Grocery Store until approximately 2018. There will be no expansion of the existing building and store front modifications proposed. And then the background subject tenant space and within the 300foot radius and the formula retail concentration and about 33 commercial fronts on the ground floor. And 24. 4 of the approximately 12,000 linear feet of Retail Store Fronts about 1300 and formula retail concentration of 10. 7. If they were to increase the formula retail uses in the 300foot vicinity to 27. 3 . Section 303. 1 of the planning code and retail uses and there are not concentration limits to retail units. Claire, you can clarify whether or not your amended motion included the hours of operation that wanted clarity on. That is the only reason we pulled it off of consent. The original motion had the hours of operation to start at 10 00 a. M. Each day and the project sponsor request we start the revise the hours of operation to start at 8 00 a. M. Each day as many Grocery Stores operate in the morning. If the project sponsor can acknowledge that is satisfactory, we can do without the project sponsors presentation. Project sponsor . Project sponsor, you may be muted. You need to press star 6. Did we lose the project sponsor . Jonas, he might have called in on the public pickup line rather than the commission line. Clerk lets go ahead and take Public Comment then. Thank you, and the Planning Commission here on behalf of grocery outlet. Thank you for sticking with me for clarifying the hours of operation and leave it at that and i am here if there are any questions. We will have to go to the next caller. Fantastic, commissioners. It sounds as if the project sponsor is satisfied. Commissioner fung . Commissioner fung, you may be muted. My apologies. Move to i a prove the conditional use. Granted, commissioners. There is a motion to approval and second to earlier on the staff and on that motion, commissioner chan, commissioner diamond. And commissioner imperial and commissioner johnson. Commissioner moore, and commissioner koppel. So moved, commissioners. That passes unanimously 70. Commissioners, we are experiencing some technical difficulties with the direct callin line that we provide to project sponsors and so as a result the backup solution is for project sponsors to call the Public Comment line when we take matters so it might be somewhat out of order when we take Public Comment in order to allow project sponsors to make their presentation, so just a heads up and more technical difficulties maneuvering as a result. Commissioners, that will place us on items 9a and b for case 202010411pca and 20203036pca for the Affordable Housing and streamlining program and Code Amendments. Staff, are you prepared to make the presentation . Thank you, jonas. Planning Department Staff and today we will be going on two separate ordinances to propose to amend the planning code and Affordable Housing and educator housing and streamlining and proposes to alter different aspects of the program and the two ordinances dont compete and make proposed modifications to either ordinance. It is sponsored by supervisor yee and proposes to alter the bedroom mixed development and the second ordinance is sponsored by supervisor fewer to grant additional height and allow parcels to qualify for section 206. 9. Jen lo is here to speak of behalf of their office and ordinance and we will have ian who will speak on behalf of supervisor fewers ordinance before we give the department presentation. Thank you so much, commissioners. We introduced this legislation early on i just realized my microphone slipped. Hold on a moment. Clerk we could hear you. You were fine. Sorry. I had an another meeting and i didnt know if you were picking up on that and from a city wide level and keep with families here and attracting family or child friendly housing is having dwelling unit mixes that include two and three bedroom units. So when we saw the educator Housing Project was green lit by voter, we were excited to help house the educators and struggling to find places to live. Our proposal is to insure that the Housing Program and mimics other types of housing and require 10 and often difficult and difficult to build three bedroom units and we see that in other cities and it is possible to do that and political will and direction to guide with what weve got and in talking with partners at the School District and talking to the Mayors Office of housing and as well as the Planning Department and 10 threshold and feasible to set the standard to floor. And the educator Housing Units will have a mix of studios and threebedroom units. In the staff report it is hard to sell threebedroom units and i dont think its so much that there is not a desire or demand for threebedroom units as a mother myself and i know that many of you as well and with the right size of housing to set the tone and the standard to not design only because it is more affordable and easier to do. We need to take a path and challenge ourselves to house different types of families and those with parents and to build the units and support and target the families in them that is a challenge at the board of supervisors. It is good and count on the support today. Thank you. I believe that who contacted me was unfortunately experiencing technical difficulties so supervisor fewers office will try to call the public line and while doing so, i will go forward with staff presentation as a reminder to the public and the commission and these are two separate ordinances in one staff record today and there are two resolutions to be taking. One vote on supervisor yees ordinance and that jen lo gave the presentation on and the other we will hopefully be hearing from supervisor fewers office and to have him connected. I will go forward with staff presentation and so as jen lo said, supervisor yees ordinance will propose to require educator Housing Projects after january 14, 2020 to include 10 of units and three bedroom units within the existing requirement to provide two or more bedrooms and to occupy the housing without playing too high from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and heights allow these types of developments on vacant lots. They recommend reducing to 3,000 square feet in the rest side where the electronics. And to be financially feasible. And for more than 100 affordable and educator projects to be producted. Staff has not received any Public Comment besides what was heard during general Public Comment in this hearing and i would like to lastly mission and in attendance and other questions you may have regarding addendum 6 to the Housing Element e. I. R. In your packets as exhibit c. With that jonas if you wouldnt mind if we try to see if ian has been able to reach the public line. That concludes your presentation . Yes, it does. Lets go ahead and open up Public Comment. Your conference is in question and answer mode. Very good, commissioners. And call into the 800number and press 11 and 0 to enter the queue. Hopefully the supervisors aid has entered the queue towards the beginning. You have one questioning remaining. Ken tray and i am here with katie who spoke previously in the Public Comment. And the longtime former member of the executive board and teacher in San Francisco for 25 years before i retired. And you didnt hear much talked about crisis in that world far away from today and the reality is if you visited any school in San Francisco, at least that is with the pandemic, you would find too much talk about the difficulty of finding housing in our fair city. That is why teachers and school staff were so excited the prop 8 task was 76 of the popular vote. Need and legislation to increase the number of parcels and the threebedroom units in the Affordable Housing by prop e. It is hard to believe having three bedroom apartments could be in any way controversial. We entered the fight for affordable fight for housing and supported a mix of units from studios to three bedroom to support the wide range of needs of our members. Too many of my friends and colleagues have left the city because they simply to raise a family, grow a family, and they cannot afford any place in San Francisco with three bedrooms and often two bedrooms so please support both of the legislative acts by fewer and supervisor yee. Thank you. Caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Caller im sorry. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is peter cohen with the council of Community Housing organization. We were very involved in the design of the prop b measure and has such wide support from San Francisco voters and the legislation in front of you today is just some fine tuning really of that very comprehensive measure. It was designed very intentionally to be a pragmatic piece of city wide policy that allows corner to corner in San Francisco Affordable Housing by right with the number of incentives to make that work. And this is just going to make that availability of sites and then the feasibility of development all the better so it is a rather simple legislation in front of you today. The big policy was last november if odd thing is that we have had a pandemic in the middle and so arguably the legislation would have been here in front of you back in february or march. And so we just want to emphasize and take from previous callers and significant housing policy if you were history last november was and this is just kind of finishing up the job. I do want to speak specifically to the staff recommendation and increase Affordable Housing with the site threshold and reasonable and not vetted. And designed prop b last november, we had a 10,000 square foot threshold already really as small at the edge of the envelope. Reducing it to 8,000 before you was really outside of the box and very specific because there is sites that might have that narrow band between 8,000 and 10,000 feet. There is a lot of questions whether those are even viable. Anything other than that is kind of an idea to find it that isnt designed to respectfully ask the commissioners to support the legislation as its been designed. Not receive the staff recommendation. Thank you very much. A commissioners, if we could bear with this one more second. Audrey, if you could let the supervisors aid that needs to press 1 and 0 to get into the queue. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. I am just calling to echo what also support what staff has recommended. Trying to have 100 Affordable Housing for educators will be really hard to deal with nonprofit outfits if we are dealing with 3,000 square feet. I am here to sfrort changes being pr to support the reproposition proposed. You have one question remaining. Hello. This is ian from supervisor fewers office. I wanted to thank everyone so much for having me today and really sorry about the technical issues. I was on since 1 00. And i apologize for that. And supervisor fewers office. Thank you so much for hearing this today. As many have said, the legislation today that is really a small change to a much Larger Initiative proposition e and past from the november 2019 election and to thank, first of all, planning staff and audrey for the work on this and into the meeting. I want to appreciate your time here and one of supervisor fewers office and 100 affordable Senior Housing project moving forward in district one. And to the members of the community and folks from Affordable Housing that called in earlier to voice their support. We are excited that this project and others as well on the west side will benefit from the streamlined approval and the ordinance before you today will expand the opportunities and establishing the baseline height for the Affordable Housing project and we deucing the minimum lot threshold from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet and the Service Level parking lot and worked hard with Affordable Housing developers and financing experts to develop the original proposal and this amendment based on consulting with them and they determined really that reducing the lot size below 8,000 square feet would not serve any practical purpose for any size eligible that covers the base. And is supervisor did not support the staff recommendations to lower the minimum lot to 3,000 square feet. When it overwhelms prop b, we were very clear this proposal was about the large blocks that are feasible with Affordable Housing and we believe that drastically reducing the lot size from 10,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet across the board would give the impression to voters like a bait and switch. At the same time not resulting in more of the Affordable Housing project. We ask that commissioners support the ordinance as is. Thank you so much for your time. And apologies for the technical difficulties. Clerk the matter is before you. I will remind you these are two separate speess of legislation and should be taken up separately. Commissioner fung. I needed to unmute. And are there any educator Housing Projects that have been entitled or in the pipeline . Yes, commissioner fung. And the scott key Affordable Housing project is in the pipeline and that is the last time the commission heard the legislation in late 2019 and two bedrooms, one bedroom and studios, and again i believe that the only current project in the planning pipeline. The last question would be related to the Second Amendment on reduction of the parcel size. I understand staffs recommendation reducing it to 3,000 square feet ises a phi racingsal primarily is aspirational primarily, i assume. But also has staff looked at what Building Code requirements that kick in on smaller lots that would make it potentially less feasible . Regarding the fact that you have to have elevator and number of exits, etc. Yes, commissioner. Thank you for the question. We have not looked specifically at Building Code provisions but we are aware that there are many Building Code requirements that come into play including el vators and additional means of egress and common spaces that would make smaller lot size developments harder and also correct this is an aspirational number. We are looking at what the smallest number of parcel in theory could support based on the Environmental Impact which is attached as exhibit c and are reasonings for supporting the reduction from the 8,000 square feet to hear interest in the parcels in the past for this type of Development Using this code section that were found to be under 8,000 square feet. Certainly not as small as 3,000. But we have seen theoretical or anecdotal interest in the past on parcels less than 8,000 square feet. Thank you. Commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson thank you. First, i want to thank ian and jen and supervisors fewer and yee for this legislation. I think it was said over and over again that people of San Francisco are really excited about expanding Affordable Housing and teacher housing opportunities throughout the city. They are really grateful that the advocates could have stayed at the table to refine and revise to the goals of the legislation. This makes sense for the Planning Department to take a step back and bedroom mix and try to balance what it has experienced with the legislation here. I really appreciated that photo analysis and support supervisor yee that making sure we stay with the three bedrooms. It is important. One question i did have for staff related to the threshold on parcels is i heard that i know that we want to aspirationally lower the threshold to the 3,000 square feet and lets see if legislation passes as is and what project sponsor comes to the department and this parcel and 5,000 or 3,000 square feet and is there a way for me to overlaw this legislation and what is the process now if one of the hypothetical projects did come up. Absolutely, commissioner. Thank you for the question. This may be best addressed by the Zoning Administrator in terms of what avenues could be pasted together to potentially make that work. But under a straight reading of the qualifications needed to use this code section is the parcel or combination of parcels did not equal at least 8,000 square feet, the project would not be eligible to use the code section. And there would be something to allow it together. Correct. Sorry. I wasnt super clear. And there are potentially other code sections and bonus programs through the local or state measures instead. And in terms of this specific code provision and unless the lot or lots are going to be used and 8,000 square feet or more and could not have used this provision and the lopsided requirement to use this code section. And this gap between the supervisor and by the department and support aspirational code and at the same time i am really sitting with the supervisor and folks who worked so hard to write the proposition to be thoughtful with the examples they are actively in conversation with and collaboration with the nonprofit developers. Just this idea that potentially putting and adding in the lower threshold would fuel unsettling advocates on this legislation. And i would support the legislation as is with the potential for a oneyear or twoyear look back. If, for example, the department or advocates are approached by people that say, hey, we want to use this and tried to go through the other avenues that would for me trigger the need to potentially change this. To get the projects moving forward and go revise it based on data of actually what is coming in. Thank you for your comments. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore i wanted to thank the supervisors and their legislative staff for crafting the legislation. I am in full support of both pieces. Supervisor yees registration followed the support for child Friendly Design and i am delighted to extend this in amplification op prop b. Regarding the second piece, i have given quite a bit of thought on the sizing and staffs desire to lower the threshold. When i come to really physically understand that 3,000 square feet is really barely a parcel of 25 feet deep and that is pretty much a small residential parcel either in depending where it is and the economy of scale that can be achieved by an 8,000 square foot parcel is really not there. My understanding with the Affordable Housing and teachers housing is going to be filled with union labor. And you come to the parcels and the particular provision most likely will not apply. Quite a few cases like that in the last and we are observing religious institutions and basically lightening the portfolios in inner cities where Church Attendance has dropped to the extent that churches are being abandoned, we have never been able to fully realize the potential these larger sites held. [please stand by] before i call on commissioner chan, i dont know if i can confirm that. Commissioner chan thank you. I want to start by thanking planning staff for your presentation, president yee and support supervisor fewer. On the specific legislation, for president yees legislation im supportive requiring 10 of the three bedrooms. I think this is a great way to provide more flexibility especially knowing that we might have different configurations for different families. I have questions about choice of the Data Analysis. I was curious to note where restrict the poor potential applicants to renters and only renters in San Francisco. We might be underestimately potential demand. Im comfortable supporting this baseline of 10 . On supervisor fewers legislation, it makes sense to allow projects to take advantage of additional height provided that were mindful of Historical Resources and spaces. I am supportive lowering the threshold to 8000 square feet. It seems more flexible than existing 10,000 square foot minimum. I am kind of struggling about kind of lowering it to departments of 3000 square foot. I like to see more sound before making a decision. I think if the data could show that that potentially more eligible developments, it will be feasible beyond a hunch Housing Developers make use of this. At in the moment, im not prepared to support before we have more comprehensive picture of feasibility. I would move to approve the planning Code Amendments without the modification. Recognizing that we could review this one to twoyear time frame. Second. Commissioner diamond im supportive of both pieces of legislation. Making the construction 100 affordable and housing is clearal very good thing. I did have a question for staff about the 3000foot lower limit. In the future, assuming that legislation passes with the 800e future, should a project come thats lower. Lets say 7500 or 7000 square feet. If i understand correctly in response to commissioner johnsons question, it would require an amendment of this piece of legislation to go forward. Do i also understand that the addenda that you done for this legislation covered for this legislation that were looking at right now, covers projects as low as 3000 feet so that any future change to lower the threshold down anywhere from 8000 to 3000 would be covered by ceqa . Thank you commissioner diamond. This is audrey merlone. The ceqa analysis that is required for all legislation, proposed legislation in this case, required an actual analysis because the proposed legislation was proposing an increase in development potential. Youre correct that if a future ordinance were to come to this commission that propose to further