Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240711

Sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. We will receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. Opportunity to speak during the Public Comment period are available by calling 4156550001. When we reach the item youre interested in, press star 3 to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. When you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. I will announce that cure time is up to take next person to speak. Speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. I like to take roll at this time. [roll call] first touch is consideration of items proposed for continuance. 1760 ocean avenue, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance december 3, 2020. Item 2, continuance december 17th 2020, item 3, 1600 ocean avenue, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. Im pleased to announce to you that under your discretionary review calendar, item 12, 811 valencia street, the discretionary review has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance. We should take Public Comment on the matters proposed for continuance or that have been withdrawn. Members of the public this is your opportunity to enter the queue and speak to the items proposed for continuance by pressing star 3. Seeing no members of the public to speak. Public comment is closed. The matter is now before you. Do i hear a motion . Move to continue those cases as specified. Second. Thank you commissioners. That motion to continue matters as proposed. [roll call vote] motion passes unanimously. 70. Well place those under commission matters. Item 5 sorry, im jumping ahead. That places us the consent calendar. This is consent calendar considered to be routine and may be acted upon by single vote of the commission. And commissioners, you should have received an amended motion earlier today for this matter. We should see if any member of the public would like to pull this off of consent. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to reach out. Seeing no members of the public, the matter is now before you. We are moving right along here. Item 6, commission comments and questions. Let me just start by formally welcoming commissioner tanner to the Planning Commission. She was already a commissioner for those who dont know. And honorable mayor breed was gracious enough to swear her in earlier this week. That was a pleasant surprise. Im thrilled and looking forward to having a full commission with seven great voices advocating for the city. Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore id like to join you welcoming commissioner tanner. I have also worked with her on the board of appeals. Quite a fighter. Im delighted to have her join us so we can operate again as a full commission. Welcome, commissioner tanner. Commissioner fung. Commissioner fung i would like to welcome my compatriot for the board of appeals. Welcome commissioner tanner. Im going to use the chat to get into the queue. Thank you so much, commissioners, president koppel, Vice President. Thank you commissioner fung. Its been great to get to know you before joining you all here. Hopefully, at some point well be inperson, which would be lovely and wonderful. But thank you for making yourselves available via video. Im excited to serve with you and the city. And thank you to director hillis and director for your work in helping me get ready to work today. Jonas that concludes all deliberation from commissioners. If you would indulge me, i would ask that you consider a resolution that i will share with you on your screen. Christine, the former manager of Commission Affairs that assisted me very much in the background getting these remote hearings up and working, i am requesting that adopt a resolution commending her 13 years of service with the Planning Department. The last six of which in my small office of Commission Affairs. She was integral in digitizing our records, making more public availability of all of the things that used to be requested in hard copy. Theyre almost all now available digitally. Mostly due to her efforts. Again, i wanted to thank her so much for helping me navigate this sort of virtual normal place and getting our remote hearings up as swiftly and as efficiently as we have been able to. So hopefully, you can see my screen with the resolution. It was adopted by the Historic Preservation commission yesterday. And so i would request you do the same today. President koppel let me first start by saying, definitely, very supportive of this resolution. Not only did christine make all filling in for jonas and did an amazing job, but we probably all have no idea how much work she was doing behind the scenes just as explained by mr. Ionen. Thank you for all your time, service and wish you the best of luck in future endeavors. Commissioner moore im with him, because you started when i became a Planning Commissioner. So ive known you from day one. Always great contributions. Coordination with secretary and everything that came after. Thank you very much for your service and we will miss you. Im making a motion to support. President koppel on that motion, commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner . Can you hear me . President koppel now i can. Aye. And thank you, christine, for the pleasure. Commissioner chan aye. Commissioner diamond aye. Commissioner fung aye. Commissioner imperial aye. Commissioner moore aye. President koppel . President koppel aye. Commissioner moore there is an incredible noise in the background. There is something dragging back and forth. I hear it as well. Im not sure. It was coming from your computer. Okay. Thank you and good luck to you at the board of sfmta. Commissioners just then ill mute. I just