Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240712

Other participants. To enable the Public Participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. You can do so by calling the 800 number at 1 888 2733658. And enter access code, 3107452. Press pound, and pound again. When you are connected and your item comes up that you want to submit your public testimony, press 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. When you have 30 seconds remaining [broken audio] indicating that your time is up. When your allotted time is up, i will direct you that your time is up and go to the next person to speak. Call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or your computer. At this time, i would like to take roll. Commission president koppel. Here. [roll call] thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is items proposed for continuous, item 1, 019015984cua. At 592 Second Avenue, for conditional use authorization to september 3, 2020. And under your regular calendar we have received a request to continue item 15, and conditional use authorization. To september 3, 2020. And this request comes from the supervisors office. I have no other items proposed for continuance so we should take Public Comment at this ti time. We have a little issue with the at t website right now. Can we pause for a few minutes . Clerk we will have to. So as you have heard, commissioners, it sounds like theyre having difficulty with our at t conference bridge so we will need to pause the hearing for a moment. Just let us know when youre ready. This is shannon. Can you hear me okay . Clerk we can hear you. Perfect. Clerk so as youre aware we are experiencing technical difficulties. I would recommend that the callers please who are on the at t line, please remain on the line. We are going to try to rebridge that conference line so that people can speak to the items proposed for continuous. Clerk so it appears that we are receiving an error message from at t. We are going to try one more route and hopefully we can connect. Apologies for this delay. So at t just ended the conference call. So, obviously, people who are on the call will need to call back in. And, obviously, you cannot hear me right now. We actually can hear you right now. Clerk well, no, youre not on the at t conference line. Clerk okay, commissioners and members of the public, im not sure what to tell you at this point. We are going to continue trying. Im going to ask that you continue to be patient. But we are still receiving the same problem or error message from our backup computer login for the at t conference bridge. The good news is that after this hearing, we have one more hearing in july and then we go on a threeweek summer hiatus break. After which we will be migrating to webex. Which is a different platform. But very similar to m. S. Teams where hopefully these issues will no longer continue to cause us problems. Okay, commissioners and members of the public, im not sure what to tell you. Im going to ask whatever project sponsor is not on mute, to please mute your telephone because youre broadcasting the delayed broadcast feed into the hearing. Clerk unfortunately, i dont have any good update for you. Were still receiving the error message. Clerk so, commissioners, were going to try a couple more times here. The only alternative that i can come up with is issuing the direct line into the m. S. App that we provide. The problem is that theres no method to queue people to speak. And everyone will be able to speak at will. Similarly as you heard the project sponsor interrupting the hearing, basically speaking over anyone. We dont really have a way to regulate that. We can mute people but then they can unmute themselves again at will. So, yeah, were going to keep trying on the at t bridge, but that is really the only other option that i can come up with that would allow members of the public to submit their comment. And, obviously, with the process we have to have that happen in order to continue with this hearing. So bear with us another five minutes. Hopefully at t miracuously stops giving us an error message and lets us rebridge that Public Comment line. Sit tight. please stand by . Clerk okay, commissioners. Looks like were going to be able to get thu this hearing hopefully. I received indication that we were able to regain access into the at t conference website. As soon as i hear from staff, we will proceed that the conference line has been ridged to the ms teams platform. We are back and i am bridging now. Thank you, chan. Clerk now as previously stated, this is hardly a perfect platform as we are merging two different applications together to make this happen. Im going to read the items proposed for continuance into the record one more time in order to allow members of the public to sort of see the delayed broadcasted a be made aware that were back on. Commissioners, members of the public, items proposed for continuance, item 1, at 590 Second Avenue. A conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to september 3, 2020. Further, commissioners, item 15, 2019016833cua at 1760 ocean avenue is proposed for continuance to september 3, 2020. Members of the public, i hope you are here to bear with us in order to speak to either of those continuances, you need to call into the 800 number at 8882733658, access code 3107452, press pound and pound again. And then 1 and 0 if youre interested to speak to the matters proposed for continuance. Fingers crossed. Chan, why dont we go to Public Comment. Clerk under the regular calendar, item okay. Please unmute please dont turn that on again until you have been called please. You have been doing that a number of times now. You have one question remaining. Thanks so much for your patience and for getting this all back together to do Public Comment. I am speaking to the project at 1670 and there is not a consensus on it. Also, it seems like there might have been developments to the plan that the community hasnt seen yet. I have a statement to read if were discussing it today, but i am going to wait to read that until because if there is continuance, i dont see there is a point of my reading it, right . But i just the continuance makes sense to me as a member of the community. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay, commissioners. That will conclude pb luck comment for items conclude Public Comment for items proposed for continuance. The matter is before you. A commissioner johnson . Commissioner move to continue both items to the dates specified. Second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call on continuance proposal] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motions passes unanimously 70. Thank you, all, for bearing with us and being patient. Commissioners, that will put us under the consent calendar and constitute the consent calendar and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission and unless a member of the commission, public or staff so requests. And in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considereded a a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 2, 2020003177cua, excuse me, at 621 through 635 jackson street. And item 3, 2441 Mission Street. Item 4, 202000226cua for 3200 california street. Item 5, 2020002615cua at 2000 van ness avenue, conditional use authorization and item 6, case im sorry. Item six, 2019021795cua at 650 frederick street conditional use authorization. We should take Public Comment to see if the items have any request to be removed from the consent calendar. Awe and members of the public, this is the opportunity to call the 800 number and push 1 and 0 and you have one question remaining. Hi. I have a question regarding i couldnt hear everything because of the difficulties to get online, but when will the 5g roll out and city wide be allowed to discuss for comment . You are talking about the Second Avenue case . No, im talking about the stadium frederick and stanion. There is a major 5g rollout plan. Clerk frederick is actually being considered now under the consent calendar. If you would like to speak to that item, you need to request it be removed from the consent calendar. Caller im sorry. I can hardly hear you you. From which calendar . Clerk its under the consent caler will. Caller i cannot go online. I would like to know how to make a comment on this issue. Clerk in order to make a comment on the calendar, if you would like to speak to that item, you need to request to remove it from the consent calendar. Caller you are going in and out. Clerk maam, i apologize. Someone doesnt understand how to stay on mute. 650 frederick, if you would like to speak to this matter in opposition, then we should remove it from the consent calendar, and you will have to call back in later when the item is called in order to speak to the matter. Would you like to caller i would like to do that. Thank you. When is later . Clerk you know, i cant give a time, maam. Unfortunately, Commission President koppel didnt expect to have this at the regular calendar or the end. Commissioner at the end. Caller you are not close to the microphone. I can hear one word out of three. Can you repeat it please . Clerk maam, were going to remove this from the consent, but you will need to call back in later and through the chair, this will be heard at the end of the calendar. This will be heard very late tonight. Caller which is what time . 10 00 p. M. . Clerk we cannot give you a time. Caller excuse me, what . Clerk we cannot give you a time. Caller when do i call in . Clerk youll have to Pay Attention to the proceedings and wait when this mater is called again. Caller okay. Caller do i hold on the line for four hours . Or how do you clerk you watch on sfgov Tv Television or on the computer by streaming the hearing. Caller and then i can how do i comment . Clerk you will have to call back in the same way you did just now. Thank you, maam. I think thats about as much i can do on this item. Caller okay. Go to 10 00 p. M. , is that right . Clerk maam, i can not give you a time. Lets take the next caller. Okay, commissioners, so 650 frederick will be pulled off of consent and heard at the end of todays agenda. Commissioners, i do plan that commissioner diamond needs to be recused from item 4 at 3200 california street, so if there is a motion to approve matters under consent and we should recuse commissioner diamond from item 4 and take that matter up first and that items under consent with exception to any other. Making a motion to recuse commissioner diamond from item 4, 3200 california street. Second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. I just want to explain why i need a recusal. The bean sprouts formula retail applicant desires to be located in the Jewish Community center which is located at 3200 california street. I was counsel for the j. C. C. Until almost a year ago, and as a result in conversation with the city attorneys office, they had indicated that thats a financial conflict and that i should seek recusal. In addition to that, i am a past board member and past board chair of the j. C. C. , so for due process reasons, it also seemed appropriate to request recusal. Thank you. Clerk very good, commissioners. On the motion to recuse commissioner diamond [roll call on commission to recuse] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 70. Commissioner diamond, you are hereby recused from item 4 and we will take that matter up first. Commissioner moore. Move to continue item 4 out of context individually im sorry. Move to approve item four. Clerk second. Thank you, commissioners. On item 4 under consent calendar and there is a motion that has been and seconded to approve. Commissioner chan . Aye. Commissioner fung . Aye. A commissioner imperial . Aye. A commissioner moore . An aye. U a Commission President koppel . So moved, commissioners. That motions passes unanimously. Commissioner diamond, you can now rejoin us and items under consent with the number to 656 frederick which will be heard at the end of the agenda. Is there a motion . Commissioner diamond. Move to approve the remaining consent calendar items with the exception of the last one. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve the consent calendar and commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. A commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. And Commission President koppel. Aye. Clerk so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously and well place us under commission matters and item 7. Consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for the july 9, 2020 hearing. Commission president and we should take Public Comment. The conference is now in question and answer mode. Press 1 and 0. Members of the public, press 1 and 0 to enter the queue. This is for the minutes. No calls. Clerk commissioner. Move to adopt the draft minutes. Second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. The motion has been seconded to approve the minutes. Commissioner chan . Aye. Commissioner diamond . Aye. [roll call to approve adoption of the minutes] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motions passes unanimously. Item 8, commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore . Kathrin moore commissioner mr. Secretary, there is a certain instability in the line and is fading in and out. It eliminates certain critical information when you are repeating the phone number, at least on my end there is a weak consideration. I am wondering if other people share the same impression. Thank you. Clerk i will try to move closer to my router. Thank you. A commissioner diamond. There were two items in the news this week that i think would be really beneficial in we could have a Planning Department briefing to the commission on. One was a report in the newspaper about the new numbers being adopted. And the interplay between sb35 and the new, much higher arena numbers. I spent some time earlier this morning on the phone with kate connor and james pappas in the Planning Commission to try to understand these issues in more detail. And they gave me an exceptionally helpful briefing and my request to the director in abstensia is that it would be beneficial to the commission and to the public to understand future implications of the higher arena numbers in light of sb35 as applied to San Francisco. My second request has to do with and maybe this will come up later in the legislation presentation, but that the pub project was adopted by the board in a considerably different formal than was approved by the commission. It would be helpful to understand for the commission the implications of the boards approval and the racial and social inequity analysis that will be done and how that interplays with phase two and spatial and social inequity initiative, and the impact on the Community Benefits and particularly the transportation improvements that were part of the larger hub plan and what that training might be. And also what the status is from not the three projects that were approved but all the others. And the status of any spending applications on those projects. And a request to director hillis to provide a much fuller briefing to the commission about what that means Going Forward. Thank you. Clerk seeing no further requests, commissioner comments, we can move on to department matters. Item nine, directors announcements. Thank you, jonas. This is Ann Marie Rogers standing in for director hillis today. And i was going to share with you a little bit about our Intern Program that we have. This is Important Program that we have done for a few years manage bid the senior planner and this year we have 15 interns that are full time and paid. Because of covid effects, they are working remotely. And we have shortened the internship down to nine week this is year. We pair them with a planner and they are tasked to work on a specific project and develop that to give presentations at the end of the program which is going to end the week of august 17. We would like to express our how happy we are to have them here and appreciative of the work theyre going to be performing, and we also like to invite these commissioners to participate in hearing the interns [inaudible] clerk it is hard to tell, but i am not sure if my computer or ann maries seems as though ann marie on my end, anyway, froze. Commissioner i also see that. Commissioner me, too. So unfortunately, ann marie, you were cutting in and out on me. And i thought it was my computer and i moved closer to the router and it didnt help the issue for your record, commissioner moore, i was informed that on other peoples computers i was clear and audible without interruption. Ann marie, i am not sure if you can come back and try to reiterate any of those comments. Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore i wanted to welcome our intern students over the past year. Commissioners made themselves available and also participated at the final presentations when the students were kind of speaking to the work in the department. I regret that you are all here without the true ability to interact with nerve an exciting department and learn also from seeing us directly. I hope youre all healthy and we hope we can meet you online at some point. Thank you. Clerk great. Seeing no further questions or comments from commissioners, we can move on to item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors. I dont want any report from the board of appeals and the historic Reservation Commission did not meet yesterday. Lets see if i get cut off. Manager of legislative affairs and there were quite a few land use items and the first item was the committee considered to consider supervisor ronens ordinance to allow Arts Services as temporary uses. Commissioners, you heard this on june 25 and voted to approve it with modifications. Those modifications including one, to define covid19 relief and recovery uses that are eligible. Create a waiver for covid19 relief and recovery uses seeking a temporary use authorization. Extend the initial approval period to two years and extend the renewal at the discretion of the planning director for an additional two years. The Land Use Committee voiced support for all the commissions recommended modifications. However, since some of the proposed amendments are substantive, the committee voted to continue the item one week to july 27 so the amendments could be added to the ordinance. The community then considers supervisor ronens ordinance behind the the heater to remain for another five years without containing conditional use authorization. And you heard this last week and recommended approval. No one poke up during Public Comment and once it was closed, it was recommended to the full board. The committee considered supervisor ronens ordinance to pribt office uses and require conditional use authorization. The commission heard this on april 23 and voted to approve with modifications that included the office uses within the u. M. U. To the Mission Area Plan and maintain existing controls on professional service, Financial Service and medical service. And three, include a grandfathering clause and expressed overall support of the ordinance. And the question centered on the appeal hearing and the date and supervisor ronen clarified the appeal date will occur before the Effective Date of the ordinance. Public comment was overwhelmingly in support of the ordinance citing it would help preserve spaces for art, social service and employment for local residents. Four members did comment on that need and the committee voted to unanimously in the office area. The other Planning Commission plans and the grandfathering clause were not headed to the ordinance. And voted to recommend the ordinance as amended to the full board. Next they considered the initiation of the landmark status for the murals located at the ucsf parnassis campus. And during the hearing there were presentations by sf heritage on background of the murals and artists and the status of the murals preservation. There was some Public Comment over stewardship of the collection of new deal art. And the landmark status would be honorific due to the status of being the u. C. Project and the committee sent it to the full board and to initiate landmark designation and the Historic Preservation and 90 days to act in the department. And this item will not be heard by the commission. And took up the legislative amendments and the market and octavia plan also known as the hub. And heard on may 21 and directed the department and board to pursue a nexus study to establish the communitys fee. And with the amendment and during Public Comment at the land use hearing, generally two sentiments from the commenters and those in support here and the further equity work is complete. And at the comment, to propose the file and the zoning ordinance. And south van ness and entertain the existing c3 zoning. And other arguments included the impact clarifications and changing the period from annual to quarterly for the community facilitys fee. And the amendments were made and the board aforwarded all the items and to the full board on july 21. At the full board this week, supervisor peskins ordinance and to expand in the north beach special use district past the second read. And the board compared the ceqa appeal and this project includes a rear addition and other interior modifications. In addition to the project would include the legalization of an existing bathroom and three storage rooms on the ground floor level to comply with a notice of violation. Commissioners, you heard this item on january 2, 2020 and discretionary review and voted to not take d. R. And approve the project adds proposed. And the contention was that the ceqa determination is invalid because the revised project admitted that it was being legalized and to construct the ground floor and with the ground floor space and that the see ka determination was understand and present the staff and departments decision and handle questions about the departments accessory and deny the appeal and the stripped down version amendments of the hub and based on the commissioner diamonds comments, i dont have all that information for you and perhaps a separate presentation that can be done by the planners that are assigned to it. I am available for questions. Thank you, aaron. We successfully heard you. Im going to try to keep my video off. It seems as though ms teams is having capacity issues because i received word from several commissioners now that my voice has been cutting in and out. I know that if keep my video camera off, that it might improve some of that, and alternatively i have heard from others that they have heard me find, so i think it just depends on who you are and where you are. I did want to announce for the benefit of the public and the commission to make you aware that the Planning Department is moving. By the end of august or even mid august we will have moved from 1650 Mission Street to our new offices at 49 south van ness. When we will be allowed to actually occupy the offices is yet to be determined. Commissioners, that will place us under general Public Comment and at this time members may address the commission under items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction with the exception of agenda item. You opportunity to speak on agenda items and may address for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the 15minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. We should open for the Public Comment line. This is the opportunity to speak publicly. This is laudable, but a significant number of the significant portion of the with more vacant built housing in San Francisco than we have on people without home. We are woefully hurt by using that and we have strongly suggested a number of times that San Francisco a. M. I. And even neighborhood a. M. I. Should be used. People who live in certain neighborhoods do not earn enough money, a significant number of them do not earn enough money to qualify for very low Income Housing, there is something wrong with using h. U. D. A. M. I. As the Community Plan to use the rate and social equity tools developed with the Central City Coalition. Finally, about building inclusionary housing and using build building Affordable Housing using inclusionary housing is the affordable source and falls woefully short of the need and 40 do not qualify for middle, low, or even very low h. U. D. A. M. I. And Something Like 25 of seniors dont even qualify for very low income. Also relying on inclusionary housing for Affordable Housing ignores the study that shows very every unit of luxury and market rate changes with another 30 or 40 for moderate and low and very low Income Housing to serve those people who live there. So please youve got to look for additional sources of funding for Affordable Housing and need to coordinate housing plans with plans for transportation and education and jobs. Thank you. You have five questions remaining. This is georgia. Good afternoon. I dont know if its possible i dont want to make a problem, but i did ask to share a screen and i want to show one little floor plan if i may. But if its not possible, i dont want to make a problem. But i will describe the floor plan if you are not able to share the screen. I sent it into mr. Ionin. Its a classic mid 20th century San Francisco floor plan and it is a condo hello . Im sorry to interrupt you, georgia. I want to let you know your slide is up. My what is up . Caller okay. Its a delay. Anyway, as everyone can see, it is a three bedroom condo currently for sale and about 1350 square feet. It was formally a flat that was condoed in 2007. I am using it to illustrate this. One of the problems with the extreme alterations that have skirted the demo calcs for the past six years or longer is how the projects are designed. There is a lot of extraneous and wasted square footage. It is designed for marketing purposes and to capture the highend market and buyers that are flush with cash. They are not building things that look like what you can see on the screen. This is the project that they are building are not simple alterations as intended by section 317 but are really demo. You see the screen shot and very efficient use of space with three bedrooms and can be occupied on one floor. And it is Family Housing. This is the power o f a floor plan that should be preserved and emulated in existing structures and emulated in project sites looking to densify. Since the planning code has eliminated the parking requirement in San Francisco and is chockful of garages that would be redesigned to hold a unit like this or so much of this or similar to this in our neighborhoods. Get rid of the garages. Turn them into housing. Keep the curb cuts in front of the projects. The m. T. A. Allows plane crashing in someones driveway on the street allows parking in someones driveway on the street wow or without a permit. We are rethink how to use the streets and this would not be a give away to a private par fri the public. The demo calcs should still be adjusted, however, as allowed by the code particularly since the calcs is never been adjusted and by addressing them you incentivize a financially and more accessful housing floor plan. Never been explained by the staff why the calc should not be adjusted even after a public request in january from president koppel himself to the former director. However, this floor plan or some like it and a classic San Francisco design is something to think about in terms of preserving housing while dense fig and as we proceed into an uncertain future where preserving housing may be one of the most prudent actions that can be taken. Thank you very much for sharing the screen. Take care. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Audrey realm. I was going to comment on this article that i read that was saved regarding the high Income Housing that happened to be 25 more and what it takes to keep them heated and cooled depending on where youly, but when i heard commissioner diamond acting for an analysis and i thought this more important to actually command commissioner diamond. Thank you so much. And also have a follow up comment on it. And in the past 4 years and we have never actually seen the most pernicious aspect of this legislation allowing administrative approval for the Planning Departments door. And the reason that it was that way is we were always above our market rate housing quota. And once we start lieding which, of course, and the economy and now because of covid19 we will most definitely be siding on the market luxury Housing Production. And we will be subjected and with the legislation which is any development that offers as little as 10 for Affordable Housing and qualify for having basic administrative approval with no life for the negotiation of the development. I am very relieved that commissioner diamond thought of this and brought it up to the attention of the staff. And it couldnt have come at a better day when we are with the state legislation and go over the information analysis of the Planning Department. And the impact we will have with those new numbers will be in effect. And the economy has come to a halt due to covid19 effects. Thank you. Commissioners, good afternoon. Following up and the arena levels and i would like you to know that the next the arena levels have gone up and that will be increase and should be factored in and to make a presentation on the arena in front of the commissioners. Next i would like to say as a member of the pedestrian tenants union, i am happy that the pause now has been translated into a phased development and that area plan. This makes sense and is in accordance with the resolution that you approved for race and social equity. Totally in line with it and future developments will now be subject to a study and how it would effect the area. If commissioner diamond, the public wants to know more about this, i would recommend that you hear the president at the Land Use Committee who spent like an hour telling exactly what would happen. And it would be good to have a presentation for the followup of the commissioners as well. And third, i have the pleasure of working with the Central City Coalition and makes perfect sense to point out and the housing balance report does not reflect which units are occupied and not occupied. And also a. D. Use units are considered moderate housing. So all this skews the picture, especially for tenants. Thank you. Bye. Caller hi, commissioners. This is Jeremy Schwab with schwab lee architects. I sent you an email earlier this week asking to hold another hearing on the Planning Departments standard environmental requirements and wanted to call today to reiter activate the support for the program. And we have several projects that have been subject to additional reuse or archaeology and we think these are good programs. However, this additional study and adds many months and to help streamline this standard Going Forward. You have five questions remaining. U caller is this the appropriate time to speak about item 13 . Clerk it is not, sir. We will call that item when it comes up around the regular calendar. This is general Public Comment for items that do not appear on the agenda. Caller okay. I couldnt follow. Caller i live in district five and i want to comment and housing vacancies and the San Francisco and the bay area and shows it is not new units which are more vacant and is older units which are more vacant. The highest levels of vacancy are built in 1939 or earlier. And in the entire bay area, San Francisco is the whole bay area has a vacancy rate under 5 and 5 is the rate at which the market is the Housing Market is considered healthy. And as well as the apartments and condos and other homes. I urge you to consider that vacancy is a problem in having a low vacancy and is a huge thank you. Thats it. You have three questions remaining. I listened to last Weeks Commission and regarding the item on the 100 educator and Affordable Housing streamlining equipment. And took out the recommendation on allowing under 3,000 square foot streamline and housing and the last week and it wasnt written that way and leave it at the 8,000 square foot limit and no mention of any cons and why not push 3,000 square foot and evaluate legislation, you should try to be what are both sides of this issue. And what are the specific downsides of 3,000 square foot number. And changing topics and the arena is a good thing and housing determination at the high numbers it is for the next cycle. However, in my opinion, they are far too low for the purpose of promoting affordability and i dont think they really supplied with sb828 and the numbers were lower than they should have been because they didnt have any with the jobs housing imbalance with numbers and we should be building more housing and in the housing and bay area. And shouldnt compare to new york and washington, d. C. And boston which is what they decided to do. And the really good thing last cycle because we have a housing shortage. And instead of that demolition spending and have the Planning Department if they are replacing code 317 and taking out that demolition completely and replace with the number of bedrooms and units along the lines of sb30. You have two questions remaining. Caller i have a question regarding the 5g installation at stadium and San Francisco wide rollout. When can i ask it . Clerk you can ask when they have that matter up at the agenda today. Caller what time is that please . Clerk maam, it is impossible for me to tell you when that matter will come up. You will have to follow the hearing by streaming or watching it live on sfgov tv. I apologize, but it is simply impossible to give you an estimated time, okay . Lets go to the next caller. You have one question remaining. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Sarah ogilvy, San Francisco resident. I wanted to speak about a lot of the benefits that we have been seeing and a lot of the life saving benefits that have been afford bid sb35. I am hearing a lot of criticism about sb35 and during Public Comment, and streamlined housing approval and are made more important with the opportunities to kill that budget and with the everchanging requirements and additions on the oneoff ability and is critical for the Successful Development of Affordable Housing and are vulnerable to delays with tight funding constraints and even the ninemonth delay can put a project in financial jeopardy and thes reing of never being built at all. The 2014 housing cost steady with four or more Community Hearings were more expensive to complete. And communities are protected with the zoning with the other local adopted policies and in the news a lot lately and previously inak aesz to believe Affordable Development and part of the integration to do and that the bay area needs to do to begin actually getting done because for far too long [ [inaudible] did we lose the caller or the at t conference bridge . Clerk lets go to the next caller. Commissioner, we are experiencing technical difficulties again. I do apologize and again, request your patience. We will try to rebridge and i will notify you when have been able to do that. My apoll apologies, we are back. Lets take the next caller. Is that the end of Public Comment, chan . Caller there is one more on the line, but i cant get to them. I will have to deactivate and activate again. Unless that person is still on line. Clerk were going to need a couple more minutes of your patience. Commissioners, all i can say and members of the public is one more hearing on ms teams live events with the at t conference bridge and then in august we will be merging to webex and hopefully, fingers crossed, these issues no longer create problems for us. [please stand by] my apologies, we are back. Do we have anymore callers for general public . I need to reopen it again. Lets do that. Your conference is in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Members of the public, and the commission, my apologies for our seemingly endless technical difficulties today. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to call into the 800 number and press one and zero to enter the queue. This is matters that are not on our agenda today. You have one question remaining. Hell oh i just have one thing to say. The Planning Commission is fucking corrupt and everyone can resign in shame. Thank you. Trump 2020. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Ok, commissioners, that concludes general Public Comment. Lets troy to move on to our regular calender item for 11. Case 2018016522cwp for the statehousing legislation informational presentation. Is staff prepared to present . I see anne marie. The floor is yours. Thank you very Much Commissioner, we are here to discuss the mini pending housing bills in the california state legislature. In the past, weve done some detailed assessment of a few key bills, one of those bills, which was mentioned today, sb330 was enacted, two others sb50 and 827 were not. This year has been a catastrophic year that has up ended normal functions including those of our state legislature. At this time, theres this is slated to end its been delayed and we can resume in the end of july and they will end at the end of august. So given the possibility that there are many bills that could alter San Franciscos housing landscape, we thought it would be prudent to provide you with information about a number of bills. If we had unlimited capacity and we would have looked in more depth or reviewed more bills. We chose these based upon your request as well as request from the public and identified staff. I would auction us all, as our past work has made evident, the interactions between safe bills and San Franciscos planning code can create complex and unintuitive outcomes, delving into the details of these bills would require more time and resources than can be made available. Im going to share my screen now and hopefully its visible by the presentation. Listeners, were discussing is available on the commissions website and its organized by phone number but use of discussion ill present the bills via categories today. So lets start with changes to state density on the law. The state density bonus is a vikeen tended to encourage Affordable Housing by providing density. It works on a sliding scale. Based upon the levels and quantity of Affordable Housing provided. Very low income and it would create a new bonus route and and normally for San Francisco it prohibits the Affordable Housing fee on affordable and bonus units. And on june 16th of this year the board of supervisors adopted a resolution in opposition to this bill. It has to do with jail approvals. Our local review of development for a project cannot be subject to decisions and special condition use authorization. In San Francisco, most development outside of sb35 housing projects and certain affordable projects are discretionary. And as such, and the board of appeals would remain intact. So with that in mind, lets look at a few of these specific bills. The first 2580. Would allow add ministrial conversion of non Residential Hotels and motels into apartments. We have about 34,000 hotel rooms. In the short term, this bill could bolster the stock of smaller affordable units. There may be limited ability to convert those back to use. To construct Affordable Housing and that are at least replacement of existing units would be required and this bill would provide another pathway for creating Affordable Housing while protecting articles 10 and 11, historic properties. So moving on to the next one, this is combining changes top density and administerral approval of two units of existing housing and or subdivision of a partial into two equal par else. It would only apply in Single Family zoning districts. This with feesen title process and limit the ability to it would only apply in Single Family districts and as such it could encourage second units. It could also create an incentive to rezone Single Family districts to regain and the second one theres a lot to this bill so this is very highlevel overview and and this bill would apply to a good amount of San Franciscos west side. As with other bills, it would speed the process in limited departments ability to fly design guidelines, ceqa and approval and the size requirement for a site could limit its applicable to larger sites on major corridors in San Francisco. This is a category im calling housing planning. As we go through the mandated process to update the housing policy in the element, we have to show that we have a suspicious site to accommodate our housing needs. And this is what weve been hearing people talk about today or the Regional Housing needs allocation. And this is a number of Housing Units that need to be provide at various income levels and for the purposes of this presentation, it would change reena or zoning changes under the category of housing planning so this first category and doesnt end and for approval of up to four Housing Units. It would also allow cities to proportionately count these sites towards the arena. The future housing projects would be approved ministerially while still being subject to Design Review and Historic Preservation protections. Over 40 of the city is Residential Land and zone for Single Family zones. Since this would apply housing types, under this bill, San Francisco would chose where to allow four unit buildings as part of our local rezoning process. And as motel, the probability of such development may be low and due to feasibility for converting a Single Family home into a fourunit building. So looking at some other bills that relate to housing planning, ab725 would require that cities that accommodate at least 25 of the arena for two income groups, on sites that have zoned for at least two aint but not more than more than 35 units per acre and its equal to a typical lot with two aint. This would change how San Francisco accommodates our arena so typically, the arena that are rights for development or less than 20 of the zone capacity. Ab725 would ensure that mor Single Family home lots are included in our arena site and however, just because of site is the economics of real estate and construction would remain barriers. This bill provides no incentives for development and it is a calculation arena and its possible that the legislature could combine this with other bills. So 902 is another bill that does not change zoning and its the process that San Francisco and use rezone. Typically as you know, when staff brings a proposal for you it has a robust ceqa analysis. And for major rezoning, this can take four years and sb902 would enable local governments to rezone parcels for multi Family Housing and in awe job rich area or in urban infill sites. Such rezoning would not be considered a project for the purposes of ceqa. That means a large portion of the parcel would likely qualify for rezonings under this bill but only if elected officials chose to pass those rezonings. The process of selecting which parcel should be rezoned would be completely under the discretion through our typical processes. In the elected official could introduce an ordinance or this commission can recommend a proposal. Because it allows 10 units the economics would make development more feasible than the previous two bills i discussed. So back to rena. Ab3107 appears to focus on cities that have not included sufficient sites to accommodate their arena. It would rely in some of these cities theyve been relying on sites for the arena that require a rezoning and cant produce housing in the time being. Until these cities actually complete rezoning to accommodate reena, this bill would authorization housing on commercially zoned sites and certain requirements, such as affordability would apply. In San Francisco we have accommodated reena on sites that do not require zoning. So the provisions of this bill would only apply in San Francisco youve heard some discussions about the numbers which will be released this fall and it involves view our numbers are likely to be significantly larger and were guessing around 2. 