reduce the parcel five minimum, lets say 7000 square feet, our ceqa analysis has already been conducted to cover that amount. That is one reason that this legislation, it was introduced in february, it will be coming to the commission now. That ceqa analysis takes bit of time to conduct. Therefore, part of our motivation for looking at as small of a parcel as possible, was in fact to ensure that we can conduct one environmental analysis that would cover a small of a parcel as we could possibly can see. At least that aspect of the ordinance would not need to be reexamined in terms of the Environmental Impacts. If an ordinance came to the commission or was introduced by supervisor in the future to reduce the parcel size minimum, lets say to 7000 square feet, if something were to come to the commission for policy analysis, but the environmental analysis would be complete. Great, thank you very much for that clarification. President koppel commissione r imperial. Commissioner imperial thank you. I really appreciate commissioner diamond, question about the ceqa. Ill go first with 100 with a fernandez o 10 of the threshe three bedroom. I support that. I do believe that there are three bedroom units that can be filled and usually, again, when three bedroom units are not filled, its usually the case they are not income qualified. Lets remember these are Affordable Housing. When you get into Affordable Housing system, there are requirements, residential selection and continuous or comprehensive paperwork for rather renters or homeowners. Income requirement is usually a big piece why people are not getting into one bedroom and two bedroom and three bedroom. If three bedroom is at 60 a. A. Im. I. And there are differet incomes that maybe beyond 60 , that might be the reason they dont get filled. Thats why the purpose of the educator housing is really to have mixed use families to be able to afford who are not usually afforded in usual the type of low income type Affordable Housing. I support that. In terms of the fewers legislation, i do support the legislation as is. I do have again, as what previous commissioners have commented about lowering the threshold of 3000 and on top of that, what the staff has mentioned in terms of anecdotal recommendation, i do wish that the planners would also look into or go into financial feasibility. What can be the 3000, 5000, 6000 square feet would look like Affordable Housing. What kind of units are going to be there. This is not when were talking about 100 Affordable Housing, theres lot of financial aspects. Is this workable . I wish there could be more communication with the planning and mostly when it comes to this kind of recommendation as to what the unit look like and is there really as what weve heard there are no current pipelines that is lower than 8000 square feet. As far as my understanding with educator housing legislation, the intent of that was to rezone large lots so that there can be 100 Affordable Housing multifamily units. Thats my comment. I support both legislation as is. Commissioner fung in retrospect, regardless of my question earlier on smaller lot and the feasibility of those in terms of additional Building Code requirements, it really doesnt matter what the size limit is in the sense that what happens is, somebody comes in with a lot of 7999 square feet and then you have to go through a policy amendment. Which then drags it out. I have no concerns if somebody wants to do a project maybe commercially unfeasible. To me, thats great. I do have a request of commissioner chan, if she would allow me to make the motion to follow staff requirements on the Second Amendment, fewer amendment, to allow the smaller limit so we can avoid potential additional process in the future. I want to speak to this. I know this is a question that come up. Seem like from a few times about the what if we have something that is just below the 8000. We thought about that and thats why we have this provision about vacant lots and surface parking lots that would not be subject to that threshold. In the unlikely scenario that there is an Affordable Housing, 100 Affordable Housing professional that wants t want proposal that wants to be done on a lot smaller than 8000 square feet. If it were to happen, we allow for that because we have this vacant and Service Level parking lot provision in there. Again, theres no actual real world experience that suggest that theres any way would be feasible to build 100 Affordable Housing project on a lot thats currently Something Else that isnt a vacant lot thats less than 8000 square feet. Like its just so i guess unrealistic at this point. The e. I. R. Was down to 3000. This was the sort of unicorn project that came out where they do they able to finance 100 Affordable Housing project on a lot thats smaller than 8000 square feet and has to be another building demolished, that could be done. Its so outside of the realm of what the experts are telling us. Even pushing below 10,000 was already been pushing the envelope and went even further. We feel we have covered all our basis here. We answered that what if question, would hope that you would support the legislation as is. President koppel aaron stark. I want to give little background on why we decided to go lower than what was originally in the ordinance. We were given two examples of how this new threshold could apply and we were told these lots are 8000 square feet. When we looked into it more, they were less than 8000 square feet. I think Church Parking lots or Something Like that. We thought, well, rather than cutting it off arbitrarily 8000 square feet, lets see how far down we can go with the Environmental Review and leave it up to the commission to see if they wanted to go lower than that. As commissioner fung said, there could be a lot thats not covered by this. We were just looking for, we didnt see that as problem. If this commission feels that it could more harm than good then lowering it below 8000 square feet, thats your prerogative. We were in communication with the Mayors Office and with the supervisor office. We were looking at this carefully. We wanted oprovid want to wee you with greater options in your decisionmaking. I have question for the planning staff i guess mr. Starr as well. When looking into the lower thresholds you mentioned, how many identified . Thats not something that is provided to us in our material. It will be good to have those kind of information and i agree with commissioner chan in terms the Data Analysis being recovererecovered. Looking into population citywide instead of who are renters and homeowners are looking for Affordable Housing and what kind of basis. I think there needs to be some sort of there needs to be i need to see for my part, in order to agree with the planning recommendation. With the 3000 threshold, i did not see any kind of information or any materials regarding on that. Thank you commissioner imperial. I think that at the end of the day, were all on the same page that we want to see these kind of projects be built. Just echoing what mr. Starr said. We did carefully analyze at the beginning of this process back in february. Weve been told about two sites i believe in supervisor fewers office as well as one in supervisor mars district. I believe all the sites identified were institutional sites. The reason you dont see them in the report is very much they cant be relaid on as relied on as something to analyze. They were not public before churches were wondering what their options were. We saw that unfortunately one site would be far from feasible as you the Church Building itself would need to be demolished in order for the housing to be built. The second site was actually composed of two parcels, the parking lot was on one parcel and the church was on the other parcel. From the limited information we had, the church was not being proposed for demolition. Only the parking lot was being proposed for construction of housing and since that was his own lot that was well under 8000 square feet. The legislation is as proposed would not work. Unfortunately, we never received much information about supervisor mars potential site. We truly do mean they are anecdotal we had enough information to know that there was at least interest, if even if those projects themselves wouldnt be feasible. Were also aware of another parcel that is not vacant at this time is interested in utilizing the program. The lot at the casua casual measurement is 8000 survey. If a survey come out to favor the lesser of that number, then that site as well would be looking at not being able to utilize this program. Again, just circling back, we are not saying that this program will ever be utilized on parcels as small as 3000 square feet. In number is meant to represent covering our Environmental Review as low as it can possibly go. We want to allow the commission to consider other parcel sizes based on just seeing this has been amended to including a smaller parcels. Vice president moore we are not the final word on how the legislation will move forward. We expressing vote and were voting on it. Im still inclined to vote as it is in front of us as proposed. However, ongoing discussions including what you just put to record, explaining the background to the 3000 square feet situation, can definitely be picked up by the supervisors again. Even by modifying the verbage of 8000 would make it possible to have parcel 7799 to be considered. Im making a motion that we approve the legislation as proposed. President koppel commissione r moore, there already is a motion. Vice president moore i did not hear that. President koppel you seconded the motion. Vice president moore thank you so much. Commissioner chan i wanted to thank everyone for this discussion and for the background. I think that is really helpful to know. Im glad that we are moving in the direction of wanting to beee aspirational. This comes down to sound Data Analysis. Which is something i really appreciate. Also, for what im hearing from the public and those who have direct experience building Affordable Housing, their recommendation is a huge threshold. I like to be respectful of that. At the same time, keeping open to the possibility that one to twoyear time frame reviewing the potential development sites. President koppel theres no additional deliberation on these matters. I did hear a single motion to approve both pieces of legislation as proposed without staff recommended modification, i can call that item together. On that motion to approve both pieces of legislation as proposed, [roll call] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 70. Placing us on item 10. [agenda item read] staffed are you prepare to make a presentation . Yes, good afternoon commissioners, Veronica Flores Planning Department staff. The item before you is continuation for serving nonconforming parking lot. This legislation was sponsored by supervisor ronen. Ill go ahead and invite amy to share a few words with you and i will follow up with staff presentation. Am mamy here on the line, whener youre ready, you can share a few words. Im ready to go. Thank you very much. Good afternoon commissioners. Im legislative aid to supervisor ronen whos the sponsor of of this legislation before you today. Thank you for giving me the time to speak. In addition to the small storefronts it on the ground floor and operating hotel, interior who was once the theater is gone. In its place theres a used parking lot thats been used an nonconforming cor use. Right now in the midst of this pandemic, theres no viable redevelopment on the horizon for that site. Especially not one that was conform with the Historic Preservation requirement. With all neighborhood commercial struggling no one wants to see the parks kept vacant for long. We cannot afford to stretch out commercial corridor further. This legislation would allow Viable Development plan to celebrate and preserve the historic significance of this magnificent landmark property. I want to thank planning staff and Veronica Flores for her work on this. On behalf of supervisor ronen im requesting that you recommend this legislation for approval. Thank you amy. Just to reiterate, the ordinance allow parking lots located behind the hotel will continue for an additional five years beyond the current expiration date. The parking lot itself is not a Historic Resource. But the ordinance does pertain to a parking lot located on the same parcel as designated city landmark. What that mean means is any alteration or new construction on the parking lot still require architectural review by the a. R. C. From the Historic Preservation commission. As additional discussion over proposal at this parking lot site compare to parking lots that are not on designated city landmarks. As Commission Secretary noted earlier, this item in front of the Historic Preservation commission yesterday, during which time they recommended approval of the ordinance. To date, the department has not received any Public Comments regarding this ordinance. Lastly, the Department Recommends that the commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance because it supports the commerce and industry elements to support existing commercial businesses in the ordinance supports the Mission Area Plan goals to continue existing legal nonconforming uses that benefit the neighborhood. The Department Also notes that the ordinance would help prevent a vacancy on Mission Street which has been an increasing concern and all commercial corridors, especially under the covid19 circumstances. This concludes staff presentation. We are both available to answer any questions. Thank you. President koppel that concludes the presentation. We should go to Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to call the 800 number. Thank you so much Planning Commission. Im a long time resident to the mission. I like to reexamine this. I think my concern is that this is a large street flat double parking lot. Although its a historic landmark, by continuing to use it as a parking lot, i feel like its on the Property Owner to not redevelop this area and continue using it to make money off cars parking there instead of using it for Affordable Housing, or any housing at all. [indiscernible] president koppel that will conclude the Public Comment portion of this hearing. The matter is now before you. Commissioner fung move for the approval of the amendment. President koppel second. Second. Thanks. I think its worth noting to the person that called in, i know in general when you look at parking lot, i totally get that in supportive of that notion p. P. I think it makes sense to give the other than more owner more time to develop a viable plan, something many folks, including Supervisors Office and the department made important to us to think about how that can be better utilized. I want to say that for public discourse. Hopefully support the motion and the second. President koppel thank you. That is a motion thats been seconded to approve this matter. On that motion. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 70. Item 11. [agenda item read] is staff prepare to present . Thank you. Good afternoon members. I serve as the data and analytic manager for the San Francisco Planning Department. Before we present on the 2019 housing data, ill be providing very brief update on the delivery of mandated reports for 2020 and forecast of reports expected to be delivered within the following year. At this time, i like to ask her to share her screen as i continue on with the presentation. The Planning Department data and Analytics Team is responsible for the Data Collection analysis and delivery of the range of state and locally mandated monitoring reports. However, due to the evolving circumstances arising from the covid19 pandemic, including the deployment of analytic staff, providing data and analysis to or ongoing covid19 Recovery Efforts as well as hiring freeze from the projects budget shortfall which impacts the departments ability to fill existing vacant analytics positions. The Housing Inventory and housing balance to reports are the two reports that have been completed thus far and are available on the sf planning. Org website. They were published back in april. The following reports are going to be expected to be delivered on time and really this is specifically targeted towards the quarterly Pipeline Data sets that are issued. The target completion for the following reports are going to be delayed including the q1, 2020 Pipeline Data set. The remaining reports on this screen here and couple of Community Area plan reports including market octavia and downtown, those are expected to be delivered later on this year. Finally, the commerce and Industry Report as well as the housing and balance report that is due this fall will be expected to be delivered in the upcoming q1 of 2021. Staff is undertaking an initiative to consolidate the reporting requirements with the goal of really streamlining these reporting requirements and minimizing the manuel Data Processing that is currently happening or that is required to compile these reports as well as to eliminate any areas of duplicative reporting and making the information more accessible both to the public and youthful to staff useful to staff. As you can see here, there are four broad areas of topics that are covered across these monitoring reports. They include everything from area plan monitoring to Housing Production reports of various times. A report on the economy through the Commerce Industry report and finally, a report that discusses the impact fee fees fees that ae collected from various Development Projects and the investment of those respective fees back in the community for which Development Projects have been approved. In total we have about 15 reports across all of these monitoring initiatives that are published varying times throughout the year or at different frequencies. There are two areas minimum where there are potential for consolidation for these reports. One is that we take all of these area plan monitoring reports and combine those with the interagency Plan Implementation Committee also known ipic report. Second opportunity really is also to take a fresh look at the emetrics that are identified across these reports and really find opportunities to refine them to support the citys major planning policy initiatives and identifying new sources of data to help enrich our understanding of how the city is changing overtime. Staff initiating outreach this summer. Both across city agencies that depend on these reports as well as with Community Stakeholders and interest groups. A formal proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission following this outreach before the end of the year. With that, i like to turn it over. She will be presenting on the 2019 Housing Inventory and housing data. Good afternoon commissioners. Im with the Data Analysis group and Land Use Planning team at the Planning Department. I will be presenting on the 2019 Housing Inventory report. The Housing Inventory is Planning Department annual survey of Housing Production trend in San Francisco. The report details changes in the citys Housing Stock including housing construction, demolition and alteration. In addition to other topics. This report is 50th in the series and presents Housing Production activity completed or authorized during the year 2019. The first part of this presentation will focus on trends and current Housing Production. The construction of new housing in 2019 total about 4850 units which represents 85 increase from 2018. The year 2019, also saw a loss of about 160 units which added together with new units comes to 4700 net units to the Housing Stock. This total net addition is an 82 increase from the Previous Year. The total 160 units in 2019 due to demolition is slightly higher than in Previous Years. 139 units that were demolished. 18 units last year of nonconforming units. Now ill be sharing details on types of units produce produced9 based on affordability and various Housing Programs. Affordable housing made up 31 of new units added to the Housing Stock in 2019. 1456 total affordable units were completed. Including 405 inclusionary units and 1 stetc 177 new secondary u. Breaking the Affordable Housing units down. 335 units are affordable to house holds earning between 50 to 80 a. M. I. Switching to regional comparison now. San francisco accounted for 13 of total permits issued in the bay area in 2019. Alameda county leads 27 total permits issued in Santa Clara County follows 22 . There were about 22,700 units authorized for construction in 2019. This had decreased 30 from the Previous Year which had about 32,700 total units authorized regionally. Now ill be going over findings. Housing balance report is completed biannually to monitor report on the housing balance between new market rate and Housing Production. The house balance is defined at the proportion of all new Affordable Housing units to the total number of all new Housing Units for a tenyear period. Accounting for any losses units from protective status. The housing balance report found that the city housing balance is 21. 5 . Expanded housing balance which includes we have required units 28. 6 . This expanded housing balance little more than 1 from the Previous Year. Original housing allocation is represented housing need by income level for each jurisdiction. We provide the state department of housing with annual Progress Report detailing number of units authorized for construction that meet this allocation. We only report Building Permits issued or approved by d. B. I. By 2019 Progress Report shows that we authorized 3297 units towards requirements. This is the column highlighted in yellow. We met 65 of total allocation. Now ill be presenting the most recent pipeline report published for 2019q4. There were approximately 74,000 net units in the pipeline. About 19 of these units are affordable units. Not all the projects under this number may changeover time. About 39 are entitled to multiuse project as shown in that list below the pie chart. The full Housing Inventory report is available on the Planning Departments website, sfplaninplaning. Org. This concludes the presentation. Im available for any comments or questions. Pla president koppel thank you. We should open up for Public Comment. Commissioners i apologize. Citywide director had a comment. Thank you very much Commission Secretary and thank you for helping me remember to introduce Michelle Littlefield to the Planning Commission. This is her first presentation. Shes been with us since december 2019, this is the first time you guys to hear about her work. Shes part of managing this team and this work. As you heard, one of her projects is working to rationalize our data reporting and make it automatic. We welcome that. She worked to improve our housing data process under the Mayors Office program. Before joining us, she did similar work with the Digital Service and Analytical Program with redwood city. Shes very active in the bay area Civic Innovation Network and code for america. Shes cultivated Public Private partnerships with silicone valley tech firms and Sanford University and frequent speaker on topic. We are very proud to have her joining sf planning. Good afternoon commissioners. This is peter cohen from the counsel of Community Housing organizations. I thought i take a moment to call in and thank the staff for putting together this nice summary of all this data from the Housing Inventory. Some of us really love to get into the data. Kind of data nerd. Whats really helpful with these annual snapshots is to step back and help us as hopeful advocates to see how were doing and really meeting our Housing Needs. One of the things about covid19 that really i think open lot of our eyes even more so than normal is what an unequal impact this pandemic and the Economic Crises is having on san franciscans. When it comes to housing security, housing access, its not surprising this falls along race and class. These are things many of us in Affordable Housing have known all along. We kind of get numb by these numbers in these reports. Seeing these highlights in the staff presentation and context whats really happening on the ground in the current moment and who really is winners and losers in our housing policy is important to take stock of. I want to comment specifically on one particular slide which is lot of numbers but it tells lot of things. On the regional needs allocation, so called rena and how the city has done so far with each income category relative to those goals. Which are the Housing Element goals. Its really striking that for every category of below market housing, were far below where we should be. Not even 50 . Whereas, the above model is already above 100 . Its not to say antimarket rate housing position. I want to make sure on the record thats clear. We need to have more of a balance between that affordable production and access and market rate. Thats what we see playing out now with covid19. Again, hopefully this is very enlightening to you as well as it is to us. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. I really want to echo peter information, think being whats happening and how we can go about maximizing the number of homes and maximizing number of Affordable Homes in San Francisco. One thing we can agree about, we need to find ways to [indiscernible] one of the other things, Geographical Breakdown across the city. Lot of conversation about increasing the amount of housing at all income levels. Continuing to try to do everything we can. If im not mistaken, mayor office producing 5000 new homes every year. Its higher than it has been traditionally in 2019. If there are ways that we can streamline this production, especially if it means more Affordable Housing, thats a fantastic way. [indiscernible] president koppel that will conclude Public Comment portion of this item. Matter is now before you. This is only an informational item. If there are no comments commissioner fung . Commissioner fung question for staff. The report shows how many units were entitled and completed this year. I assume you have those numbers for the previous nine years. Do we have the data that shows what units and those previous nine years have been completed . What the number of units that were entitled but were not completed . Thank you commissioner. Actually, if i believe we havet data. If thats something that of interest to commission, we can go back and do little bit more research. Can you confirm that . Sure. We do actually take a look at the pipeline of specific project. We know when it was filed when it was entitled. That information is reported to the state. We can definitely follow up with that information if needed. If yo commissioner fung you have a ballpark number how many units are entitled but have not started construction . That is in the pipeline. Michelle, im not sure if you have that information readily available. Let me take a look. Let me take a few minutes here if there are other questions i can come back. Commissioner imperial presid ent koppel, im in there also. President koppel i do see you there. I have commissioner imperial in front of you. Thank you for staff as well and having this data and being more accessible. I do have just one question. Its more regarding the density bonus program. I guess in terms of like i see the numbers that theres more developments using the city borders. Can we explain why that might be . Is it geographic location . On page 26 of the report, we have number of units by density bonus program. We do not look into the exact reason why a Certain Program may have more units than another. We can follow up with you with further clarif clarity on that. Thank you. Vice president moore thank you. I want to thank our group for doing an excellent job. Each year im impressed by not only the complexity of the data but incredibly clear graphic format in which the department delivers data. [please stand by] thank you for the real talk. Talking about the department in the midst of the Current Crisis were in and also thinking about the long kind of arc of reporting is it and keeping us to understand how we will take a fresh look at the idea and how we look at and report on the new landscape and priorities and reand and and value and as mr. And and and i think and and puttingens tee and on the eastside of and majority of and and and dog housing so more than 10 units but the thing that comes up every year is we continue to fall short of really having a balance and its up in his comments creative ways we can better fund Affordable Housing and because we know the pain really sits at that and lack of Affordable Housing and and its really struck by its really great were Building Family side units two and three bedroom units and also just thinking about from this an lens when we look at types of housing not only can help stabilize people but provide opportunities that have been stripped from communities of colour, its not providing Home Ownership, affordable Home Ownership to people and thats the promise were not just having folks that are in low income or subsidized housing but were providing a ladder for folks to develop to be able to not only stay in the city but drive and so that is something that i really wanted to point out and then you know, every year we talk about this. As long as ive been in the commission, the inbalance of where were building housing, comes up when you look at the idea the marina is providing seven new units and the market is providing 2800 new units you have to ask yourself why is that and for many so means for why that is, but what are we going to do in the future to make sure that every district is contributing to the Affordable Housing youth that the city and the Housing Needs of the city and i have to point out that imbalance and i know that this commission has repeatedly said it has the will to make sure that there is more housing being built on the west side of the city and places that are not at risk of displacement and we need to keep our eyes on the prize and making sure that were meeting those goals in a way that is spread out equally across the city. So, those are my comments. Thank you so much again to staff. Commissioner chan. Commissione commissioner chae muted. There we go. Thank you so much fellow commissioners for your comments it and to planning staff for preparing these reports. Making a date available to the public and the commission. Its really valuable to have this information and the standard and consistent format so thank you for that. I think in light of the memo about staffing shortages, i want to acknowledge that i hear you and i look forward to seeing the proposals to consolidate the work plan and i feel like this would be an opportunity to maybe step back and ask some of the larger questions about how were approaching data and why and provide observations and the first observation is really reading these reports, it struck me how the conversation around housing is often framed around physical widgets and things and housing as units and for me, it would be interesting to shift the conversation to think about the people who live in that housing, right. And we talk about Housing Inventory and production, how do we shift that intentional tee to talk about housing as homes and thinking you know, we are interested in the people who live in the housing and not just the counting of the Housing Units and i want to edge courage us to think about a peoplefirst approach to think about the value that we might have at the city and it has figure no our calculations and we talk about what were building and where and what were not building. The second observation i feel like we often treat they are isolated from the other needs that people have and than mobility needs and people have different needs aside from just having to live in the place that they have a room over there heads and so how does this figure into our calculations when they think of holistic needs and how do we situate our conversations around housing and homes with historical and present context and and so fourth and how is housing just one piece of that puzzle the Housing Inventory is one snapshot in time and im curious to know how we can take a more proactive stance so using this document to figure out having worked incentivized more builders and trying to understand the barriers and builders and for public so that can see hopefully better projects before the commission. And so those are my broad observations and i have this two check comments on the reports and for the definitions of Affordable Housing on page 32, i was curious about the use of the definition of the metro Fair Market Rent area for San Francisco and it includes marin county and San Mateo County and i believe that the meeting Household Income flight be higher for San Francisco and we night not just taking adjacent geography but matching it to our economic ties and were the location of jobs in the commute pattern might show and so a suggestion would be to look at housing and our economic ties and on page 13, the chart, you have to show this in your presentation about the number of units authorized for construction and and it might be a good example of later focus on Housing Units rather than a more critical piece and inform and quality housing. So with that, thank you staff for providing these reports and its important work and i look forward to seeing what you are working future. So i have a question for anne marie. And director hillis absence. The report generates a huge amount of data, beautifully organized and addressing key data points that were tracking. Im curious what conclusions that the Department Draws from the data with respect to policy implications and what are we doing well and what do we ned to change as a result when we see this data. You know, where should we be putting more emphasis, what isnt working . You know, i feel like as a commissioner, i would benefit from guidance from the the department. When you look at this report, what conclusions you the department draw about how were allocating resource and what ships might be useful in light of what the data is telling us. Thank you, very much. I dont mean to put you on the spot to say i need you to answer that right now but you want to know if you go through that process and that exercise and how do you report back to us on that. Thank you, very much. Many of our data reports are the data and sometimes they have do have some conclusions about whether we are meeting our, for instance, our arena allotment of the north of housing we need to provide at various income levels and its they are providing data like our pipeline report. We recently produced the Housing Needs report which was a very deep dive into what the city is existing Housing Needs that was looking back at many of these reports overtime so serial events and so the report is inconstant use by us and i think if its something were always valuevaluating for different prt reports and the Housing Element, et cetera. I would just push deeper and use the arena examples, which ok, you look at are the report were not meeting them and what does it mean for us and its a commission and are we going to shift what were doing in order to do a better job of accomplishing that and have we already shifted but its too early to tell. I feel like thats the missing piece is how we take the factual conclusions and change it into action on the department and the commissions part. It will give us the vision for housing changes towards the next, you know, long range eightyear cycle and so that is one avenue where we can use it to actually set policy and goals and as you know, the general plan policies guide not only public actions that might be take not by this commission or the board but also they argue to review private development so that incrementally private Development Help us advance towards our goals. I believe were about to undertake another review of the Housing Element that that data will be key in assessing whether or not the policies we have in place need modification. Thats correct. Ok. Thank you. Well keep thinking about it, though. Michelle littlefield, did you want to add anything more . Yes, i actually thank you. I just wanted to respond to a question earlier about the units that have been approved or entitled by planning but have not yet filed for Building Permits. So i just wanted to share, actually, the final presentation if everyone can see my screen so theres a question earlier, i believe, about how many units are in the pipeline right now that have been entitled but have not yet filed for a Building Permit and so that would be this area right here and Building Permits not yet filed but have been entitled and wove got 1,064 net units in the pipeline right now that have not yet filed for Building Permits. However, we have 36 almost 3700 net units that have filed for Building Permits and in this section here, in this dark you clue talks about the major multiface projects ands end of 2019 we had 28,977 units in the pipeline that have not filed for permits. Wow, thats about i dont know if that helps. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, that would could be conclude this informational item. And hearing from none of the commissioners, we can move on to item 12. For case number 20190140800 mack et street and this is a conditional use authorization and is staff prepared to present . Yes, i am. The floor is yours. Great. Good afternoon commissioners. Alexander kirby and its a request for conditional use authorization to establish a non retail sales and Service General office use of 5,800 square feet, the third flor of 800 Market Street within the downtown commercial retail Zoning District. It has conditional use authorization to establish non Retail Service uses at third floor in this district. The site is developed with an eightstorey building with retail through third floor and office at fourth through eighth floods. The space was last used in part by the exiting retail vendor which occupied half of the third floor between 2012 and 2017 and by an educational language schools. The internal stair that connected the second and third floor retail use was removed in 2018 and part of the new Lease Agreement between the Property Owner and its been vacant. Theres no proposed office ten apartment for the space at this time. The department has received no Public Comments and support or opposition of this project and the approval of the requested youth is the project use of the existing third there were space and its no longer viable foe retail tendency. Particularly in consideration of reisnt economic shifts. So the space has no lynn and year and limited along the public rights of way and the loss of retail Square Footage and office would not be detrimental to the activation or character of the pedestrian environment along market for ellis street. O over all scoot age will be reduced the number of retail space would remain unchanged for the property and and its consistent with the general plan. For these reasons, staff finds the project is desirable for compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and district and recommends approval with conditions. Ill now turn the discussion over to david pen the project sponsor. Thank you. Project sponsor, you are on line . You will have five minutes,. Does he have a presentation you need to share. No,. Very good. Project sponsor you have five minutes. Thank you. And i was under the impression i had a little more time. I will try to be brief. Hello, my name is dade speaking on behalf of the project team. Thank you commissioners for your time and attention to this motion now before you, they summarized the finance for and you this conversion and we believe it will better utilize the space which is no longer viable for retail and it proposes no changes to the building exterior and the activation of this vacant space will contribute to the vitality of the area and a way that is compatible with a neighbourhood and how the neighbourhood is currently used and enjoyed. It was conducted in 1908 for a use as bank and offices before in question is 5800 score square feet and 4400 square feed the most recent configuration of the floor was to tenant spaces as was detailed and one half of that space was used by the retail tenant below diesel and and on the subject pace has been vacant since 2017 when the study group moved out the building and the retail tenant it turn it back as a condition of their lease renewal and is that one open stair was removed with permit as part of those lease negotiations and the third flor really is quite isolated from the street level and the space is accessed and an elevator lobby at ellis street the same one one gets to the offices on the fourth through eighth flor theres no Public Access to this narrow and incon stick you us groundfloor elevator lobby which is entered via a key card and and since and the lease able space due to the building and and highrise building which 800 market is. These factors combined with others and use of this space particularly uninviting and unsight able and its much more in charter with the existing Office Spaces at the floors above. Efforts to lease this space has been on going since the floor was first vacated but since initial marketing 13 retail parties has toured the space and additional none of these reached the level for interest on an on sight from use space on the lower floors and they did not want to lease any space on the third floor. The businesses that turned down this include things like yoga studios, electronic retailers and Clothing Stores and fitness retailers and accessory retailers. The only interest the landlord has received is is for office use. The landlord has marketed the space and these businesses have responded resoundingly its just not a viable space for them and of course, this was all prior to the pandemic and its worth recalling that the decline in retail was a global and local phenomenon before the pandemic even happened and the same time, the pre covid19 he economy was booming and Retail Vacancy rise as an increasing number of brick and mortar businesses failed. That research, for example, more Retail Stores closed and 2019 than in 2018 and the nature of retail that is surviving in this new economy is not agreed for large real estate, rather, these survivors are more efficient with regards to on side storage, theyre utilizing their Square Footage to drive sales and on premises and also online and theyre focused on maximum visibility and not Square Footage and these are retail priorities that are stayed misses. And San Francisco, even in prime Retail Centre like is no exception to the startling trend being exacerbated and the research has indicated that vacancy rates for c3r have grown by twothirds. Actual figures are hard to judge as many Retail Businesses that are not expected to reopen arent yet showing on the market as vacancies. In conclusion i would just like to reiterate thee things. This space is just not viable for retail rack sann vacancy anh better suited and desired for and office use and activating the space distribute. There are no immediate questions from the commissioners we can take Public Comment. Press one then zero. You can call in and press one and zero to get into the cue we have no callers commissioners. The matter is before you. Commissioner mar. I am in full support of converging this space to office space and move to vote. I was muted this time, sorry. Seeing no further comments from commissioners theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions and on that motion, commissioner chan. Commissioner chan . Commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. Commissioner president koppel. Aye. So moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 60. Commissioners that will place us on item 13. For case number 2019005176cua and at 722 steiner street, this is a conditional use authorization, staff are you prepared to make a presentation . Yes, im prepared to make my presentation. Very good, the floor is yours. Great. Can i attempt to share my screen . Is everyone able to see the site photo . We can, yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, shannon mug son Department Staff the item before you to is a request for conditional use authorization for a dwelling unit of 722 steiner street and 722a steiner street from a two family dwelling to a Single Family residents. The application was submitted on february 18th to 2019. The property is located on the southeast corner of steiner and grove streets in the alma square neighbourhood. It was built in 1982 by matthew ka its the anchor of the painted ladies and a contribute or to the historic district. It holds an active historical property contract. The subject property is a twofamily dwelling consisting of a 4,493 square foot fourbedroom fourbath dwelling unit comprising the first through third floors known as 722 steiner street and a 919 square foot one bedroom dwelling unit in the basement and known as 722a steiner street. A onecar garage is located in the basement. A pa tishen at the basement level would be demolished to merge the two units. They would be removed from 722a steiner street. Is the original use is unknown and the authorized use of the building is a twofamily dwelling. Telephone directory Research Indicates a dwelling unit with added to the basement and sometimes in the 1950s. Water tap records show an application for increased Water Service was filed in 1967. 