38 times as much and the city has a large pop line of housing development. And multi family sites and new policies such as 2019 proposition a e and all of which lead us to believe that we will continue to be able to meet the arena even in the upcoming year. Most of our commercial zoning allows multi Family Housing and the impact of the bill could be minimal allowing more residential development. Sb1385. Would allow housing on lots otherwise zoned for office and retail uses. Again, most of San Francisco commercial zoning allows multi Family Residential development, at density prescribed in this bill which are pretty small, equivalent to our rh2 zoning so this bill has limited applicability in San Francisco. Litigation changes. This bill would extend and expand application of a ceqa streamlining bill that was passed in 2011. This increases the citys administrative burdens in exchange for litigation streamline in San Francisco compliance with this bill may redistrict city staff time away from project and not eligible for the bill and towards these certified projects in order for us to keep the required paperwork. While this bill also covers applicable to the production of the Housing Element, San Francisco will be using this bill in our on going Housing Element update. It doesnt have to do with house examining production or even a so this bill protects tenants who cannot pay rent due to covid19, income losses for 12 months. Protect eligible San Francisco residential den ants for being guilty of unlawful detainer and may help stabilize those impacted by covid19. The potential negative impact some Property Owners and it allows for forbearance and adjustment of loan terms the negative impact may be decreased. And lastly, a non housing bill. Sb288 would including some very large projects costing costing 100 million. This bill would limit engagement through ceqa and in San Francisco, sfmta would likely be and it excavation when major infrastructure is planned. This limits the need to tear up a straight multiple times in close succession. Excavation may prevent these projects from meeting the bill statutory exemption under ceqa. So, that concludes my very brief overview of these bills. I do want to acknowledge again this is largely devoid of the analysis including equity analysis. I also wanted to thank the staff who have contributed to this report and debbie, kate conner, james pappas and shelia and we welcome your thoughts on equity and all aspects of the bill and were all available should you have questions. Press one then zero. Members of the public, this is the opportunity to call into the 800 number and press one and zero to enter the queue. You have five questions remaining. Through the chair, i apologize, through the chair, each member of the public will have two minutes. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Audry realm in San Francisco and land use coalition, can you hear me . Im not sure if i was unmuted. Yes, we can hear you. Great. First of all, i just want to thank ms. Rogers and her staff for putting together this analysis, nevertheless, i have to bring up that we are disappointed the analysis does not keep into consideration the compiled impact of the bills and the impact that they have collectively on the city of San Francisco. Particularly, as id like to bring to your attention, ab3040, that was put fourth by not my Assembly Members, david chiu, who is trying to not out dont my senator scott wiener. Its appalling to put fourth a legislation that is going to up zone the city to four units with no Value Capture for Affordable Housing and no tenant protection and i must admit in the previous sessions, at least some of the lawmakers, such as scott wiener, would propose some minor tenant protection in the forms of look back and ensuring its our tenants in the building and it could not be subject to ep zoning and the new crop of these bills, they are not even having that legislation. Im in strong opposition to that and many more the board of supervisor has taken an opposition against it because it actually reduces our Affordable Housing requirements for the developers. So, i hope that the Planning Commission stands with us, the people of the city of San Francisco, and unanimously vote against all of these housing legislations that are going to make life far worse for our people. Especially with the crisis were experiencing. This is no time to give the gift that keeps on giving. Think of the common man and woman in this city. And if people you know that you have questions remaining. Hi, its george thank you. Thank you to Anne Marie Rogers and everyone for doing this and it was very amazing to put it together and i think it shows how complicated. Last week i wanted to talk about the inventory and im so glad that tess called in and welcomed issue of the occupancy. Its really critical for San Francisco to know who is living in everything that you built the last 10 years, which the city deserves some look at the water bills and i sent you all an email because i couldnt talk last week, you can have the addresses and i guess you have them historically and see if you can attain the bulk data from the Water Department and figure out the usage and with a program you can find in the combined bills and good evening h get a sense of the units whether its fulltime, parttime or whatever and water tells you a lot about who is living where. I think that you need that information as you proceed with whatever housing policy and and the board of supervisors, so, i know we have a crisis and i also think we have an empty and before the covid19 and maybe even more so now so thank you, please and thank you. Good afternoon and commissioners and corey smith on behalf of the Housing Action coalition. I want to first thank all of you for working through and the program is working and and it sounded like it did and technically its enough and we got through but its still not very good and on the presentation you saw and their appreciation to we are supportive of the number of the bills that the legislature is proposing this year and they are a district reaction to change that legislation and make it more attractive and its something that is in our control and because we havent done the things that are part owned, Housing Production locally at all on some levels, the state is taking action into their own hands and i appreciate of my state senator Going Forward. Thank you. You have its questions remaini remaining. Caller its important to examine the cumulative effects of all these bills. For example, an rh zone could have eight units with no Affordable Housing or tenant protection and this is they would move from cities to the suburbs because theres less city attractions like restaurants and the arts. And in general, id like to say, that a solution that you may not have read about was in Bloomberg News last week, to our housing problems is barcelona is taking over empty apartments paying half value to owners and renting them as Affordable Housing and we know that San Francisco has too many ghost apartments as well as 76 or 78,000 Housing Units in the pipeline so i ask you, not to encourage speculators, thank you. You have seven questions remaining. Hi, my name is renee kerin and i want to echo the other commenters who are expressing concerns about the cumulative of the bills and i dont have as much specific indication as they do regarding the details but i do know that im seeing a lot of for rent signs and a lot of people on the streets. And so it isnt adding up. We have vacant housing and we dont need more market rate housing and we need to protect the tenants who are still hanging on to our homes. And i just want to say that these zoning bills, which are basically increasing the cost of land and are not a solution and theyre just grossly and theyre nonsensical and i beg this body to have a heart and reject these. Thank you. You have seven questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is peter cohen from the council of Community Housing organizations. Thank you for having this hearing. I want to call attention to a few bills that i think are important for better or for worse. Ab1279, is really evolving to be a great opportunity for california to put pressure on some of the suburban lowdensity communities and even neighborhoods for some modest up zoning and its evolving nicely with good amendment and i would encourage you to see it as a positive step forward for denseification in those high opportunity areas. A bill that missed is ab1703 which is a state wide right to purchase model on San Franciscos Community Opportunity to purchase policies so very exciting bill so i would encourage the commissioners to ask staff a little bit more information on that and its coming up for a hearing in two weeks and i would call attention to sb1085 which your staff pointed out the city has a resolution opposing that and it was unanimously supported by the board of supervisors and to the Housing Action coalitions point about home sf the challenge with 1085 is it under mines both our local inclusionary housing policy and it undermines our home sf policy making the local policies less attractive and less functional. So, this is the problem i wanted to pound out at a high level, not specifically stating intervention does preempt local policy and in some parts of the state that works well because local policy is weak and is a need for a stronger push from the state and in other cases, it tends to be for San Francisco, local policy is very strong and state policy is it. Thank you very much. You have six questions remaining. Hi, this is Catherine Howard and representing the see era club. See era Club California poses senate bill 288. While we support more sustainability transportation projects, exempting these projects from the California Environmental quality act is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Ceqa requires developers and public agencies to disclose and mitigate a project environmental and health impacts. Ceqa fosters a Public Engagement process and residents can offer feedback on projects effecting their communities. When projects are exempt and are not studies and mitigate and communities like the opportunity to hold developers and public agencies accountable for those and the modernization of the stations, the conversion of hov or russ only lanes and they have bus light rail and all have the potential to either increase the footprint of existing structures or increase the number of vehicles that travel on them. Without a ceqa analysis, the impacts will not be accurately assessed and nor the communities living near these projects have the ability to weigh in on the projects development. It would also exempt and the rail and light rail and bus. Many of these are located in low income communities that already dare disproportionate burden from air pollution and other factors that might be increased. These communities rely on ceqa to make sure projects provide a Community Benefit and are developed in an environmentally beneficial way, mitigating as much as feasible. And im going to add my own comment, which is this legislation is part of a coordinated and the bills that ceqa will have these flaws. Thank you and thank you to the staff for doing the analysis. You have five questions remaining. I want to he can oat comments made earlier inaudible and we have a round of major housing bills coming down from sacramento and we heard much stronger statements from the Planning Department and inaudible and you realize that they were pretty much piping out anything thaw do and it is helpful to conversation and similar strong stand now and i also want to comment on getting ceqa, at the end, its a landslide and when there has been an analysis and we need much more to help both the Planning Department and the board of supervisors in order to take strong positions and legislation is there to oppose both if not all of these bills. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. And the guys of building more housing. And the questions that the commission and we all need to look at, is who are we building housing for and where and at what cost. Who will and its its really not good. Since the defeat of sb50 the series of bills that have the same effects or worse cumulatively have been proposed here. Sb1120 is one and i hope you will have time and resources to give us the impact that these bills that are likely to pass will pass. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. Good afternoon, i want to say that we have tenant protections in place as a result of one bill passed last year, sb330, which mandated right to return for low income residents as well as the ability to require the replacement of low income units which are demolished. I think its a fact we are just not building missing middle housing in San Francisco and if we were the state would not feel the need to pass these bills and even if we were building this housing, these bills were not apply to us. I think its really a shame that theres so much scorn over changing from the status quo when the status quo is pretty bad in terms of building housing. In the last 20 years, San Francisco has added about 80,000 households which have an area Median Income of 120 but in the same time period, weve added about 31,000 market rate units so as a result, what happened is that the high income households will move into homes which are previously occupied and where we can go, thank you. You have three questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners, this is bruce. The state legislation helps identify some of the deep concerns we have about these bills and also the highlights the risk of this tsunami of bills both in the individual effects and cumulative impacts are unknown and important details are not described or illustrated. For example, the presentation doesnt tell us that with sb902 the people would not vote by initiative to overturn a future board of supervisors action cubed zonand it alsodoesnt ill0 can be used to build over block. Weve learned little about what happens when these bills Work Together with existing legislation and with every growing arena goals including all the multiplier of that. Or local protections we may have in San Francisco would diluted. It will unleash and hit us. What will be the impact . Regrettably we dont know. Ive come to think unless we can kill the majority of these bills we will surrender to the fact these end the planning and with sack ra men co making so many ceqa gutted and local zoning and Housing Elements over rid inthe message of the analysis, in the end, do worry well come to love big brother. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon commissioners, sf resident. I just wanted to commend ms. Rogers for a wonderful presentation and i want to commend the senator and the Assembly Member for picking up the ball after San Francisco board of supervisors promised to create some kind of alternative to sb50 and absolutely failed. We havent seen anything. Anything robust, anything to meet the needs. And so you know, these bills are a consequence and reaction to that. I also wanted to point out that according to the urban institute, we have to look at problem of the citys pace of gentrification by looking at the housing supply. We have a lot of people who are living here who are buying where i live in the mission because there is no stock for them in other areas. Its creating that gentrification impact that people are so worried about because this is the only place where people are finding homes they are crafting these bills in response to the actual problems that they have perceived and theyre smart people and weve elected them and theyve been dually elected to solve californias problems and housing is a serious crisis. So, i would look to them for leadership and all of these reactions from very comfortably housed white people, i just ask you to pause and in those Public Comments. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Hi, thank you a longterm resident of west side and listening to the presentation, i get three over all messages. Up with is i dont hear anything about Affordable Housing in the bills accepting one of them a reduction and i feel the give away. Why should rich developers be getting bonus to build in one of the before the markets in the world. Its never made sense to me. And the third feeling i get or sense i get from all of those bills, is that its an attempt and a movement by mostly our own elected state representatives to takeaway the peoples voice and its an anti dem dem a craticdd it isnt. And housing is staffed by many other reasons, not the fact that communities voice wanting to keep their communities. Another thing is i dont think theres this big deal housing crisis in california. There is an Affordable Housing crisis. And as long as we do have the right, use the right expressions and we fall through this housing crisis and were over the are required market rate and luxury housing in california, rich people have no problem finding a place to live. Thats not an issue. So lets get real here. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. Close the Public Comment portion of this item. The matter is how before you. Commissioner imperial. I thank you, anne, for presenting and also part of the planning staff and provided a overview of the state bills and theres a lot more state bills and its been working on in the states and im glad theres acknowledgment that these state bills that even the planning that is select and most of the state bills may be devoid of the racial and social equity and analysis and that is my question. My question to this staff and this is ago on going discussion in the Planning Commission and also in the Planning Department, is as this state bills may not have racial and equity analysis, im wondering if the if our Planning Department and how are we preparing in terms of the state bills and whether the state bills passed or failed, how are we preparing to provide racial and social equity plan for this and im thinking theres going to be local analysis that will probably be included and i dont know if there will be federal loss as well as we go through racial and social equity plan as well so is the team considering other legal matters that we passat a resolution and as we also work on this plan. Thank you, very Much Commission for the call to action to include racial equitier and we do. We have comments that were specific the one bill that is speak to go address fair housing law but you can look at some of the other bills too and think about are they do we have measures that would protect and would they apply to properties that already have existing housing and are they in areas with communities of concern and if so, are they increasing Development Pressure and were seeing maybe if i can share the screen or just remind you, there was a bonus that would law Additional Development and pressures without saddinmeasuree housing and reduce the citys ability to get fund for Affordable Housing. Those measures are at play and i know you were interested in the bill that talked about high opportunities areas and i can share that map if yo with you iu would like me to talk about. Its also for everyone as well as part public matter and a public issue and i always see what we did with we passed the equity plan as to how much are we going to push because there are lots that are probably going to be going again and im also quite nerve us and how are we going against those. This is going to require our racial social equity plan will require a lot of work and analysis as well and i also wish that the state legislatures are looking into the racial and soak osocial equity. One thing that i am nervous about, i would just say, is the sb85 and sb288. Especially in sb288 the exception of ceqa were required more ear analysis and ear Public Participation and rhyme always concerned when theres a lack of analysis who will not be provided. Thats just me. Thank you for providing this analysis and i think when which ever state builds that past, we can provide deeper analysis as it will invest especially with the racial, social equity lens into it. We would be happy to do that. Your question lies to the difficulty of this. Weve heard that sb288 that you mentioned you are concerned about will be amended in the very near term. So, we had time understanding that bill and we expect it will change in the near term so we should keep an eye out for housing changes. Commissioner chan. Thank you for your presentation to the team for preparing the report. I know it was a lot of work to really digest all these bills and i really appreciate that you were able to do this despite staffing challenges and things like that. I understand that indepth analysis was not possible and i appreciate the intent to pivot out work towards equity lens. I want to take this moment here to recognize and to calibrate and to remind ourselves as a commission and department we are undergoing a process of developing tools and metrics to comply an equity framework with the resolution that we passed a few weeks ago for equity in work and in the develop of these tools in the future, i would ask us specifically to engage black and communities of color who have been negatively impact by land use policies and having in close communications with those communities as the equity and metrics and this is just to be able to have better validity in terms of the data that were collecting and understanding to make sure that this is really reflective of those experiences on the ground. And when we have these tools, i think as a commission, it would be great to be able to understand and pass of this bill on the equity concerns and we have raised as a commission and and the public to exercise that racial and social equity lens in our work. I appreciate your work and im looking forward to more conversations in the future and hearing more about the departments racial and social equity work and i believe its coming from the Commission Next week. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. Thank you for that extremely helpful analysis and allows us to get our arms around what may be coming down the road for us. Could you describe a little bit the mechanism the Planning Department has in place to give feedback to the state . There are a number of concerns raised and if its a concern on the part of the commission and also the Community Members who spoke about the impact either individually or cumulatively up these bills on racial and social equity. How do we convey those concerns to the senators and Assembly People who are promoting these bills so that they can work the citys concerns no amendments . Sure. So thats a great question, commissioner, we can share an easterly year memo that we wrote about the process. In San Francisco the charter gives this commission the authority to pine all sorts of planning matters so you make recommendations to the board of supervisors and the mayor by passing a resolution. The city has three wed bodies o communicate. [please stand by] thats a very good question. Currently, the city has not made some over all recommendations about how the legislature should approach racial and social equity and saying our department should center land use on racial social equity they have that and you ask them to take a larger lens beyond the planning and land use jurisdiction you have and consider a racial and social equity in policing and economy. You will get a referral next week. Thank you. Commissioner moore. Thank you to staff and emily rogers and all planners and the public for contributing the valuable comments and observations. Thank you to commissioner imperial for having social and Racial Equity be one of the main sounding points in this discussion. Since the legislation takes a long time, its overwhelming. I hope the legislative bodies with find ways to co join and i simplify what comes forward and of course we look at some of these bills and theyre competing with each other or trying to address issues that could be edit cad together. My second point is that i believe theres a piece that is interesting to me personally and not just how we potentially can increase our arena numbers but land use level of looking at sites. 99 looking at live sites that should sites for example we were struggling with what exactly we could do with sites and that surrounded by zoning that could not maximize use of these sites. I also found it interesting to look at the 2580 part of the legislation would be reused for housing and its a pressing issue and hotels and the particular uses and needs that fulfill and the city is active with tourism and buildings with particular locations which may be very adaptable for reuse as residential. I have post pandemic influencing all parts of legislation and i want it pick one sb902 and whether its a reference to cities to permit up to 10 units on both sides and transitory and jobs wage areas. If we are raiding our papers here in San Francisco carefully, theres great fear that our Transit System will not continue to exist that in its self, its an immediate rethinking is ab902 could or couldnt do if it would persuade in its current form. We may have to look at alternatives to that particular avenue. Those are my comments, thank you. If there are no further comments. This is just an information item and we can proceed to the next item. Here is materials impacted analysis and this is an informational presentation s. Staff prepared . Yes, can you hear me . We can. Good afternoon. My name is tanya shaneer and im here with my colleague jeannie polling to provide information on how the Planning Department annal ices Hazardous Materials within the framework of the California Environmental quality actor ceqa, i will share my screen and turn off the camera. Did that work . Yes, it did. You might want to go to full screen but thats up to you. Great, thank you. I will also cover the San Francisco department of publichealth or dph Marker Program the state data base of Hazardous Material sites and how the Planning Department coordinates with dph as part of our vinyl review process. We are providing this presentation because at prior hearings, commissioners have expressed interest in learning more about how this topic is analyzed and also because recently garnered attention in the media and regard Hazardous Materials. And patrick, ryan casey and are also here as dph staff and as is the planning lisa gibson who is also on the line. So when and how is the Department Study Hazardous Materials. We do this for all proposed projects subject to the Environmental Review pursuant to ceqa which includes all housing projects. Hazardous materials is one of about 20 topics that we evaluate when we consider whether a proposed project would have a Significant Impact on the environment. We use a checklist of questions to guide our review. The seven questions on the ceqa checklist are briefly summarized on this slide come from the states ceqa guidelines. The two questions that we spend most of our time on that will discuss today, are questions b and d. Our primary responsibility is to conduct robust ceqa review and to protect the environment include publichealth. We want to shed light on how we do this with the public and commission can be informed and hopefully feel a little bit more comfortable with the level of review that is conducted for these projects. So the key Hazardous Materials question that we look at is question b. With the project create a significant hazard to the public or we have the agency that has the expertise and tasked to manage Hazardous Materials through article 22a of the San Francisco health code commonly known as the maher ordinance or maher program. It gives authority to require an oversee investigations and if needed remediation of subsurface contamination. It sets fourth a process for sampling, analyzing and remediating soil. They have coordination and Building Department and make sure that projects permit and comply with as confirmed by dph. The maher program is broad and contains sites including sites near the freeway, sites previously or currently zoned for industrial uses, sites constructed above the bay fill, and sites on the list of contaminated sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 which in San Francisco is primarily documented in the geo tracker and environment story data basis. This is the maher map which shows parcels in the city that needed the criteria and the market program. As you can see it covers a large part of the city. Particularly the eastern areas. Can you still hear me . Can you hear me ok . We can hear you, tanya. Great, thank you. I got an error message that my connection was going out. So given the dense urban pattern of development in San Francisco its not unusual to see proposed Infill Development in areas that contain former industrial uses, bayfill, or other types of potential contamination. Therefore, they may be subject to the maher requirements. Its important to point out that the maher map is a living map and planning and gph can and do add sites to the map as needed. This is when the Planning Department refers new projects to dph for maherren rollment adding new sites to the map over time. So parcels on the map are also identified in our Property Information map which is accessible to the public. Projects subject to the program are those that involve the following parcels where theres a project involving 50 cube i remember yards or more of soil disturbance and anything with the relief and it could involve less than 50 cuber so if its on the map with window replacements we would not refer them to dph. I will discuss sour coordination with dph next. This is a simplified chart of what is in reality a pretty thorough process and as you can see, as part of the Environmental