722a steiner street was legalized in 1978. Per telephone district reresearch, the unit was occupied in 1953 to 1979. 722 steiner street zoner occupied and photographed indicates that 722a steiner street is vacant. The department has received no letters in support or opposition to the project. Documentation shows that there have been no eviction this is the past 10 years and also shows that the property is subject to rent control. There is an open enforcement case for an illegal short term rental for 722a steiner street. Staff denied a short term rental application on september 21st, 2018, because it appeared the Property Owner was not the permanent resident the specific unit being offered. The Property Owner submitted an appeal and at the time the appeal was being investigated, staff found the owner was continuing to offer it after the september 2018 denial and an enforcement case was opened. The case can be closed if the Property Owner submits documentation showing the unit was an available for rental during the time of the investigation. And the appeal was snagged by staff august 1st, 2019 because of the period the Property Owner was not the permanent resident of the specific unit being offered. The Property Owner submitted a new short term rental application for 722a steiner street and on august 23rd, 2019 and the application is pending. The Property Owner is allowed top rent the 722a steiner street as a short term presential property while the application is pending. If the conditional use authorization is granted, the property will receive a certificate for the short term rental property because the Property Owner will be a permanent resident of the merge dwelling unit. For the proposed project to proteasome proceed the Commission Must grant a conditional use authorization first thing that the planning code section 217 and 303 for a emergencier at a twofamily dwelling to a Single Family resident within an rh2 zoning code. It finds the proposed projects are not compatible with the rh2 Zoning District and the objective in policies of the general plan. The proposed project would result in a loss of an affordable rent control units and having stock in the area. Staff recommend this approval. This concludes my presentation and the project sponsor would also like to speak and he has a short presentation. Su you may need to press sta6 to unmute yourself. Commissioners. Sounds like theres a delay. Im not sure. Theres not a delay for us. Theres a stream and broadcast delay but if you are in the system theres not. I am aware that some were having technical difficulty to get in so if the project sponsor is listening please call into the Public Comment lines they allowed for that testimony and the project sponsor does join us there, we will provide them five minutes and then shannon did you mention they have a presentation . Yes, they have one slide to present. Ok. Well, hopefully the project sponsor will join us through the Public Comment line. Lets open that up. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one then zero. Members in the public and the project sponsor this is the opportunity to call the 800 number and press one and zero to enter the cue. Do we have any call they are. He have one question remaining. I want to deny the merger and i also want to afford the recommendations to deny inaudible . Weve had so many mergers of units and in the neighbourhoods and what we need is more housing not less and so to not reward and please pass the merger. Thank you. So im not sure how we can afford the project sponsor an opportunity to make a presentation. Lets go to commissioner deliberations and if you can keep the Public Comment line open and hopefully the project sponsor can join us. This is the project sponsors wife. I am not sure why he cannot get on but i am here. Youll have five minutes. All right. Um, is it possible for you to show the slides we have . Shannon . Is this the one slide . One moment, please. We were told to join the team so thats what we did. Sorry about that. Is that slide showing its just a text slide . Its the photo you have in your presentation. Lets go to our deliberations and you keep can you turn down your computer. Theres a broadcast delay coming in through the feed. Very good. Object project sponsor. Slide with bullet points is up you have five minutes. All right. Um, im just going to try to call my husband real quick to see if i can get him on the line. Hold on. Is that slide showing . Whoever has the broadcast delay piping through your microphone, please turn down your television. Y. Im here. Your time is up. And my husband is on the phone. So go ahead. Hi, can you hear me ok there . Im sorry. Im had a lot of technical problems calling in. Great, good afternoon, commissioners, together with my wife we own and live in the historic anchor painted lady at steiner and grove. It was built in 1892 its a heritage for San Francisco and attracts tourists from all over the world. Since we purchased the home six years ago, weve undergone major renovation to restore the home. Shannon ferguson helped us secure mills act to preserve it. Nothing is easy to restore. It requires creativity and resousfulness and always more costly than expected. Theres an facade with stain glass you can see in the photos and facing public on three sides and many historic elements inside and outside that we preserve. Backing up in time, the homeless historically is Single Family dwelling since 1892. Owner occupied like 14 families before us. In 1978, it was converted into two legal units and you might ask how that happened . So, sfpdi issued a sevenpage list of Code Violations including an Illegal Department at the time. The owner then misrepresent sented on the permit application. It was actually a twounit building. The inspector did not carefully check the facts. Water and property tax records showed that it always was a Single Family dwelling and approved it. I met with joe duffy, of dbi and he reviewed the original application and concurred, the facts had all been checked the apartment had not have been approved. However, he advised the only way to change this now would be to go through a dwelling unit merger process and despite the legal change in 1978, city reference showed no tenants for the past 41 years and the apartment has been Owner Occupied all that time. Inside our home is our only retreat from the chaotic tourist scene of alamo square. We should feel connected to our family in the home with a natural flow and integration space between the floors and alsoing having an department creates major risk to the historic elements of the home and over 100,000 of damage occurred last year and when water flooded the apartment unnoticed for three days and finding and ensure they accept the risk with this home with an apartment as we come impossible task. One of the photos that shannon showed was the apartment in its destroyed state from the flood as we repaired it last year. The request to return its home to its original Single Family dwelling status, by making some minor but important modifications inside, opening up access to the space from the staircase from above, a space will feel connected and like one home for our family. Well have two bedrooms instead of one actually increasing housing. Since the home has been Owner Occupied almost its entire history, we feel merging it does nothing to reduce Housing Stock in San Francisco. And as stewards of such a historic and important home the city of San Francisco, we feel returning the home to its original Single Family status will be beneficial for preservation. Thank you for considering this. That concludes project sponsor presentation. I understand that we have a couple of Public Commenters still in the queue o so lets take those. You have three questions remaining. Caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Lets go to the next person in cue. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. San francisco land use coalition. I am calling to support the staffs decision and oppose the merger of the two units. While the owners did mention that the two units were not rented parole in the past 41 years, i must admit did i not do my research to make sure thats the case, however, even if we take that on what they told us as the truth, which i sure hope it is, still, creating an extra unit is adding to our Housing Stock and its not wise for us, at this juncture in time, get rid of an extra unit because we want to have grand, Single Family home in a Historic Resource districts. The house has 4,255 square feet and 4,255 square feet that can easily provide two very comfortable and large size units. I do understand renting one unit is not going to be a dmr unit, however, its an extra unit ha someone means would be able to rent it at this point. Lastly i want to edge courage the commission to secretary owners at a time in 2014 when we bought the property where this was the citys policy was not to allow purgers of units and at this point, having seen the Housing Inventory report and the number of our production having dropped down i dont think in light of that and it is wise for us to get up one conditional unit so i urge the commission to not authorize the merger of the two units and i support the staff and their recommendations to deny the conditional use authorization and allow these units to be two separate units as they are today. And, furthermore, i really think that one of these two units could be a fantastic home for someone so i dont know understand why the owners are stating they use the units empty then there are list to damage from water and what not and can cause the units to lose its resources and if you rent it and i urge you to deny the conditional use authorization and to not give one additional unit of our Housing Stock. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Hello. Im calling in as a neighbour of 722. And i know that the current owners are using the building as a multigenerational home and in that case they would like to Better Connect one generation with children with the adults in the family. So they are using the housing to its maximum potential by having several generations living in the home and part of seeking the single unit that are connecting the home and really in addition to restoring it to its historical status and Better Connecting it. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion of this hearing. The matter is before you. This matter is a disapproval so if theres a desire to approve you would need to make a motion of intent and allow staff to draft a motion to approve. Commissioner fung this space in the lower part of the building as the owners indicate was last occupied as a separate unit in 1979, 41 years ago, and i will note per their information they provided, it was used as another unit that only until 1966 so that is 50 odd years ago that it was regularly used as a second unit. Im prepared to support the conditional use for dwelling merger and i would move the motion of intent depending on where the votes are. Well, looking at the unit and included what is the owner leaving unit as an airbnb. I am inclined to support the departments recommendation to save the units as a separate rental unit in order to also take our obligations to not merge dwelling union units. It seems very complete and accurate and we confirmed in deed the current owner has used the unit for income introducing airbnb and it makes me believe that that could be enough evidence. Who is speaking . Mute your phones, whoever is speaking over commissioner moore. Im asking staff to restate the part where the unit has been used as an airbnb rental unit. Thank you for your question. So, the unit has been used in the past for an it was an application was filed on september 21st, 2018 for a short term rental and it was denied but it was denied on september 212,018th because the Property Owner was not the permanent resident of 722a. That was being offered. And i know it was listed on airbnb and other type web sites at that time and i dont believe its listed on airbnb or such or vrbo right now. Perhaps the Property Owner could also clarify. Hi, can you hear me . Yes, so ill address that question. Yes, so, we were denied an application for short term income producing representative als and contrary to what shannon has written in her executive summary and i dont understand why there is an open enforcement still open because we did address this at the time to close it and we have not rented any airbnb since the permit application was denied in 2018 so basically theres no short term rental of this unit. Can you explain what and again staff presented a fact that i cannot dispute on the inyoud and i inaudible . I believe we, as a commission, shouldnt and cant support dwelling unit mergers particularly at this time. The existing home is sufficiently large with 4,333 square feet but it is ample space for even multigenerational living and its for that reason i cannot support the merger but ask that the follow staffs recommendation for its approval so id like to make a motion to disapprove. Second. Commissioner. Thank you. I as well support the planning staff recommendation of disapproval. I think its good for us in the commission to ensure and to also implement the zoning loss that we have here and this is rh2. If thats the case, it will be a Single Family home that is not appropriate for this zoning. So if that case, i am also in disapproval. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. You know, ill just add, i think were certainly i a i empathetio the changing needs of families ander generational families. In this particular case, the listings that i have been able to see of the house when it goes up for sale had that it was two units. It also the listings that are Still Available online for this unit. Its a lovely potential rental unit and i think when we i think two things, one, its important to ask to be very consistent in our policy as Planning Commission and as commissioner moore said, weve had a policy of not allowing dwelling unit mergers because we have to think about the lifetime of the Housing Stock and wanting to make sure in the future, there is an opportunity both, you know, for people to rent that apartment, maybe now and then also in the the future. And so for those reasons, i think that staff has made a compelling argument that i go with along the way that this condition has districtly rolled on this and along with the opportunity to really continue to meet the needs of our count city housing and staff and for all those reasons i also support the disapproval. Commissioner diamond. Questions for the owner. When you bought the house, you knew it was a twounit building . When we purchased the house there was an inconsistent information on that point. The city tax records showed that it was a Single Family home and the other records at the Building Department permits said the department was legalized. There was inconsistent information and its also part of our request to clean that up. So, i am quite sympathetic the commissioners argument for 41 years it hasnt been used as a second unit. The fact is i think, you had noticed when you bought it and there was a strong argument that it was a second unit. It was a twounit building. In light of ha an that and the t practise and the desire fon consistency, i would vote for disapproval. Commissioner chan. Yes, i think ditto. Consistency with policy, to preserve a rental unit, and also just the consistent application of zoning policies, i am supportive of staff recommendation to disapprove. If theres nothing further, theres a motion that has been seconded to disapprove. On that motion. [ roll call vote ] actually there was a motion. I made the motion. And it was to it was a motion of intent. You are waiting to hear from other commissioners but that motion never received a second. And i made a motion to disapprove. Ok. My vote is no. [ roll call vote ] so moved. That motion passes 61 with commissioner fung voting against. That will place us under you are discretionary review as items 14a and 15 were withdrawn or continued. Placing us on item 16 for case 2017002545 at 2417 green street. This is a discretionary review. Please note, on january 2020 after hearing closing Public Comments, you continued the matter to april 16th, 2020 with direction and by a vote of 60 and commissioner richards was absent at the time and subsequently on april 16th, may 28thth and june 18th, you can continue without hearing to todays date and commissioner chair and commissioner imperial, you have not yet been seated on the commission on january 9th when we first heard this matter and so in order to participate today you will need to acknowledge on the record ha you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. Yes, i have. And yes, i have. I have reviewed materials and inaudible . Great, thank you both. As this is our second hearing of this matter and as is customary were reducing the time through the chair each dr requester will receive two minutes to present the project sponsor will then receive six minutes and public will receive one minute. Hopefully all the dr requesters and project sponsors have successfully joined us on the direct call on the slide. If not you have to use Public Comment line. I see staff is prepared to present so i will relinquish the floor to him. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, chris mei of Planning Department staff. You have before yo three requess for the discretionary review submitted in april of 2017 which propose one and threestorey horizontal additions and at the rear and third and fourth flor vertical additions and the place within the existing family dwelling by two feet. The area we have increases from 4,118 square feet to 5,115 square feet. The project proposed alterations to the front facade and interior modifications, including the expansion of the existing basement level garage to accommodate another offstreet parking space and the partial excavation and terracing of the rear yard. Following the three dr requests the project sponsor revised the project which including a one bedroom adu with the first floor as well as some alterations to the front facade in order to accommodate workouts from the Planning Department. On june 26th, 2019, signing staff issued preliminary mitigate negative declaration. [please stand by]. To mediate between the project sponsor and d. R. Requesters in an attempt to negotiate something acceptable to both. Two Staff Meetings on june 15 and july 10. As a result of the meetings the project sponsor has redesigned the project resulting in the reduction of the rear of all four floors totalling 718 square feet, reduction in the amount of excavation at the basement level by 86 cubic yards, and at the first floor breezeway directly adjacent to the uphill neighbors Property Line measuring 108 cubic yards. The revised project still proposes an a. D. U. On the first floor measuring approximately 900 square feet as well as an additional parking space in the basement level that no longer includes the lowering of any existing areas at the areas proposed. Planning staff reviewed the projects and have determined that the reduced massing at all levels maintains adjacent neighbors privacy as well as access to the space and is consistent with the residential guidelines and the neighborhood Design Guidelines and is proposed back from the side lot lines to match the neighbors light well windows on the west with a buffer to the a. D. U. And responded to the planning staffs request for the natural terracing of the year yard for the primary unit and the a. D. U. Below with the emphasis on soft landscaping to be more cohesive and reduced in size by approximately 78 square feet to the entry to the a. D. U. And more legible and walk in it for the dwelling unit and the Planning Department and accounts for the first floor and the new floor area added to decrease in size from 418 square feet and 3,531 square feet. Access at the garage level. Planning staff determined that the revised project does not create exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. And problems involving rear additions and steep excavation and is not unique and to approve the project as revised and reaffirming m. N. D. And the Site Specific measures contained therein. And i will turn it over the the project sponsor. We should hear from the d. R. Requesters first. So if any of the d. R. Requesters are online, you will have two minutes. This is Richard Drury. Can you hear me . Clerk i can. I am glad you were able to join us. You have two minutes. I will be speaking for both. You will then have four minutes, yes. Thank you. This is Richard Drury representing d. R. Requesters Phillip Kaufmann and carlos. Mr. Kaufmann lives in the architectural gem which is designed in 1893, sorry, by the father of the first aid and that is his own home. And is immediately adjacent and uphill from the subject property on a hill so steep that the sidewalk has stairs. The homes are bonded with zero lot line and the substantial excavation threatens to undermine the variations of the Neighborhood Health that has existed until recently when a private developer often his forever homes and the house immediately and adjacent and downhill from the house proposing to construct a massive home with extensive excavation into the shared mid block open space affecting kaufmanns and other neighbors to block light and hair to the Historic House and the lamperts downhill and the developers wrapped up five notices of Violations Including a Code Enforcement declaring the house and leaving gaping holes in the roof and allowing air and rain to go through the rainy season. The citys own mitigated negative declaration stated and i quote, the project construction could comprise the Structural Integrity of the Historic Foundation at 2421 green street. The negative declaration continues, the proposed project could directly or indirectly cause causing substantial with the loss, injury or risk of death that is a quote from the mitigated board of declaration and the board of supervisors has twice considered this matter and found that the project presents unusual circumstances and Hazardous Materials that appears as a result of the circumstances the project may have significant hit on the environment. And yet the staff tried to issue a third ceqa exemption and prepared and never prepared the negative Environmental Impact. And made clear that they wanted the developer to eliminate the a. D. U. And eliminate the expansion of the parking garage and the commissions motion stated, quote, redesign the project with sensitivity to the Historic Resource, eliminating the extra parking and a. D. U. If excavation can be avoided. President koppel said, im not going to be supportive of excavating on this project. Commissioner johnson stated, excavation in particular is particularly worrying. And with the lesser or no excavation. Commissioner fung stated the large issue with the adjacent building and would be a starting point to redesign the building and minimize the risk to the adjacent building including studying the eliminating the excavation. And disregarded the commissions motion and due to 930 square foot a. D. U. And doubling the underground parking garage and the building envelope expands three stories high and the rear yard open space and blocking content to the Historic Resource which provided finding that the project threatened to undermine the in grip foundations that date to 1893. The architectural historians letter and the project will adversely effect the historic qualities and states that the project can comprise the Structural Integrity of the Historic Foundations at 2421 green street. And worked on the project at 125 crown terrace and exhibit d to the letter. And adding insult to injury and the preliminary mitigated declaration. And the final mnd and that is critically important. That is your time. Thank you. Is the third d. R. Requester available . Yes. Can you hear me . We can. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. And i represent susan berg and mark lampert who leave east of the site at 24 green and thankful for the time that city effort and staff have made to mediate this case. While we appreciate the project sponsor engaged with the modifications and come up short and cant support the current line. And not fully complied with the direction with the Planning Commission motion and not gone far enough with the concerns of the clients and with the association. Thank you and ill hand the presentation over to my client susan now. Thank you, deborah. And thank you to the planning staff and to the commissioners in listening to the meeting this afternoon that you all put in an enormous amount of time here in case upon case and i do want to assure you although its certainly does sound like this is a case of the not in my backyard situation, i really do want to assure you that we have a group of neighbors here and three d. R. Requesters surrounding the developers property. All of us have bought our homes to raise our families and live here forever. Actually, we really do mean that forever because that is what it has been. And the developer from day one held the preop meeting and 15 neighbors and welcome to the neighborhood and buy this place and remodel and stay within the footprint. Dont comprise some of the last open green spaces in San Francisco. It is not just about calhallow, but that is what were here about today. The green space is in this whole city to be protected by all of us. We asked him to remodel with that one in the neighborhood clerk thank you. That is your time. That is your time, maam. Weve gone back and back. Thank you. Clerk is the project sponsor online . You have six minutes. This is Property Owner, and is it possible to have chris may put up the presentation slides . And share your screen before the time begins. The slides are up. Thank you. And start with slide one. And start by saying the team has worked exhaustively and to address neighbor concerns since the last meeting over 7 months ago and the project has been revised numerous times in the side of the proposed addition which was modest and supported by staff for three years and to be at 295 square foot addition. The slope is not steep by any means and a licensed surveyor and 12 and are clearly separate and they have all been refuted repeatedly by staff and experts and the buildings and there is no way they were joined. And we prove that with documentation and switch to slide 4. And address the concerns of 2421 which is mr. Kaufmann. We eliminated approximately 50 of the proposed excavation for this project and started around 200 cubic yards and to put that into contact and that amount of material is removed from the site. And one day of trucks leaving the site to take 200 yards away is a small amount. And to be 8 feet away from the Property Line and that is through solid bedrock and engineering geologists and its all part of the ceqa analysis and the red hatched area on slide four shows the area of reduced excavation and if you could switch to slide 5, chris. At this level we eliminated all Property Line excavation and dont even apply to the proposal in front of you and no longer proposing on the excavation and Property Line. And go to slide six. At the levels two and three, we reduced the rear addition and staff supported for three years and reduced that by [inaudible] on the floor and there is a blue hatch that shows that and we are 13 feet away from the rear yard setback which planning code allows that is 13 feet smaller than what the code allows. Slide seven please. At the proposed third floor, we went above and beyond any request from planning or Planning Commission and even the neighbors hadnt requests this and decided to eare move a portion of the existing building at the lightwell of 2421. So were not only using a generous 46 side yard setback and proposing to eliminate the portion of the existing lightwell and going to be a better condition than exists today. Slide 8 please. At the fourth floor we completely eliminated the addition so there is zero addition at the fourth floor. And if you could go back to slide one, two, and three. And the one on the righthand side and the unusual ground floor bay window partially below grade facing my property. And concerns about light and air and reduced the size of the a. D. U. Which is much needed in light of the comments about the prior agenda item and asking to take the a. D. U. Out, but i understand it is policy to leave it in. We have reduced the size of the precious a. D. U. And taken it 3 feet away from the side yard of 2415 and pulled it back from the rear yard, and no way impacts the mid block open space with the d. R. Requester building next to us which is 30 feet deeper or something to that effect and three stories tall. And if you could put through slide nine and 10 for reference, this shows a Cross Sectional view with how minimal the red dash line is and shows the outline of the existing building and really what a modest addition were asking for 295 square feet. In closing i would like to state again we have worked exhaustively and i cant overstate that with the neighbors including two multihour meetings with planning staff and City Attorney assisted and neighbor discussions and unfortunately, after all this effort and work and good faith efforts to modify the project, the d. R. Requesters have taken a position that zero project is what they have demanded. No addition and no extensions and regardless of what the planning code says. And please approve this project. Thank you very much. And that includes the project sponsor presentation and open up to Public Comment and as a reminder, members of the public will be limited to one minute as this is the second hearing. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to call in and press 1, then 0, and to get into the queue. Is the caller prepared to submit your testimony . I am. Can you hear me . Yes. Thank you. Christine pelosi, resident of San Francisco, and mother of an 11yearold who spends time at the property also and relevant to this discussion and the former City Attorney and the biggest case was what went down the hill and landed at 201 a couple of decades back and i am about that area. And with the neighbors to protect my fatherinlaws home and the e. I. R. That was contemplated by the board of supervisors months ago. Thank you for your consideration. Please make sure that this full house and street and when there is construction and jeopardizes the left side of the hill. That should be taken into consideration. You have two questions remaining. Small Business Owner and 35 years in San Francisco. I oppose this project and doing a favor to oppose it because if this thing goes awry and any time you get people involved in something, thing cans go wrong. There could be a catastrophic event here. And still blocking the windows and the light and when our neighbor to come in and try and create something that is dangerous and disruptive. Hello . Clerk yes, we can hear you. So i wouldnt want to be in your shoes if this thing is approved and were meeting every night. And digging out and excavating is he going to go too far and things go wrong in a situation like this. Thank you. And dont change plans enough to make this thing safe. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion of this hearing. The mater is now before you. Dont jump in all at once now. As this was the second hearing, there was no rebuttal afforded to the interested parties, but the matter is now up for commissioner deliberation. If there is no motion, as a discretionary review, this is a principally permitted project and it will be approved as proposed. Take your time, commissioners. I am not sure how much longer we should wait. If there is no motion or deliberation, the matter will approve the project. Commissioner diamond. Commissioner is environmental staff on the phone . The preparer of the addendum on the phone . Commissioner, i dont think they are. They were invited a little bit too late. I dont think they mate it on to the invitation list, but i may be able to answer some of their questions on their behalf. Commissioner i just want to understand how the mitigation measures that was in the neg dec and how does that excavation measure just get attached to the site permit . And does it get attached . If we dont take d. R. , does that still get attached to the site permit . So what would happen if the Commission Approved the project, they would have to take d. R. Because it is different than the original project. If the commission wanted to disapprove the project, they would have to take d. R. And if the commission wanted to approve a modified different version of the project, you have to take d. R. As well. When the Commission Takes d. R. After the hearing, planning staff summarize the commissions action through a d. R. Action memo which memorializes the decision and so in that d. R. Action memo and the commission holding the mnd additional mitigation measures. If i understand correctly, we want to approve the project in the current plan and take d. R. To approve that project with the mitigation measure to approve the d. R. Thank you very much. And just for clarity, and if for instance the Commission Fails to make the motion and those are the plans that will ultimately be approved. We need to take d. R. To approve those plans and the most recent revisions that the project sponsor and those are the plans that we are currently reviewing. And the staff is proposing that on top of those to approve with modifications. Commissioner if we dont take d. R. , it seems like they were presented and the project would be approved and how does that mitigation proposed . Is that on the site permit . If the Commission Wants to approve the project as revised, you would still have to take d. R. And plans are different than before the original neighborhood notification back in 2017. Not exactly, chris, and submitted those as the revision to that project d. R. d in front of the commission and the project that is before the revised plan and refer to the City Attorney and this is a question for the City Attorney and dont take d. R. And the project is currently shown in the most recent plans on the move and the mitigation efforts. The mitigation measure would be attached to the site permit when it gets routed to planning and as a part of plan approval. And the measure would be included. That is helpful, thank you. Commissioner . Commissioner i just would like, again, when it comes to architectural d. R. S, i would like to i am not an expert but seeing the effort of what the project sponsor has done and looking into the revised project and revised plan in terms of the reduction of the excavation and also taking into conversation of the lightwell for the passage of care ranked next door. I do find the revised plan acceptable. I am willing to take the d. R. As with this revised plan. I think they have followed and i would still like to hear other commissioners opinions on this. I am supportive of taking the d. R. Clerk commissioners, if i could clarify. I have mucked things up here. If you choose not to act and not to take an action and the approved plans would be certainly those that were first submitted with the Building Permit application and without the revisions that have been offered up today and to accept the revisions that the project sponsor has put forward today, you should take d. R. In order to adopt those. Apologies for the confusion. Commissioner moore thank you for that explanation. It is crucial to understand that in order for this project to be considered with the modifications presented for us today and looking back at the other meetings over the years and i have attended on this project and with the increasingly more difficult for commissioners who more recently joined to fully understand the extraordinary history of what has gone into this project. This project started a z a dead sinker and had unanimous support in the current form which is way back win in 1919 and early 1919 that there was nobody on the commission who was going to support i because indeed it was a major threat to the Historic House that is the most amazing resource and historical refours. It is a lovely home and i had the fortune of visiting the home and appreciating the grand your of the architecture of that vintage. However, as that project moved forward and by six or seven or more file on the project is taller than the traditional new york telephone book used to be. Some got more responsive to pushbacks and morphed in front of this today. Only this project as it is today and in front of the history and into the d. R. Requesters and including the commission who repeatedly said to hours and hours of listening to the project and would be a lot easier and i think the jenni rivera feeling about this project would be based on the common understanding and indeed the project and still code compliant sites itself and like this and many other neighborhoods in a manner that is pretty much defined as a pop out. And still basically used the existing plates is nearly a 719 square foot increase. And it took a long time to understand it and the project applicant described the garage at home and other than going outside and upstairs into the building. And expand the garage and not significantly much to have the ability to come directly from the garage into the unit done by elevator which stops on the floor of the a. D. U. And then goes up to the upper unit. I have spent enormous amounts trying to understand the project and trying to really see it in context and all other d. R. Applicants surrounding it and i personally cannot see that this project is impacting the manner that are describing it and is down sized and done in a matter that is respectful. And technically the ability to pull back the garage foundation and the adjoining Historic Foundations of the coxhead house was most important move. Both of these conversations over and over again and i personally do not have any major objections to what is in front of me. I would like to hear other people speak, particularly commissioner koppels ideas interesting and is also to follow the project for an extensive length of time. Commissioner, every one of the talking points and this project started off at a certain place and leaning towards the project today. Commissioner i have to say this is one of the few times where we have all sat taking a moment to take it in, i think. The reason is extremely eloquently expressed by commissioner moore. We have seen this project through many iterations. We have been quoted before and just continuing to have concerns with the excavation and the amount being done and Historical Resource next door. And i just have to echo what was said again in looking at this revised project. And does alleviate concerns we had around the stability of the neighboring house and i think its tasteful and thoughtful and i wish we had been here months ago or even longer just in the motion of being neighborly and being able to have this project move forward. And moving forward with the design is peaceful and thoughtful. I am in full support of the project. And i would take d. R. And approve as revised. Commissioner second. And missioner chan. Thank you, commissioner moore. And the background application. And i am comfortable with the staff recommendation to take d. R. And this project as revised. Commissioner i feel like this plan is a significant time and taking d. R. And to allow for the approval of the most recent modifications and include reference to the mitigation measure as well. If i could amend the motion to do that, absolutely. Clerk this is a motion to take d. R. And approve and the project has been revised with reference to the mitigation measure. On that motion, commissioner chan. Aye. Commissioner simon. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. A commissioner moore. Aye. Commission president koppel. So moved, commissioner. And that passes unanimously 70. And that concludes your agenda for today. Much earlier than i expected. As we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. this Commission Meeting iso provisions of the brown act and recent executive orders to facilitate tele conferences. Ordinarily the brown act has strict rules foretell a conferencing. The governors order has suspended those rules sm the department has met all of the applicable notice requirements. As noted on the agenda members of the public may observe this meeting via sfgovtv. They may offer Public Comment by calling the Public Comment phone number. I want to welcome members of the public and staff. We ask for your patience during these unprecedented times. We respectfully ask the public to have patience in delays and gaps during the meeting particularly during Public Comment. Madam secretary, would you please call the roll . thank you commissioner. Please say present when i call your name. roll call and please note that executive director is present. We have a quorum. thank you. Commissioners the next item is item three, communications that wed like to provide further instructions for the Public Comment process. Callers can dial into the toll free number and wait for members to be announced. Three minutes to provide comment on each item. During each Public Comment period callers will be instructed to call 18774153612. You will hear a notification when your line is unmuted. It is best to call from a quawet location and turn your television or radio down. Are there any communications from the Commission Members . okay. Hearing none. Next agenda item four approving minutes from wednesday june 3 Commission Meeting. Any comment regarding the june 3 meeting . Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the wednesday june 3dos Commission Meeting minutes . so moved. moved and seconded. Madam, second, please take a roll call vote to approve the Commission Meeting minutes. roll call the vote is unanimous. thank you. Commissioners item five is executive directors report. good morning, commissioners. Great to see everybodys face. I just wanted to start with the federal level actions that are taking place. Following months of delay due to the pandemic, congressional appropriators kicked off the funding debates. House lawmakers are moving through the funding bills for next fiscal bills. However, regular appropriations discussions are occur inning the background of this unprecedented legislative year. Since covid 19 began congress has passed trillions of dollars in emergency funding including discretionary programs normally funded through the discretionary cycle. More than one billion for the Older Americans act programs to respond to increased need ses. S. Additional measures and changes to address the growing economic changes and disasters. We have benefited from the money coming out of the federal government so far and are very much advocating for more dollars. Advocating through c 4a the california area of aging and the National Association of aging. I know that members of our Advisory Council and some of you have advocated for those dollars as well. Thats something that were really going to need in the next year. Despite the continued need for emergency funding, lawmakers are advancing the annual Fund Proposals for all discretionary programs. This has just been a really complicated process. The debates were ultimately insufficient and the restricted budget caps that were established before the pandemic really caused a lot of confusion and problems with getting money out the door. Now congressional appropriators have little legal room to conduct adjustments in the spending bill. This is an on going budget. A lot of the money that is coming down is through emergency processes that they are working on. Hopefully we will find out in the very near future if were getting an infusion of cash for nutritious and Supportive Services for caregivers but we dont know yet. Theres just a lot of influx at the federal level. As we get information about with a we can advocate for well get that information out to you so that either you can decide as a commission or as individuals that you want to help advocate for these dollars to come out. At the state level, the state department of aging is coming out of with guidelines on reopening for organizations that serve over people with disabilities, they are saying that they think they shouldnt fully open up until stage four which is when arenas will open up and concerts and things like that and sports events. The reason they are saying that is the California Department of Public Health is maintaining that older adults are really at risk for covid 19 and given the surge that were in right now they are concerned about saying anything more than that. That said, they did build in some flexibility so that local triple as can figure out how to handle some of these issue with their providers. When talking with the state i like to give the example of Career Center which is open right now and is open right now because they feel they are serving such an at risk population, that population is more at risk if they are not open for them to come in and charge phones and get food and things like that. Im glad for the flexibility and well continue to work with our providers in the community to figure out what works best. Also at the state level there is a focus now on equity and aging. At the state level they have that echoed. The director of department of aging realized there was a lot happening with covid 19 and older adults are most likely to die from it. There were some strange decisions made around crisis care and things like that. The voices of older adults have gotten lost in a lot of the conversations. They are kicking off a series of anti age conversations and the state director of aging asked me and commissioner spears and kelly and katekelly with the ihss authority and kate with the community campaign. We had planned to present at the American Society on aging on the very same issues. They asked us to present to them and a wider audience on some of the work weve done. How agism is particularly prevalent during covid 19. Like weve talked a lot about in San Francisco. Its great were going to be part of that kick off but its a year long process, well have different ways to engage with that process. In addition to that, they are really looking at Digital Divide issues and social engagement. Were engaged with google to obtain a number of devices that i think there are echos that can go into the homes of older adults and help people engage with technology and other Community Using those devices. Now the California Association areas on aging is workingwhat the best way to get those out into communities. Having a pilot to really learn how we can bridge the Digital Divide. Maybe showing that into something bigger which is a partnership with more corporations and, you know, really addressing the Digital Divide knowing people are going to be at home at least for the near future. The other thing thats happening at the state level is the California Departmentsorry. I have all the acronym ns in my head. The state is thinking of proposing a new benefit, a new medical benefit called Long Term Care at home which will help people who need home care, Skilled Nursing care remain in community. A lot of people working on what this will look like. It will be an actual benefit. It will keep people from going into Nursing Homes and get the same services are home. Make a way for people to come out of Nursing Homes and do it safely. Theres been a number of people come out of Nursing Homes because their family is worried about them. The death rates in Nursing Homes and close to 50 of people who died in california as a result of covid 19 have died in Nursing Homes. This is a way of having people come out and live in community with whatever supports they have and added supports from this program so that its safe. Whats been happening is people have brought their family members out and they dont have alllet services and infrastructure at home. Its pretty exciting on one hand. There are a lot of other programs that the state already has that they can build upon. There are a lot of questions from the community about what it all means and who will qualify for it and all of that. Im involved in some of those conversations. Cindy has been really helpful with that. She has a lot of knowledge around programs at home like this. We will continue to have San Franciscos voice heard as that unfolds. Locally, the Emergency Operations center, i think most of you know i was working there for a number of months with the feeding unit. The Emergency Operations center for San Francisco has gone to a unified command for a covid 19 response. They haveessentially whats functioning is a new department called the covid 19 command center. Everything covid 19 related is run out of that center. Its still right now, at the center. A number of staff has been offered up from various departments to staff that department and were expecting that those staff deployments will be six months to a year while in the process to continuing to respond and moving into full recovery. Thats been really interesting to see that develop and build. Some of the major things were involved with still are continuing to ensure that people who are continuing to care due to covid 19 continue to get food and on the human side also includes our in home sup rtive e services program. People who are continuing to shelter in place in hotels until theres a Recovery Plan for them and move back out into the community. Thats what that looks like. Were very fortunate and grateful that we have some staff that stepped up to continue that work and who would be deployed at the covid 19 command center for the next six months or so. The next thing is the great plates program. Youve heard me talk about and hopefully heard about in the community. The governors plan to invest in restaurants but also to get meals out to older adults was extended to august 9th. That program is serving over two thousand people at this point and thats really impressive if we look at the other counties in california including la county, were doing really well. I think were the most aggressive in terms of getting people on that program in the county and state. Based on the size of our population. Thats exciting. We are working with the Mayors Office on disability and providing in place. Its with the ihss Public Authority to distribute personal protective equipment to the community starting next week. Thats been a really big effort. Its been a really Great Partnership with the Mayors Office and department of disability. One of the things through the covid 19 response ive noticed the departments have worked closely together to provide the best access and were thinking about how to breakdown silos and this is one way weve done that. Moving on were pleased that we added our new county Veterans Service Office Manager to the dos management team. He has a great history. He came out of the army. Has done a lot of work with hud and other programs, he is knowledgeable about Community Needs and veterans and specifically he has really great leadership skills. We were hoping that the board of supervisors would appoint him as a county veteran Service Officer. That process is a little bit kn fusing becausconfusing because t under the City Administrators Office back in the day, in the year 2000. A number of other offices came under, we never changed the local legislation around how appointment gets made. What happens is still the city administrator makes a recommendation to the board of supers. Were going through that process right now working closely with the City Administrators Office and the board. Were hoping very much that he will be the appointee from the board. That the county Veterans Service Office Manager and the kowpty cy Veterans Service officer will be one in the same person. From a policy point of view, the board of supervisors will agree to that sm wer. Were working to comply with the governors executive order which requires ihss to start conducting initial home visits starting august. We do this virtually when we can. Its very clear from the Governors Office that he would like us to begin going out and seeing people in person. Were working to make sure people are tested for all the equipment they need and they are ready to go in august. Were also working to bring our field based social workers into compliance with the new protective equipment guidance from the department of Human Resources and work with testing approximately one hundred field based social workerred within the next three to four weeks. Theres a lot going on. Its been really interesting to come out of the eo c and begin working remotely and try to make sure that were continuing to have some sort of continuity with our staff and that were having somewhere that were communing in the ways that we did before. It definitely feels different. For meits probably hard on all of us. Got very used to seeing staff in the elevators and lunch room and office, i do a lot of my work that way and engage with people that way. Its difficult getting used to this very different way as the department head. Im proud of our management team, all of our staff because people are just continuing to find new way it Work Together and communicate and to coordinate. I assume that we will continue to do that at the highest level possible as we move through this process over the next year or so. That is it for my report, im happy to answery questions that you may have. no. Thank you so much for that extensive and exhaustive report. I think that the commissioners are begin so grateful for the work that you are doing and the staff. I want to make sure that were expressing that. Especially doing that right now. My response to your report, i just know that you are all working triple what you usually have been. You are all essential. Making a huge difference in our population of San Francisco. Thank you very much. I think when you mentioned our helping in any way, we do get information from staff on how to advocate and what to sa advocate for. Please continue sending us that. The net works that we have, well definitely deploy and provide as much assistance as we can. Any other comments or questions from the other commissioners . Commissioner wong. thank you. Good morning. We appreciate the work that you are doing under such difficult circumstances. You mentioned that the county Service Officer appointment or recommendation has been sent to the board of supervisors. Is the appointment process under the purview of das or are we just a partner of . its interesting because the office thats with usthe responsibility for running the office. The county Veterans Service office itself. The appointment of the county veterans officer actually sits with the board of supervisors. For a number of yearsi have been with the department for 17 years next week. When i got here the officer actually wasnt part of the office, he actually was an employee of the City Attorneys office. When he retired one of the things we talked to the city administrator and the board about was how nice it would be is if the office and officer were actually together. Thats what weve been working to do. It also is a fact that the money for the manager position sits with das. If they wanted somebody else to be appointed they would have to figure out a way to pay for that person. Its a little confusing. One of the things we need to do is fix the legislation. The City Administrators Office would like to be out of this because they dont really work with this office anymore. The office no longer sits under the City Administrators Office. We just never clean up that legislation. We cant do it immediately. Well be doing it hopefully in the next year, next few months. Its a little confusing commissioner. Its one of those city things that just hasnt gotten fixed yet and its not very clear. i appreciate the answer. I just wanted to let you know within the veteran community for veteran Affairs Commission here in San Francisco has registered a complien complaint that no Ven Organization has been considered for this process. And again, i just wanted to get clarification as to how thishow the hiring process actually works. Im being asked questions within the American Legion as to why is it they were never consulted. Not to say that the gentlemen being recommended is not qualified or anything like that. There was no consultation whatsoever. what has happened so far is that our hiring process is a process where we have to go through same Civil Service guideline thats we would normally go through for any hire. We are certainly kog distan cogf that to have somebody on the hiring panel. I think whats confusing is that the appointment process is separate. That hasnt happened yet. There actually is room for people to register any sort of feelings they have for the appointee who come frs from the City Administrators Office to the board. The board is where the appointee process happens. The way the legislation is written is that the city administrator comes up with somebody, they dont necessarilythe process isnt negatively that they go to the community first. They put the recommended person out to the board. Theres time for Public Comment and engagement for the board. Thats where that happens. Not that it couldnt be changed but thats the way its always been for this particular appointment and any board appointment. So when the board puts it forth at the rules committee, thats the time that the veterans organizations can come and say we like this person for this position or we think there should be somebody else. Thats the time when the community can do that. That will be counted very soon, i believe. Thats what i hear. thank you. does that make sense . Its confusing. He hasnt been appointed yet. Theres still room for public engagement. commissioner spears. i just wanted to add my thanks to the Department Chair and the Department Staff for all of the work thats been done for the community over in this very complicated and depressing times that we live in right now. Especially around the food service, i know how important that is for so many people in the community and to hear that great plates have been extended, thats great news. Hopefully it will be extended again. I just wanted to it thank you all for your diligent work in serving the most vulnerable here in San Francisco. okay. Thank you. Commissionerdid you have any comments or questions for the director . yeah. Again, huge compliments. Im curious as to staffing . Are you able to keep up and keep everybody at work . How is that working out . yes. We are. We definitely need all the staff we have. One of the things we know is that older adults and people with disabilities have been disproportionately affected by this. Its a very different working world for sure. One of the things they didnt go into detail about, we met last month. We know were facing a very big budget deficit at the local level. Were being asked to come up with some target reductions and at the same time we know were going to need all the dollars we have. Were working through what that looks like. The mayor said last week that shes going to need departments to give up a little bit more. We dont have any idea what those numbers are or even what it will look like for our particular agency because we have so many federal and state dollars flowing through hsa that were effected differently from some of the other departments. Were in a better position to retain our staff and to reallyand to continue to serve growing numbers of people who need things like food and home care and things like that. Its a little bit moreits actually hard for me to get my head around what the budget looks like this year because theres so many moving parts and state and federal revenues. Theres such a big receive sit at the federal level. Next time we meet well have a clearer picture going into the next fiscal year. That will impact, of course, our staffing potentialit will impact our staffing mostly in the way that it will be hard for us to hire people when we have vacancies. We need everyone we have. We have figured out how to work remotely to the extent we can. We have to prioritize some of the work were doing. Those will be tough questions. Weve been riding a high for a number of years. Community funds coming in. The dignity Fund Legislation and growth and dignity fund. The growth fund for other programs has been pretty amazing. Its been doing some exciting new things. We have to goin go back to our e values that we crafted pretty carefully. How will we measure up with everything were thinking about doing. What do we prioritize . How do we keep staff in the smartest way possible . its been amazing. Youve done a fabulous job. If any of us need to advocate for you in terms of jobs and the budget, please keep us informed. And thank you. thanks, commissioner. thank you commissioners. Having heard from all of the commissioners im going to move along to item number six which is the Advisory Council report. good morning, commissioners. Its nice to see all of you and speak you with you again. We met on june 19th. We hadnt met since february so we were excited to get back together. We had a very thorough engaged update much like she did this morning. The department has been doing and Council