Review process, we determine whether the proposed project is subject to the maher ordinance and we re fer the project to dph for further analysis. We review the project sites history and if available a phase 1, environmental Site Assessment and its a standard report prepared by qualified professional that includes the sites history, a public records review and a site visit to investigate whether has or does materials are present. If we refer a project, we document that referral in our ceqa determination. Depending on the level of review we may document the status of the Hazardous Materials investigation or remediation by summarizing and citing reports and letters sent to us by the project sponsor and dph. When the project is referred to dph, their staff screens the project and decides on the appropriate level of oversight. Note the state of california determines that appropriate Health Standards which differed depend on the proposed use of the site and dph is responsible for overseeing the investigation and remeetation and where the sites history has the potential and submit a work plan to d. P. H. For soil, soil veil or or grand water sam belling and analysis. Where the sa the property excees states public risk health for in intended use, the applicant must prepare and have approved by dph a site mitigation plan that quote will assure that the intended use will not rebuild in publichealth or safety hazards and excess of the acceptable publichealth risk levels. Or other applicable regulatory standards unquote. And the limiting the use and the site may be required to be recorded against the because its required bylaw to exist suspected condition on the property and not to avoid or lessen a significant Environmental Impact of the project identified through ceqa review. Its important to note that most of the time remediation activities occur after planning has reviewed an approved the site permit for the project. However, plannings approval of a site permit does not authorization construction of the project and the project sponsor still needs a Building Permit and dbi cannot issue one and with the site has been remediated to the state or no further action is required. When we have proof they have a program, we know that the law will ensure that dph oversight and the development cannot proceed until the project sponsor and of the release of Hazardous Materials. Since these regulatory requirements are mandatory for projects, subject to the maher ordinance we rely on it as part of our ceqa review. In these circumstances, and in accordance with ceqa, ceqa guidelines and court decisions, we do not include any mitigation measures that duplicate legal requirements for the project. If Site Investigation or remediation is required, and when the project is referred to dph, actions appropriate will occur because they are required by law. The other important question that we address during Environmental Review is t. The project located list site and data basis and another ceqa guidelines clearly states that a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project on this list but what is the list . This section of the State Government code known as the list is comprised of Hazardous Waste sites including the department of toxic substance control, the state department of home services, calorie cycl cal. The sites in San Francisco are under the jurisdiction of the state water board. This is a map of all sites in San Francisco and we compile an update and data regularly to capture when state agencies update their respective data basis. Most of these sites are on the state water board geo tracker lift of sites and underground storage tanks, existed or still exist. These sites are generally associated with gas stations, auto body shops and older homes with underground fuel thanks. This state has delegated to dph over Site Authority for investigation and remediation of former underground storage tank sites in San Francisco. Ddph has states local Oversight Program which is separate from the maher program. Through the maher ordinance San Francisco expands on the state oversight of contaminated sites by requiring investigations and remediation of sites that are not already on the list. Because we condition issue exemptions for projects on the list, planning staff claims the project site status and whether a site is on the list can be found for each parcel on our Property Information map. Sites in the list are considered on a casebycase basis through coordination with dph and we did not issue exemptions for these sites. Depending on the history and condition of the site, as well as characteristics of the proposed project, a project may be eligible for a commonsense exemption which is a type of exemption that can be issued if it could be stated theres no possibility that the project would result in a Significant Impact. It is important to note that regardless of whether or not the site is on the list, projects subject to San Francisco maher ordinance cannot be approved without sign off from dph confirming contamination has been investigated and remediated appropriately to ensure Public Safety for the proposed residential use. This concludes my presentation. Planning and department of publichealth staff are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, tanya. We should open up the Public Comment line. This is the opportunity to call into 800 number and press one and zero to enter the cue. Through thqueue. Through the chat Public Comment to two minutes. You have one question remaining. And theres still formaldehyde, off gassing and vocs including ethylene and ive had a lot of trouble trying to get through to the correct department to help mitigate this or figure out what the issue s i was told by publichealth to go to plumbing, plumbing said to go to publichealth. Publichealth isnt not gone back to me so i dont know what to do . Im reaching out ho to you guys now . This isnt a question and per period. I suggest you call public lets go to the next caller. You have one question remaining. Yes, San Francisco coalition. I know that she stated this is not a q a session, however, there was a very informative article a few months ago at sf chronicle that listed like 12 or 13 sites that had Hazardous Materials and they were approved for housing. I would appreciate it if we get some answers and some answer that what happened to assess the Hazardous Materials on those sites and what resource the public has in terms of following up on that article, on that chronicle article. Thats it. Thank you. You have sufficient owe questions remaining. Thank you. Commissioners that, will conclude the Public Comment portion of this item and the matter is now before you. Question for staff. Do these maps both in terms of the maher sites, do they include for asbestos layers in the soil . The maher map primarily includes sites that are under lay by soil and groundwater that has the potential to have contamination. Anything beyond that is typically not included on those maps. How does planning handle the Environmental Review of naturally occurring a asbestos. Its with the bay Area Management district through their regulatory framework. If there are no further questions for staff, genie, do you want to this is genie and im not seeing my picture but i am here and i just want to respond to that to commissioner fungs question about naturallyoccurring asbestos. Its covered under the dust control ordinance. The measures that control dust and we have documentation that explains that. Thank you. I see no further requests to speak. Good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. Im Environmental Review officer and director of the division of Environmental Planning. I thank you for your questions members of the public and commissioners. I wanted to respond to the reference to an article that appeared in the newspaper recently of San Francisco chronicle article and the issues it generally addressed. I respectfully say that the article mischaracterized the departments review process as being evasive or skirting environmental laws and it was in fact a gross miss characterization as our presentation just explained. We have a robust Environmental Review process that is compliant with the state Environmental Quality act as well as our local laws that protect the public from impacts of Hazardous Materials. Its important to note the Planning Department in conduct our review with hard review with our practice of issuing exemptions, we have set proteasome vision that prohibits the use of a categorical exemption when theres a site listed on the cortese list. In terming which data basis, we should be look at and how to determine what sites are on that list, we had consulted with the state in the past and had received guidance that certainly sites that are closed geo tracker sites were not to be on the list and based on that guidance and in the past, we had issued exemptions for sites that were closed sites that sites where there were past issues of contaminations that were addressed and to state levels to where no further action was required. Recently the state has clarified and we reached out to the state because there was conflicting guidance and we received guidance that looked at the geo tracker sites be to be considered on the cortese list and our Current Practice will reflect that and we wont be issuing exemptions for such sites and this is an important area of confusion that has resulted in some of the assumptions that were made in that article. I want to make it clear that our determination this is the past that some projects were except where we had found that the site is on a closed geo tracker site and they did not change the agains practice and the citys practice with regard to ensuring those sites are on the ordinance or are subject to that ordinance that those are referred to the Publichealth Department and investigated and remediated as necessary pursuant to state law. I think its a clarification i did want to make and its technical in nature and much of the work we do and i hope its informative. Thank you for that, lisa. Anyone else. Oh, here we go. Through the chair guile ahead and thank you ms. Gibson and miss shane i remember. For the thorough overview of the process and for bringing it home and addressing the article and the state context and everything that we do. Im always in awe of oir Environmental Planning team and the links they go to really understand the heart of all of these issues and i feel thankful for that technical and can help ground where we go from here and i hope the public really understands the ruth of the department. One thing i did want to ask is that for the person who called in the first person who has an active issue going on in their apartment right now, i know that it might be out of order from the way we do things but certainly during covid19 times, if someone is coming to a public process to ask a question about the services that we take the time to respond to that and i know you had a suggestion for who that person might contact but it got caught off and i didnt hear it so if you couldnt mind repeating what you suggested that person reach out to you i could appreciate it and thank you all so much. Shes afraid theres asbestos concerns within that building and that would be the department of public health. You may also try calling the department of building inspection to conduct an inspection at her property. Sure. Thank you. Anyone else . Ill pause. Im going to move on to item 13. Case 2016016100envsfpuc southern skyline boulevard ridge trail extension project. This is a draft report and for your review and comment. Please note that written comments will be helped until 5 00 p. M. On august 10th, 2020 and through the chair, members of the public will be provide requested two minutes. Staff, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes. Very good, good morning, president koppel and members of the commission. Im tim johnson with the Environmental Planning division of the Planning Department and im the eir coordinator for the proposed southern skyline boulevard at ridge trail project. Also with us is tim ramerez the project manager for this project and i will share my screen so that tim may walk us through a brief project overview. Thank you, tim. Can you hear me ok . We can hear you just fine. Good afternoon, president koppel. Vice president moore and commissioners. Im tim ra mere hes at puc and thank you for this opportunity to briefly describe the project and to provide important context i have a few slides and the first one is the trail looking south towards the reservoir. Next slide. Where is the peninsula watershed. You are not sharing your screen. Ill let you know when the presentation screens are up. Due see the slides. No. But we do see you. Lets see here. Beer going to go, christine go ahead and share the next slide and push the presentation. Thank you. So now your slides are up and you can proceed with the presentation. Great k we jump to the fourth slide . Appreciate the help. So quickly, the peninsula watershed, the puc owns 23,000 acres of water she had lands in San Mateo County and this is part of our Water Supply Service which Service Water 2. 