Members were able to ask questions and the advantage of the presentation. Our plans as many others have been thrownwhere to go from here sm th. The critical issue on the agenda this month is the area plan. It was the final presentation. In february of the last meeting we had, they presented the initial draft. Advisory council had a couple of recommendations. Incorporated those along with some changes, the Advisory Council unanimously approved the area plan. Were just waiting to sign off on it it. We also had some dignity funds updates, well followup on that at our next meeting next week. We also got caught up on our site visits. We had site visits on five locations. Were really pleased about three of the five veteran sites. There had been some concerns about thesome of the veteran services. We had a lively conversation about that. Council member rock land who had done these site visits put together a summary. Thats going to be given to michael to take back with his team to take a look at it. At our meeting next week well take a look at how do we do site visits going forward. Obviously there arent sites specifically to visits. We may be looking at getting the virtual programming thats being offered into some of the meal programs, were going to have a lively discussion im sure about that. Were still looking to have an update on the commission on aging as she is a member. On the California Master plan of which she is one of the advisors on the alzheimers group. Everything is focused on the budget. The budget is in the air. She did the Historic Supreme Court decision that prohibited discrimination against the lgbtq community. Theres a lot of concern locally and at the state level. No one is collecting gender and orientation data unless it relates to covid 19 pandemic. The membership communitythe appointment of i think three or four of us are up for reappointment and the advisory appointment. We have things moving and obviously due to the pandemic and shelter in place some of those were put on the back burner but were continuing to work there. The council has discussed further next week supporting the black lives matter and the n4a is looking to get support amongst u. S. Senators to focus on relations. Ive heard from the board out side of the aging and Disability Community but from the medical community about social isolation and concerns there. The Advisory Committee meetin meetingseptember provide an update on legislation. Are there any questions . thank you so much, diane. We appreciate all the work into making sure we have that initial meeting and how important it was to pass that area plan. I thank you for making sure that happened. Any other comenlts o other comms for commissioners . I. i really want to thank michael and rose. We met last fall and planned how we were going to handle this. When we came to february, we were ready to go. Their team was ready to go with the report and that really put us ahead of the game when things were shut down. I just want to compliment that team. We hope that we can continue that collaboration moving forward. It made the approval process so much easier. Job well done. great to hear that. Great to know that we got all of that input that is so important to having a good report. Please extend our thanks to the Advisory Committee for all the work they did. Any other comments or questions from the commissioners . I think we will good to item gom seven. item seven is Public Comment for items that are not on todays calendar. Please open the phone lines for the public. You may be dialed into to. In order to provide Public Comment. Please press pound two. If you have not yet dialed in, please call 17663695200. Once in the conference please press pound two to enter the question two. You will hear the notification when your line is unmuted. Well unmute you from the question queut. Its besqueue. Please turn up thn your phone. Please turn off the volume on your television or radio. We will wait thirty seconds for callers. hello. This is jessica from senior disability action. Im sure none of you are surprised to hear my voice. Its nice to see you online. Thank you for all your work that everyone is doing during this hard time. I wanted to comment on a couple things. There has been a lot of concern about care rationing. If hospitals get full and dont have enough beds or ventilators who gets treated. Sidgesince the beginning of the pandemic seniors would be the last. With this new surge it sounds like the area hospitals are starting to fill up. Theres some concern about that. Were trying to organize towe have a California Care rationing coalition and connect with different Hospital Systems about making sure that our lives are valued and protected. If youd like to get involved you can email me if you are interested. On the nursing home issue that director mentioned about the concern about so many people that are getting sick and dying in Nursing Homes and assisted living facilities, were doing a gathering for residents of care facilities who are isolated right now to join by video. Just a chance for people to talk to each other and share their experiences. Thats this thursday july 16th from three to four. I sent the information to you. Hopefully you can share that with people you know who may be interest. Lastly, one of the things were trying to do during the pandemic to reduce isolation and honori dont know if it was mentioned. Were celebrating the 30th anniversary of the americans with disabilities ability. Its harder to do during pandemic times. Book theories. Its an on going thing. We have four different book readings coming up in the next couple months. The book the pretty one. You dont have to have read the book. I hope we can connect in that way and i know that the office of disabilities is going to put other events on their website. I hope to seech oach other on you have no callers remaining. the next item is item eight. Old business. Please raise your hand if there is any old business that you would like to discuss. Seeing none ill call the next item. Item number nine, at this time the commission will elect the president and Vice President. I willis there a motion to discuss . so moved. second. i will now call a roll call vote. roll call . so moved. second. I will now call a roll call vote. roll call the vote is unanimous. The next agenda item are action items that require a vote by the commission. if i could just take a moment before we start our real work here. Thank you so much for everyones support and its an absolute honor for me to be with this commission. A little odd doing this from my dining room table. Im very very happy and pleased and know that i am very active from my dining room table. Whatever i can do to help the staff and other commissioners, i do. I am very very happy to be serving along with Vice President janet spears. So welcoming and look forward to working with you even if its through phone and zoom calls. I think well be good partners together. Im very very happy to work with all of you commissioners very qualified commissioners and very pleased to work with you as we gain more commissioners which im looking forward to. I think were going to be a great team. Again, in these unprecedented times committed to these communities that we serve especially now knowing how important it is. I look forward to all of that. Well work very hard from my apartment for all of that until im final able to Work Together with you physically. I dont know if Vice President spears wanted to say anything at this time or go ahead with the agenda. Between the allocation of last year and this year. Programs with area plan money include the court of services, home delivered nutrition, disease prevention, Family Caregiver support programs, elder abuse prevention as well as administration for these programs. The Supportive Service budget includes Meal Services, transportation, information and referral and emergency shortterm home care. Please note that local funds supporting these programs are not included in this table. As mentioned in the commission memo, increased funding for 2021 is largely attributable to state funding in congregate nutrition, home delivered meals and the ombudsman program. The contract, 202160 details the various requirements tied to funding. The approval of this item, staff may make contract modifications as needed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have any questions at this time because we have gone through this before and i think we asked questions at that point, but now that weve seen it again, and its time for the final decision, of course, are there any comments of questions from the other commissioners . Anything additional . Hearing none, commissioner any questions. Commissioner sklar no. Great. Madame secretary, anybody from the public who wishes to comment . Secretary moderator, please open the phone line for Public Comment. Those who wish to provide Public Comment under this item press pound 2 to enter the question queue. Do we have any callers in the queue . Announcer there are currently no callers in the queue. Commissioner knutzen hearing none, no request to speak on the item, well close Public Comment. Is there a motion . To pass the area plan 20212024 . You mean the budget . Commissioner knutzen yes, im sorry, the budget. I saw a motion from commissioner spears Vice President spears, yes . Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner knutzen and a second from commissioner lum. Thank you. Can you please take a roll call vote on agenda a. President knutzen, how do you vote . Yes. Spears, yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. Secretary the vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen okay, great, thank you. Commissioners, the next item is item b, review and approval of the fiscal year 20212024 area plan for the California Department of aging. And i think well have from our staff, rose johns and our director Shireen Mcspadden speak to this along with a slide, so please carry on. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Can you hear me . Commissioner knutzen yes. My name is rose johns, im planning analyst with the Human Services agency. Im here before you today to present the area plan 20212024 for approval with director mcspadden. And we have a simple agenda for this presentation. Were going to highlight updates weve made to the area plan. You may recall that we came and presented more extensively to you a review of the plan before covid came to us. And then well open it up for any discussion that you have. One of the most notable and interesting updates to the plan is a letter that weve added from director mcspadden that acknowledges the current context that were in. And i believe that director mcspadden is going to take a moment to read this letter to you now. Yeah, thanks, rose. It was roses idea to add this letter talking about the current context that were in. And so ill just quickly read it. Dear friends and colleagues, this area plan was completed in the early months of 2020. With the on set of coronavirus, our National State landscapes have been upended. Government and community sprang into action in response to this crisis. Together were working to reimagine and restructure our services and meet new and existing needs of older people and people with disabilities and to do so safely in compliance with Public Health and social distancing guidelines. Our department is charged with coordinated Responsive Network of aging Disability Services is all the more important. At this time conditions continue to evolve and the state budget is not finalized. This plan represents our aspirations for a Cohesive Network but meets the need of the population. In this current state of flux we recognize these plans may need be to adjusted as we transition from a new state of emergency to the new normal. Im thankful for the flexibility of the staff and partners. Im proud of the work weve done together and im looking forward to supporting our Older Community members. Thank you. Thank you. So what this letter is communicating, well, everything that you just heard. One thing i want to highlight for you is that while the California Department of aging extended a deadline for this plan, it typically is due may 1st. That extension, i believe, was really just to reflect that most of our realities were completely overturned and that staff working on the area plan and advisory bodies and governing bodies such as yourself were likely unable to meet as scheduled. And so the California Department of aging did not add new requests or ask us to restructure the plan at this time. And so im going to now highlight the key updates that weve made to the plan and youll see we havent deviateded or made too many revisions to what we did previously. Section 7 is where we summarize public hearings. That includes our presentation at the Advisory Council and before the commission. We noted in section 7, there were four topics brought up and discussed. The definition of disability was an item at the Advisory Council. Discussion of who is eligible for d. A. S. Services under the umbrella of disability. And we also discussed senior homelessness and how d. A. S. Works to support older adults who are unhoused. We also spent time talking about assistedliving facilities and residents and their eligibility to participate in d. A. S. Services. Essentially, as long as its not a duplication of support that a resident is receiving those riding in assistedliving facilities are able to participate in d. A. S. Services. And then there was discussion about Racial Equity and how d. A. S. Approaches this and how d. A. S. s efforts align with the mayors directives. We also updated two of our narrative objectives in section 9 which is the golden objection section. We updated the existing item, 1c, about nutrition because we wanted to acknowledge in the coming years over the time period covered by this plan, that d. A. S. Will be working with the providers to ensure the continuity of existing services. And to support providers to adapt their Service Models to safely provide them within this covid19 context. We also added a new objective which is our covid19 response objective and in this, the department outlines that it will be supporting consumers to meet their needs safely during the coronavirus emergency and recovery. So in coordination with the citys emergency response, d. A. S. Will provide adapted, enhanced and new resources to support older and disabled adults in meeting their needs safely during the immediate Pandemic Response and longterm recovery, well ensure services are accessible and tailored to meet the needs of the community members. And all new refers to that, this is an entire new objective, because we couldnt conceptize this while working on the goals and objectives earlier this year. Then we also updated section 12, the d. A. S. Preparedness to add some content about the departments role and response in responding to covid19. Where we note that d. A. S. Has driven the development of new resources and systems in key areas, including food security, home care, social engagement and other critical needs that older adults and adults with disabilities have. That is maintaining these efforts and remain vigilant and responsive as our experience with this virus and Public Health crisis will likely fluctuate. And with that, happy to open it up to discussion and answer any questions that you have. Commissioner knutzen thank you so much for all the additional work and incorporating all the feedback you got. So thank you to both of you. Are there any comments or questions from the commission . All right. Vice president spears . Commissioner spears i just wanted to say that i really appreciated the thoroughness of the report. I had an opportunity to read the entire thing and it really sets the course for what were up to over the next several years and i found it quite easy to follow. And kudos to the team who put it together because i thought it was a fabulous report. Commissioner knutzen all right. Any other commissioner comments . Sklar . Commissioner sklar no. Commissioner knutzen can you open the phone line for Public Comment, or do we have anybody who wishes the comment . Secretary members of the public that wish to provide comment [inaudible] to the question do we have any callers in the queue . Im not showing any callers at this time. Secretary thank you. Commissioner knutzen okay, great. Hearing no request to speak on the item, we close Public Comment. Is there a motion to approve the area plan 2021, commissioners . All right, i see moved by commissioner lum and second by Vice President spears. Madame secretary, will you please take the roll on agenda item b . Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. Secretary the vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen okay, thank you. Commissioners, your next item is agenda c. That is requesting authorization to modify the economisting Grant Agreement with the self help for the elderly for the provision of elder nutrition program, e. N. P. , congregate meals during the period of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2020 in the additional amount of 1,333,669, plus a 10 contingency for revised total modification amount not to exceed 1,945,121. Staff Tiffany Kearny will present the item. Thank you, can you hear me . Commissioner knutzen yes. My name is Tiffany Kearny, i am the Program Analyst and lead nutritionist for d. A. S. And im here today to present the modification for selfhelp congregate meal grant. Providers have experienced a significant demand in Meal Services and had to modify how they provide meals. They have been steadfast in meeting the increased demand and in changing their Food Service Operations to ensure the health and safety of clients and staff. All have transitioned their programs to meals to go, Meal Delivery or both. Early on, selfhelp for the elderly recognized the need to deliver meals to their clients who relied on them as a primary source for daily nutrition and shifted their program to Meal Delivery shortly after the citys shelterinplace order. Staff and volunteers delivered average of 100,000 meals per month, serving around 3500 clients a week starting in april through june, which is five times their Monthly Average before covid. Selfhelp served about 453,000 congregate meals in 1920 and the requested funding help covered the cost of 176,000 of those meals. Thank you and im happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Commissioner knutzen yes, i just cant fail to notice, begin the comments, this is such a huge increase in what they anticipated doing which was in the tens of thousands of meals to over 100,000 meals. If i have that correctly . Reading this document. And i think nothing nothing shows more [laughter] whats happened to us other than reading this request. I didnt have a question, but i think i needed to note that. It was quite a thing to even read. Is there any other comments or questions from commissioners before we vote . Yes, commissioner lum . Commissioner lum thank you. My question, really, is to get a clarification for myself. Normally, a budget its requested and we approve the budget for whatever the request was. In this case, needless to say, there is this tremendous increase. Is it understood that these organizations can always increase the budget . And then come back and ask us to fund it later . Or, you know what i really want to know is if there is this implied approval ahead of time . Are you going to answer that . Yeah, so ill answer it. Thanks, tiffany. So this is an unprecedented time and one of the things that we did know was that we would have increased need for Nutrition Services and increased need for people to get homedelivered meals. One of the things that ive been doing is working closely with the c. E. O. S of the organizations that we work with to try to understand what their increased needs are. And to try to help our staff be prepared to respond to those needs. Fortunately, we did get dollars from the federal government in the two stimulus packages that we got to help offset the general fund cost of these, but the city, i think, is just aware that we have increased Food Insecurity due to covid19 and the city is prepared to make sure that were figuring out how to answer those answer that need. Its complicated because, you know, we dont always have new monies coming in. We were able to shift some dollars over from dignity fund to help cover this. We were able to get the federal dollars, et cetera, but its just an ongoing conversation. I dont think we can ultimately say up front were going to be able to meet all the needs and yet we know that we need to try to the extent that we can because Food Insecurity is such an awful thing for the population that we serve. Does that answer your question, commissioner . Commissioner lum yes, it does. You know, just being new, it seems very difficult for us to approve a budget not knowing whether or not that budget is going to be sufficient and then obviously, where are we going to get the additional money . Right. Its an ongoing concern. Fortunately, budgets are a planning tool and when we try to adhere to them as much as we can, but we really are we have to work within that budget and then were also very hopeful there will be other dollars come in and help us increase to continue the increased Service Level that we have right now. Commissioner lum thank you. Thanks. Commissioner knutzen thank you. Commissioner sklar, any questions . Commissioner sklar no. Commissioner knutzen anyone from the public who wishes to comment on the item . Secretary moderator, please open the phone lines for Public Comment. Members who wish to provide Public Comment press pound 2 to enter the question queue. Do we have callers in the queue . Yes, we do. Yes, commissioners. Hello . Hello, caller, can you give us a name . Annie chung. And im the c. E. O. Of selfhelp for the elderly and i would like to comment. Great, your three minutes begin now. Thank you, bridgett. Commissioners, good morning. This is annie with selfhelp for the elderly. Thank you very, very much for questions, commissioner lum, as well as for director mcspadden and tiffany for recommended this very huge amount to kind of fill the gap that selfhelp for the elderly has provided as the commissioner said, almost 300,000 meals during the covid months from march to end of june. It is really unexpected, but as we close all of our nine and ten congregate sites, we realize that those are 1500 elderly that normally come to our Senior Centers who immediately have the need to go on to Home Delivery. So we worked with our cater and our staff to make it possible so that no senior go hungry. I want to thank shireen and her staff. We worked actually very closely together since the shelterinplace. So as the number increased, we cannot really stop because the elderly were calling us in panic mode. They couldnt go out of the building. Many lived in s. R. O. S and senior buildings and we dont really want them to go out and get sick. So in hindsight, we really have to continue feeding our seniors as much as we can so that we keep them safe at home. Its kind of like a leap of faith. And at the end of june, when we have to close down the covid19 Meal Delivery, we open six of our congregate sites for togo meals and we also refer about 500 of the assisting seniors to the greater plates program. Were continuing monitoring our Seniors Health and for those very, very frail and disabled seniors who are still going to bring a hot meal Home Delivery style to them, but not to the extent of closure, about 4,000 meals during the day during the peak. We were happy to have a lot of volunteers help us. We had over 350 volunteer drivers that came from the neighborhood. We were delivering all over San Francisco. And many of them, really, live in Senior Housing and s. R. O. S and in the western part of the city. And we give a big thank you to all our volunteers, director mcspadden was present to help us honor a number of these neighborhood groups. Sfpd offices have helped us, the lyft drivers and the Community Initiatives have consistently sent volunteers to help us. So i would like the commission to support this budget modification so that our budget is kept whole and we will continue to try our best to meet the needs of our seniors during this pandemic. Winston churchill said it is no use saying were trying to our best, we just need to succeed doing what is necessary. During the covid months we did what was necessary to keep our seniors safe and we couldnt have done it without all of your support. And particularly yours, shireen. Youve kept me kind of sane during our conversations, working out options and really the best support for our seniors. Tiffany, shireen, cindy, michael, thank you very much on behalf of all the seniors. Secretary thank you. There are no other callers at this time. Secretary thank you. Commissioner knutzen can i just compliment selfhelp for the elderly for years of being at the front line and helping when help is needed. Annie does a great job and totally in support of all theyre doing. Thank you. Great, thank you. Hearing no other requests to speak from the public, we will close Public Comment and id like to ask the commissioners for a motion . Commissioner knutzen so moved. Looks like one from commissioner sklar and then a second from commissioner lum. Yes, thank you. Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. The vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen thank you very much. Commissioner, your next item is agenda d, requesting authorization to enter into a new grant are agreement with swords to plow shares for provision of Legal Assistance for veterans with Mental Health claims. During the period of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2020 in the amount of 236,060, plus a 10 contingency not to exceed 259666. Staff well present the item. Good morning, president knutzen, fellow commissioners and executive director mcspadden. Im the benefits and director of d. A. S. The item before you is to provide Legal Assistance for veterans with Mental Health claims. The San Francisco office was awarded this funding in partnership with swords to Employee Shares by the department of Veterans Affairs. Weve partnered to streamline Service Coordination and expand the ability of Legal Assistance for veterans across San Francisco. Swords to Employee Shares provides legal counseling up to full representation by an attorney to underserved veterans of complex v. A. Mental Health Disability claims. These veterans are often not receiving the benefits which they are entitled due to barriers. In this grant, the department of Veterans Affairs requires that the Program Target underserved veterans. Theyre considered those that are other than honorably discharged, lgbtq, women, students. San francisco county veteran service will collaborate with swords to Employee Shares to provide formal and informal outreach to veterans. Outreach will focus on lowincome and Homeless Veterans with Mental Health disabilities who reside in San Francisco. Compared nationally, San Francisco has the eighth highest number of Homeless Veterans and third highest rate of unsheltered veterans. During the inkind count of homeless individuals, we discovered there were 608 Homeless Veterans and 81 of them are unsheltered. This provides outreach to the vet center and other locations where underserved veterans seek support. Theyll pilot legal clinics at the college of San Francisco to reach out to the transitioning student veterans and the San Francisco veterans county office will reach out to veterans sheltering in place. Its anticipated that this grant will have a dramatic impact by ensuring that more underserved veterans with Mental Health abilities will increase their access to v. A. Mental health and health care. They will seek out and qualify for Housing Assistance to support their reintegration to civilian life. I also request your approval for this contract. Im happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the commissioners . On this request . Then hearing commissioner sklar no, i dont. Commissioner knutzen i wanted to show i know from my advocacy in the lgbtq community, how complicated it is when you are dishonorably discharged to get benefits. So this is the trickiest legal work that can be done to try to get people who are challenged assistance to prove that they do deserve these benefits. So i just wanted to acknowledge that and i know how complicated that kind of case is. And so, anyway, hearing no other requests for the commission to speak, so do we have any Public Comment . Secretary moderator, please open the phone lines for Public Comment. Members of the public that have dialled in and wish to provide Public Comment under this item, please press pound 2 to enter the question queue. Any callers in the queue . I am not showing any callers at this time. Commissioner knutzen hearing no request to speak on the item, we will close Public Comment. Motion to approve . Commissioner lum. Second from Vice President spears. Madame secretary, please take a roll call vote for agenda item d. How do you vote . Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. Secretary president , the vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen great. Thank you so much. Commissioners, your next item is e, reway and approval of California Department of aging Health Insurance counseling and advocacy program, hicap, contract hi202106, the associated budget and all subsequent amendments. I think were going to hear from staff member Michael Zaugg who is ready to present. Good morning, commissioners. Executive director mcfadden. Again, yes, this items seeks your approval as part of the completion of the certification process. Approval of this contract allows us to receive funding that we use for the operation of our Health Insurance counseling and advocacy program, or as its commonly known, the hicap. The hicap is a medicare focused Program Providing community, education, one to one tt counseling and Advocacy Services for folks who are Medicare Beneficiaries or eligible for medicare. We actually take the funds in through a separate contracting process and contract out with selfhelp for the elderly, who administer the program in the community. While its not central to this item, i would be remiss not to do a quick report on how the hicap has fared through all these changes. Theyve done quite well, actually. You know when the shelterinplace went into effect, hicap halted operations and then kind of watched to see how things were evolving. Their program does not do a lot of walkup services, a lot of the services are driven through a 1800 number or online avenues in order to schedule appointments, which usually do take place in the community, one to one. So many of these appointments were primarily moved to phone appointments with some web one to one counseling sessions as well. When i look at the statistics, theyre pretty impressive. In 1819, two years ago, this program the noncovid year i guess, this program served over 2000 provided counseling to 2000 clients. When i look at the stats for this year, theyre on pace to get close to that again. As of this moment theyve provided services to about 1887 clients with i know that they have a couple more files to go to finalize. So i think theyre going to get another 100 added onto that number for the fiscal year 1920, the fiscal year we just completed. The last thing i would note on this item providing a little bit of context. The dollar amount here in this contract, essentially keeps the Hicap Program funded at its Previous Years funding level for the year ahead of us. So with that, im happy to answer any questions that the commissioners may have. Commissioner knutzen thank you very much, mr. Zaugg. And that was precisely my question, how are they adapting to the current times, but it sounds like theyve adapted quickly. Yeah. Commissioner knutzen and successfully. Thats good. I know that everybody has a question as they go on medicare. Sure. Commissioner knutzen the program has been accessed by many, many of my friends and ive heard about it a lot, so i know its very useful. Are there any other comments or questions from the other commissioners . Okay. Then could we please do we have anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this item . Secretary moderator, please open the line for Public Comment. Members of the public that have dialled in to provide Public Comment under this item, please press pound 2 to enter the question queue. Do we have any callers in the queue . Im not showing any callers at this time. Commissioner knutzen okay, hearing no requests to speak on the item, we close Public Comment. Is there a motion to pass this item . Commissioners . Do we have a motion from commissioners . So moved. Thank you, from Vice President spears. A second . Commissioner knutzen second from commissioner sklar. Madame secretary, please take the roll call. Secretary how do you vote . Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. The vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen great, thank you very much. Commissioners, your next agenda item is f, it is review and approval of California Department of aging, dignity at home Fall Prevention contract fp192006 associated budget and all subsequent amendments. Again, staff person, Michael Zaugg, will present. Mr. Zaugg . Hello again, commissioners. This item similar to the one before is another approval of a contract between the California Department of aging and the department of disability and aging services. This is to access new funding for a new program type. The state has allocated funding in last years budget for Fall Prevention programs. It got off to a rocky start as it was launched just as covid hit, so it has been a little bit bringing this to commission for execution. With your approval, we are hoping to actually use these funds to partner with an existing program in the Citys Department of Public Health. That is their community and Home Injury Prevention Program for seniors. The acronym is chip. What were trying to accomplish there is to link in our network of providers and our network of clients with the department of Public Health and look at where theyre able to serve and where they might not already be reaching and see if we can bring more clients into the program for for services. Were going to work with the Current Program to explore the inhome assessment process and seek evolving and innovative ways to continue that Program Function in the new shelters in place and Public Health order world. Then i think the big thing that is going to happen here is there is a great demand within their program for home modifications and purchase of equipment in order to approve the safety of people at home. The funding there runs out usually by the Third Quarter of each fiscal year, so we think bringing this additional funding would help serve more clients as well as be able to Fund Additional home modifications and purchases of home modification equipment. With that then, im happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Commissioner knutzen Vice President spears . Commissioner spears thank you, michael. I just have one question. I love the fact that there is a partnership with the department of Public Health and the existing program. With this particular contract, the responsibility for reporting back to the state will be the responsibility of d. A. S. , although were partnering with the department of Public Health, is that how this will work . Yeah, that is correct. So that is something were going to were going to have to work through as we develop this partnership with Public Health as to how that data is going to come back to us not only for reporting up to the California Department of aging, but for our own purposes of understanding its effectiveness and impact. Commissioner spears and just a followup question. So the existing program, is that in the department of Public Health is that funded by the state also or is it funded by the city . I actually do not know. I can check on that and get back to you. It does not i mean i can rule out it does not come from the California Department of aging, if that helps. But ill get a more complete answer for you. Commissioner spears im curious where the information will be held, is it in two different databases . That is my whole reporting question. You know, in all likelihood that is probably a scenario were going to have to navigate. Commissioner spears okay. Commissioner knutzen any other questions from the commissioners on this item . Great. Okay, thats fine. Then i think that the difficulties we have with this is because we had a Model Program already that im sure, you know, served as a model for the state to expand that program and now we need to make it more efficient, but its a great question for people to understand how that happened. Lets see, can we open the madame secretary, anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this item . Secretary moderator, please open the line for Public Comment. Members of the public that have dialed in and wish to provide Public Comment under this item please press pound 2 to answer the question queue. Do we have any callers in the queue. Announcer im not showing any callers at this time. Commissioner knutzen thank you. All right. Hearing no further requests to speak on the item, we will close Public Comment. Is there a motion to pass this item . So moved. Commissioner knutzen moved by commissioner sklar and i saw a second there from commissioner lum. Yes, i did. Madame secretary, please take roll call for agenda f. Secretary how do you vote . Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. Secretary president , the vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen thank you. Commissioner, your next item is g, requesting authorization to enter into a new contract with cotchett, Pitre Mccarthy, llp for the provision of Legal Services for the San Francisco guardian and the San Francisco public conservator through june 1, 2020 through may 31, 2021 not to exceed 60,000. Carrie wong will present the item, is that correct . Or do we have someone else . There you go. Janet. Your audio. Yeah. I cant hear her audio. Please dial pound 2. Your line is live. Check to see if your phone is muted. How we doing now . Yep. All good . Okay. Good morning, commissioners and director mcfadden. Were presenting in carrie wongs absence. Im the head attorney for the Public Guardian. Apologies for the technical difficulties getting started. The Public Guardian and the public conservator seek approval to enter into a contract with cotchett, Pitre Mccarthy to provide Legal Services for the Public Guardian and the public conservator regarding individuals under conservatorship by these two programs. These are two separate and distinct offices operated by the department. So the Public Guardian serves a Court Appointed conservator of vulnerable San Francisco residents who are unable to take care of their health, medical care, unable to manage their finances or they may be subject to undue influence and unable to resist fraud. Most of the individuals that San Francisco has in their program are persons with deteriorating forms of dementia. On the other hand, the San Francisco public conservator serves as Mental Health conservator for San Francisco residents. So also vulnerable, but theyre gravely disabled. Most of the individuals in the public conservator, so they have Mental Illness and have been found by a court unable or unwilling to accept voluntary treatment. The Public Guardian and public conservator are to act in the best interest of their conserveties. At time, our office encounters where specialized the need for specialized Legal Services arise. This may be due to complex legal issues or serious issues that their assigned counsel are not experts at. That is the case here. That is why were before you. So, we need to obtain the Public Guardian and the public conservator need to pay them for legal advice and if appropriate litigation services. So im not able to speak to confidential matters impacting the conserveties, happy to address questions you might have. Commissioner spears im curious, where are most of the conservatees located . What kind of facilities are they located in . Nursing homes . I have no idea. Right. There is a variety of facilities primarily we do have conservatees who live in their own residences, they may be assistedliving, they may be in Skilled Nursing and theyre pretty much spread out among the nine bay area counties given the housing crisis we have. Commissioner spears okay. Thank you. Commissioner knutzen any other questions from the other commissioners . Okay. I just wanted to clarify just a little. This is a contract for 60,000 and if we get into litigation, it looked like they were going to take that on contingency and then they would be charging per hour and does that go only up to 60,000 . Its not an openended contract, right . It isnt. If it goes into litigation, the idea is that a decision will be made and a contingency fee contract would be arranged. So the 60,000 is a cap. Commissioner knutzen okay. Thank you very much for clarifying that. Okay. Thank you for that. All right, then shall we is there any Public Comment on this item . Secretary moderator, please open the phone lines to Public Comment . Members of the public that have dialed in and wish to provide Public Comment under this item, please press pound 2 to enter the question queue. Do we have any callers in the queue . Not showing any at this time. Secretary thank you. Commissioner knutzen hearing no request to speak on this item, we will close Public Comment. Is there a motion for the commissioners to approve this item . So moved. Commissioner knutzen okay. I saw commissioner lum, he is the person who moved and there was a second, Vice President spears, thank you. Madame secretary, can you take the roll call for agenda item g. Secretary how do you vote . Commissioner knutzen yes. Commissioner spears yes. Commissioner lum yes. Commissioner sklar yes. Secretary president , the vote is unanimous. Commissioner knutzen great, thank you very much. And that concludes our agenda for today. Are there any announcements . Hearing none, ill move along. Is there a motion to adjourn our meeting today . Commissioner lum and a second from Vice President spears. Then on behalf of the commission, i want to adjourn the meeting. Thank you so much for everyones work. Again, well see you next month probably from the same time and place. Everyone please take care. Stay safe. Thank you. Thank you for being patient with me. Thank you. I still cant figure it out. [ ]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.