7 million customers in the bay area including fran. Were the second largest landowner behind the mid Peninsula Open Space district and and note the highway 280 bridge that goes over san mateo creek. So what is the pen saul watershed. The space is surrounded by urban areas on all sides and its a state fish and game refuge and recognized under federal and International Programs as an important resource and this map shows the two major regional trails along the parameter of our property. En the western boundary ruined by resources and staff. When its completed it will be a 550mile trail along the ridge surrounding the bay and when this is completed 16 miles will be on our peninsula watershed. We did extensive Public Outreach in advance the environment in response, we requested that the environment review process consider full range of trail operations options and in this case the full range starts from supervised access where people are accompanied by volunteers that work with my staff and the far side of the spectrum is unsupervised access. In the middle restricted access which is a permit program which is similar to what is in the east day. Its important to recognize and the ridge trail on our our watershed center and the water zendaya and were building a physical facility in the east bay and we developed a trail that will be new signage that is part of this along the trail and also foss our programs. The program is our opportunity to tell the story of why we own this land and how its managed and its history, and how we protect the rare plants and animals we call home. Next slide, please. The project was proposed almost 20 years ago and covered when it was the peninsula water. Connor plan report and certified by this commission in 2001 and now, here at the draft ier stage it had confidence and there are six miles of new trails that would be built south from highway 92 that would be connected to the golden gate years and next a trailsment that is owned by the barrier of the council transferred to the puc and this is north of highway 92. And finally there are important improvements making at our cemetery gate which is a access trail, and other improvements to support our programming. The operation of the trail would be to continue our programs that would be north of 92 and new trails that would be built and significantment under a permit and this is the area and highway 292 and were not proposing across highway 92 as part of this project. This provides a visual. If you start at the top and go down the blueline is the existing pipe cahill Trail Program and as go towards the middle the yellow is the easement that is currently held by the Bay Area Council in the red or the pink is the new trail segment that would be filled south of 9 and it shows the proposed universal access trail and im provement thats we made at cemetery gate. Thats the offer view and ill be available to answer questions. At this for the time. All right, thank you, tim. I would like to state this is a hearing to receive comments report and case numbers and 2016016100env which assesses the impacts on the environment that could result for an implementation southern skyline boulevard ridge trail extension project. This draft eir was published on june 25th, 2020. It was provided for todays hearing. This is in the areas of biological resource and transportation and circulation that would remain significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of feasibility mitigation measures. Project operations with unsupervised visitor access along the five field cahill ridge trail would increase visitors particularly bicyclists, to harm the San Francisco guarder snake and the california red legged fraud in the areas known as five points. This is e. I. 5 and the draft eir and prize only to the program variance two and three. Project operations with unauthorized visitor access along the five field cahill ridge trail would increase the potential for district impacts such as crushing on host plants for the Mission Blue Butterfly or the san bruno butter fie that could result in cake of these but the are fly species. This is impact bi5 and applies only to Access Programs variance two and three. Project operations with unsurrendered access could result in the accelerated spread of pathogens. This is identified as impact bi7 and applies to proposed access of patc. Regarding circulation, t operations with unsupervised visitor access, window increase the risk of complex between vehicles and pedestrians, bicyclists or equestrians attempting to cross state route 2992 where no crossing exists. This is identified as impact tr5 and applies to the proposed Access Program as well as variance to and three. Staff is not here today to respond to comments on the environmenenvironmental analysi. It will be responded in writing, which will respond to all verbal and written comments received during the Public Comment period and may include revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. This is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. That hearing will be held by the sfpuc following certification of a final eir. Comments today from the public should be districted towards the adequacy and ak are see of information contained in the draft eir, commenters should state their name and clearly, and address so that a copy can be sent so they can send a copy of the responses to comments document when its completed. After comments from the general public, well take comments on the draft eir from the Planning Commission. The Public Comment period for this project gannon june 25th, 2020 and extends until 5 00 p. M. On monday august 10th, 2020. Unless the commission mention have any questions, i recommend that the public hearing be opened. Thank you tim. We should go to our Public Comment line. To summon each question press one and then zero. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public testimony by calling into the 800 number pressing 1 and 0 to enter the queue. And through the chair, you will be afforded two minutes. You have four questions remaining. Caller my name is liz and i am the Trail Program director for the bay area ridge trail. I would like inform first thank the sfpuc and sf planning staff for getting to this project to this point. The bay area hill 170 complete with over 380 miles in place and open today. The work on this new sixmile ridge trail section formally began in 2001 with the adoption of the trail alignment and the watershed master plan. It also received a Million Dollars for ridge trail planning funding from the area program. We appreciate all the everyday to get it to this point. Our partners with the Land Management agency around the bay have noted the increased number of trail users and the need for more Public Access opportunities during this unprecedented time. This trail will be an excellent opportunity for the public to wreck rowation response plea on their watershed lands. The ridge trail supports the staff recommended project and Access Program and the draft eir. We do not support the alternatives as they do not achieve the stated project goals for a continuous trail for all users. Additionally, from the finding the unresolved highway 29 crossing should be impacted related to trams and this gap is not unique to the region and specifically we have 16 planned cal train crossings and we believe the construction of the area would mitigate this impact. Thats all i can get in. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. My, my name is mike and i am a user of the sf bay area. The covid19 pandemic is highlighted critical importance of outdoor recchiation for families and close to where people live. I wholeheartedly support the project and commend the Public Utilities commission on its enactment of the eir. I take issues, however, with some of the findings. First of all, we need to consider as an environmental consideration, publichealth and the ability of additional trail access to allow for more our door recreation. Number two, the addition of the trail will also burden the use of the existing trails and number three, the trail will allow safety of cyclists by getting them off the road at least for a portion of the skyline boulevard. Number four, this can be done safely to the environment. Other water districts in marin and the east bay have permitted recreational access of their water sheds with Great Success and it should consider the fact there are trucks that use the fivefield cahill ridge for maintenance and uses. There is also an operating golf course and inquiry within the water zendaya and so the concerns that are noted in the report should also be considered along with the existing uses. Over all i support the enactment of the project and as scoped out with limited most limited amount of restrictions specifically by Going Forward with variances to and three in the eir. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. Im matthew and im off road cycling Efficacy Group and and watershed and thank you for the comments on this draft eir and analysis and its such an important project. Were very supportive of the project in the report and the new inaudible providing important piece of conductivity to the bay area and the Regional Network in general. And the connection to the inaudible . Theres a concern about the highway 92 crossing and i say that the trail is not good mitigation because its two categories of trail users. One was mentioned who are likely to use the trail head and the other is people who are going to make a continuous route anyway and no matter what is done, they will use a trail and if the trail shortens, they are dangerous section of the highway which has many fine corners and fast cars. Often the proposed project with its trail head close to it is one of the few bus tops anywhere along the mountain. And thinking about access theme, i want to talk about the access science and the permit access inform the extension is a approach to the balance between Environmental Protection and the access for users this extremely limiting and it reflects that yes, theres some impact from that as we consider the impact and he want to be considered and on how this could be done. Ill followup with writing on this and thank you for your consideration and on this report. I live on the effected section of sky lane boulevard and i find inadequacy i will and thefourfoot 5 trail does not address the needs for social distancing and the current pandemic could unfortunately be the new normal and more study is needed to determine how to address the situation and the impact a wider trail would bring. Theres a second alternative about a parking lot and a mile and a half south of 92 and its square in the middle of a corner after a fast section and that creates a very unsafe roadway there and my biggest recommendation is that i actually see a inadequacy where theres an alternative that is not explored yet but there would be a short trail going from the cory parking lot to the existing traffic light at the reservoir where 35 meets 92. From there the trail can come around or came out on the west side of the reservoir or follow the road on the eastern side. It should be investigated because there are maintenance roads on flat terrain needing an Environmental Impact and Construction Costs that are far lower and plenty of room for wide trails for social distancing and it can end at the water level which can have a parking lot and rest room facilities and easily connected to a by passat the easement if its a concern and this would allow for the continuation of the trail and allow for cross of highway 92. Theres no mention of how to mitigate unauthorized parking at the access point and lastly theres absolutely no addressing of a parking lot at the point of the trail it just terminates to an area where theres an overloaded parking lot and i think there needs to be an investigation into the Environmental Impact of adding a parking lot there as well. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners, the matter is now before you for your cause. Yes, i have a question on page 218 of the draft eir under the paragraph entitled security features. The paragraph describes how much of the trail will have barbs wire fencing off of the trails and sometimes as close as five feet from the trail center line. It says the fencing is necessary to minimize publichealth to and safety. It would be helpful, i think f. There was a greater explanation of what the risk is that requires a fence. Why the fence needs to be barbed wire and why it needs to be so close to the central line because a barbed wire fence seems add odds of a notion of a trail that is facilitating Public Access. In the response to comments, it would be helpful if those questions to be addressed. Thank you. Seeing no further questions o speak, commissioners ok. Let me just get organized here for my photos. Yeah, first of all i really appreciate the comment. The ability to comment on trail operations and acts adoptions as part of the draft eir. Its really great when were considering a project were thinking about the end users. I understand the need to protect our water sheds and our ecological resources and it makes sense to have some combination of a dose and supervised restricted programs. I hope were able to evaluate these options with an eye towards who is really able to access these resources. So for example, there are studies showing that black and latino populations are under represented visitors to our Public National land to their shares of population at large. So i would really hope to see this project is consistent with the open space and exploration of the general plan and especially around guidance around equity and a accessibility so we can provide declaration of programs accessible to all workers, residents and visitors. Moving forward would be helpful to evaluate the access options developed if there are existing social Economic Data but who is participating in the permit programs to get a sense of whether these programs have ban sis able to all and to consider these acts as options relative to that. And access is really more than just the ability to go on the internet and apply for a permit and it really runs, in terms of some groups that dont feel hiking is something theyre familiar with or its know how around equipment and preparation and so fourth and i encourage us to think about reaching out to nonprofit groups that have been working to expand access and the ability to access Outdoor Education and i want to respect that the future access options can consider targeted outreach to these, thank you. Commissioner imperial. Thank you, my comment or my question. Thank you to staff for presenting my question is about whether there is whether its also covered in terms of Fire Prevention or Fire Protection and im sure were all on this trail but in terms of assessment of Fire Prevention. California is always having fires. If thats snag can be added . Thank you. Ok, hi, commissioners. Last call for comments. Seeing none. We can move on to items 14a and b for 201800 and at 2005 17th street. You will consider the request for condition at use authorization while the Zoning Administrator will consider the request for variance. Staff, are you prepared to make your presentation . Good afternoon, commissioners. Kimberley durandet Department Planning staff. The project proposed to remove a non authorized dwelling unit from the groundfloor basement garage level of an existing twostorey Single Family residents. The project also includes reconstruction of an unauthorized deck, stair and the addition of a fire wall in the required rear yard. For the project to proceed as proposed, the Planning Commission must grant the conditional use authorization for the removal of the unauthorized dwelling unit under planning code section 303 and 317. [please stand by] the existing second level and proposed. And existing rear elevation and proposed. So you can see here its the fire wall and the existing deck. So the proposed rebuild, this is along the eastern side of the property line. Since the location of the stair and fire wall is adjacent to the neighboring sidewalk, it does not extend past their rear wall. Its not considered to be intrusive to privacy. It did not propose an issue to the residential guidelines. The department has not received any Public Comment regarding this proposed scope of work. I will now change to discuss the unauthorized dwelling of the unit. Plans 317 has three criteria for removing an unauthorized dwelling unit. Its average and comparable with the legalizedits been estimated to be approximately two hundred forty two thousand dollars. The existing dwelling unit does not meet Building Code standards. It doesnt provide emergency openings to the exterior and ceiling separations. And these upgrades would need to be completed before the unit could be legalized. This Construction Cost exceeds the average which is estimated to be approximately 66,000 but does not exceed the highest cost. The project sponsors recently submitted an additional estimate which ranges between six hundred sixty three thousand dollars to eight hundred eighty three thousand dollars. The third cite year is the crite appraised value. An approved property appraiser that states the value of the property as it. Due to San Francisco ren controt control restrictions which limits marketability. Due to the high cost of real estate the value of two unit buildings does not increase due to their cash flow potential. These were the arguments by the appraiser. The department question is and has begun to engage a Third Party Appraisal contract. We hoped to have this Information Available today prior to hearing, i was informed that this is going to take several weeks to obtain. As such, when assessed you wanted this information it would necessariate this being continued until after the summer availability. Whether the cost to legalize which is estimated at two hundred fort forty two thousand dollars is equal to or greater than the gain in Property Value. Since there was no gain in Property Value under this criteria it is not financially feasible. The unit is currently occupied by two tenants. The Property Owner has filed a buy out negotiation and the tenant has not agreed to the terms. Prior to this there is no eviction history to the property. Some background the Property Owner purchased the property in 2006. He noted that rear deck made sense on the property at that time. Around 2008 the project sponsor added the ground floor bathroom. In 2011 to 2014and he had lived in the property. He moved out and he rented the main level between 2011 and 2014 retaining the ground floor and attic for his personal storage. In 2014 he began renting the lower portion of the building as a u to u as the board of supervisors passed the first legislation that allowed in law units in the city. In 2016 a complaint was filed regarding Short Term Rentals and this was abated in 2018. Federal dbi complaints were filed. At that time the project sponsor legalized the dwelling unit and twenty went through the process to the point where he got the estimates on the cost to legalize and that is when he determined that it was not financially feasible for him to do so. There have been tenants in the units throughout that time and then we are now where were at today with the condition use authorization to remove the units and the variance for the rear deck and stairs sm the departmenstairs. The department n balance with the general plan and the area plans. Its compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and to not be detrimental to persons or adjacent Properties Within the vicinity. That kn colludes m concludes myn and im available for questions. thank you kimberly. Project sponsor are you prepared to present and kimberly do you need to share slides for their sponsor. this is his presentation. Im ready to move us forward. very good. Project sponsor are you prepared to make your presentation. You may need to hit star six to unmute your phone. yes. It is unmuted now. Thank you for that additional assistance. Are you able to hear me. we are. Im just letting you know you have five minutes. thank you. Kimberly. Can you go ahead and advance to the next slide. okay. Please begin. Your time is running. theres a lag on what im able to see. I understand she has it up. What were showing you here is an introduction and overview. It is and has been and remains the owners preference that this simply be legalized and just in the process of going through this it became very clear that he could not afford it and it was not supported under either of the three areas of 317 which allow for it to not be removed from the market we do think it would be important that during the covid 19 that the removal be stayed so it doesnt disrupt the tenant. We would ask for the immediately legalization of the deck and approval to erect a fire wall because its a safety issue. I understand thats the zoning purview. If there are questions about the history, we can go to them. Im going to ask kimberly to go ahead and move through those. Since i have five minutes, is this focused on the unit or should we address the rear deck before we move to the unit or come back to that separately . Can i get some guidance on that . i would focus on the conditional use authorization request. okay. Ill be available and there are slides relating to the fire wall of the rear deck when the zoning official is ready to deal with that. The c ua, there are three criteria under the statute 217. They are adjacent a, b, and c. The owner qualifies for the removal of the unit under each of these. We can go ahead and move forward through the history and go right to the ceiling height slide, kimberly, please. Prior to hearing she provided me some feedback from the commissioners that somebody had been requesting information regarding the ceiling heights. We modified the plan it reflect the entry way and hallway and lighting. Ive provided here to the left the actual ceiling height so the commissioners are able to see exactly what the ceiling heights are for the areas. They may be eight foot one inch. The area marked studio ranges between seven point one and six point nine throughout that space there. It gives you an oid of what needs to be changed in order to make it legal. Kimberly, could you please move to the next slide. Theres designated area for laundry sm the offic. The office is now going to be bicycle storage. Where the half bath isits relabeled as half bath instead of storage. Theif we move up top the analysis under 317g6a on that slide youre going to see that the cost thats are ther there n the declaration. Its well in excess of what the 66,000 is. thats your time. The commissioners may have questions for you after they accept Public Comment. So why dont we go ahead and open the Public Comment line. Members of the public this is the opportunity to call in to the eight hundred number and press one and zero to enter the queue. Youll have two minutes. good afternoon, commissioner. Am i being disconnected. Can you hear me. we can hear you just fine. hello. Great. This is the third week in a row that im calling in to urming yourge younot to approve the col use authorization of a unit merger. This is a classic case where the tenants are going to be harmed from this merger. There is no reason to go through this process an merge the two units if they are going to send two people in particular in the middle of the covid 19 situation and the questionable economy. What i would like to bring to your attention is the estimates that the owner has pulled for this project. Allow me to remind you that the legal height in the city of San Francisco is seven feet and six inches. This is bringing you the cost of six hundred thousand dollars which to me is outlandish for bringing this property up to code because of six inches. So commissioners, is it okay to displace tenants because of six inches . I would say its not okay. Thankfully i did notice that the owner is proposing a third option and that is to allow the state of this property in this condition. I urge you to consider that because ten inches is not okay. Thank you very much. Regardless of what happens with this particular project i hope that the Planning Department and dbi look at it and try to figure out how to make it easier and cheaper to utilize ad us. I think we should study the initial draft of sb330, it requires cities to waive building standards and codes that do not have anything to do with safety. That part of sb330 did not pass in the final part. Its the final law that passed. San francisco is a charter city. We are allowed to modify our own Building Code to make it so that when cases like this come up and people dont have the money to raise the ceiling, that that provision can be waived from our Building Code. We could do that if we wanted to but currently the code does not allow us to waive a low ceiling height. This case really reminds me of my own case because i also moved into an el legal a illegal adu. After i moved out the owner decided that instead of legalizing it they would take out the stove and rent it out without a stove because that would be completely legal. I hope this doesnt happen here. I hope we can preserve the unit by making it easier for people to keep adus units not fully desirable. members of the public, i just want to premind you that you need to press one and zero to get into the queue. We have a large number of active callers on the line. You need to press one and zero if you want to submit your public testimony. Well wait just one second here to give you an opportunity to do so unless youre here for another item which is fine. did anyon did anyone enter the queue. you have zero questions remaining. thank you. The matter is now before you. Commissioner imperial. im taking myself unmuted. I have a question whether its for the planner or the owner. Im looking at the plan, the modified plan and also the plan that was previously and i guess i would like to ask the planner in terms of the replacing, it looks like replacing the stud yoa into onstudyoa intostudioin. I heard that people who are living unstaired would like to use their space because as were old working remotely and therefore need a space sounds fair for an office. Is this something that in compliance that could be good in terms of how office is being utilized . thank you, commissioner for the question. You can have a home office or an accessory office used in your residential building that is no more than either a quarter or third of the floor area. I would need to double check with the code because its different in different zoning districts. You can have an accessory office which is what were all sort of doing now. By the code you can have an accessory. i feel likeim not comfortable especially in terms of theres an existing tenant living and an existing tenant will eventually be displaced either after pandemic. Even after pandemic, looking for howing is always a struggle. Im leaning towards disapproval. Looking into whether the usage of the space as an accessory dwelling, if that could be look up farther. I would like the other commissioners opinion as as well but thats my comments. commissioner moore. The room height for office. If this is used as a home office is the existing room heightim still unclear exactly what were proving. I have lots of concerns that with the pending covid 19 crisis and a tenant on site thai would like tthat iwould like to see rt before seeing anything ongoing with this project. commissioners just to chime on on the accessory use question as well as legal height for the offset. Since the office is accessory part of the dwelling unit it would have to meet the basic distinct standards as a dwelling unit as a whole. Seven six is required for any inhabitable room. Only kitchens and bathrooms are allowed to be at the seven foot level. In essence they would need to comply with whatever the minimum requirements are that dbi has. For accessory use for an office, its limited to a quarter of the overall area which is basically 25 . could you state the permissible room height, correctly the seven foot one height is not sufficient to have an office down there. correct. i think it is very important for us to understand that the storage is by the provetionaprofessional advisor g out those plans. You cant have an office there so why would we consider it because in the drawings that were submitted it was simply storage. All of a story has morphed into describing an office use down there. I believe it would be very advisable and im not opposed to look at this project with a cohesive story and the drawings and the timeframe when considering this. commissioner diamond. i am leaning towards reporting the staffs recommendation. I dont think he should have to spend even two hundred fifty thousand dollars to legalize the unit. I am opposed to the office use of it as an office space. It doesnt meet the floor requirements. I believe we need plans that show exactly what it is were approving. If we dont have those, we need to continue it. I believe we need to figure out some arrangement around the tenant. Im not understanding what the staff is proposing around the tetenant. Id like to hear more that b that. About that. I want to make sure that thats cloorly not aclearly not an opt. Two questions for staff. Do we have the ability to waive the floor height limitations to what is staff proposing around the office space . Whats the recommendation and do we have plans that reflect back. And three what is staffs recommendation around the tenant . i do see there are other commissioners but lets go to staff so they can answer commissioner diamonds questions first. we dont have the authorize because its in the Building Code. We just cant do anything about that without changing the San Francisco Building Code. we dont have the option as poproposed by one of the communy members. i think what he was speaking to was getting legislation passed in one of these adu wafer it happen. That would make it a lot easier for a lot of these in law units coming into these units and having to resure their foundation which is making it very expensive. clearly something we should be recommending but thats independent of our decision on this case right now. right. That option doesnt exist today. okay. An the other two questions. the office space plan, i believe the project sponsor, you know, was put back on this particular plans that in response to the concerns of the commissioner that there was too much storage space. And i dont think he was aware that the ceiling height would have to meet the Building Code if its an accessory use within a Single Family dwelling. is any part of the storage meet the seven foot six requirement. none of it meets seven foot six. so he cant have office space down there. Staff isnt recommending office space down there. Whats the status on tenant. if they approve the conditional uselet me reset. If the Commission Recommends denial and they have to keep the unit, then that would go into an enforcement situation. We would need to then have to deal with the enforcement of making it legal when he doesnt have the funds it to do so. To approve the removal of the unauthoriz