wanted to say thank you. Its been such a pleasure to work for such an incredible department. Not just one, but two great commissioners all these years. I would be remiss not to thank director hillis, jonas for all their support. And our Commission Affairs team. Thank you so much. Ill miss you all. But of course im not going far. Just over to m. T. A. Thank you and wish you all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Jonas commissioners, that would take us on department matters, item 7, directors announcements. [inaudible] can you hear me . We can. So congratulations, christine on your new position and its a big loss for us at planning. But great promotion for you, so congratulations. We will certainly miss you. Welcome back to commissioner tanner, who was with us in the Planning Department, is now back. Obviously in a different role. But were extremely happy about that and looking forward to working with you. Also want to recognize and congratulate former commissioner melgar who appears as district 7 supervisor, so we look forward to serving with her on the commission. Looking forward to serving with her on the board. I also wanted to note electionrelated that prop 8 has passed. Its got 62 of the vote. So it will pass and becomes effective from the election when the election is certified. Id like to schedule an informational hearing here with you to talk about the details, because it does change and streamline some of our processes in neighborhood commercial districts. So well do that over the next couple of weeks. The basics of it is it requires 30day process for permitted uses to be acted upon. It reduces some of the noticing for permitted uses in neighborhoodcommercial districts. And it generally makes those permitted that may have been conditionally permitted before things like general entertainment, movie theaters, restaurants, limited restaurants. Social services. So well come back and give you more detail on that. I would also note that mayor breed has asked us to start working on making the shared spaces permanent within the department and within the city. So were working with sfmta and ttw on that. Well come back to you, it may require that i wanted to note that they have opened up Public Comment on the rhna allocation. So the executive board approves the methodology of the goals to the various governments and jurisdictions as weve talk would about before. These numbers are increasing over two times what they were before. But that Public Comment period to comment on the methodology is open and is later this month on the 25th. If there are no questions, thats my report. President koppel i think commissioner moore has something. Commissioner moore you were speaking about prop h. I was wondering is there a social equity component . Specifically is there something in the legislation that addresses social and Racial Equity . I dont believe so. I think, though, part of the rationale and the reason for prop h was to make the process kind of simpler and easier. And not require a Small Business that may otherwise require a permit expediter or going through an elaborate c. U. Process, or requiring a lawyer to navigate that process. In an easier fashion. I think that in and of itself will help many of the Small Businesses we see navigate that city process. Commissioner moore fabulous goal. I support that. I believe though that we owe it to ourselves as commissioners as well as the department to have a look at social and Racial Equity in that discussion. I should also note some of the provisions in prop h dont apply to the mission in particular in 24th street in recognition of the unique circumstances kind of in the mission. Commissioner moore my second question to you, director hil s hillis, is there any provision for corporate impact and change and state population exodus, vacancy, et cetera . Yeah, its being factored into the broader bay area. But as you know, these are longterm numbers and longterm goals. So looks at 2050. The allocations themselves cover the period 2023 to 2031. So i know it was discussed during the meeting, but there is also a recognition these are longer term goals and hard to kind of look at kind of the shorter term goals of covid and what is going to happen in the next few years as part of that under taking. Commissioner moore okay. Thank you. Yep. Commissioner imperial thank you. I have a question, director hillis, regarding the abag, you said the comments by the 27th. How can that access . Sure. You can access it through abags websites. Its in comments. People do comment at hearing that they had. There will be a future hearing to adopt that methodology that members of the public can comment on through email or letters. You know, its available to comment on the website. Commissioner imperial if its possible for the Planning Department to have that, many people may not be accessing the website. Great idea. Well do that. Commissioner imperial thank you. Jonas that concludes the directors report. We should go item 8 wrong page item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron star, Planning Department staff. While you were out on break last week, the board did meet. There were no items in land use and planning. The full board of supervisors, they unanimously approved mayor breeds appointment of Rachael Tanner to the Planning Commission. Congratulations. They moved the appeal of 617 sanchez to november 17. They considered the landmark designation for the history of medicine in the ucsf campus. Supervisor peskin is the sponsor and supervisor safai as cosponsor. They considered this designation on august 19 of this year after receiving the resolution initiating designation from the board which was initiated. The frescos are significant for their association with the Works Progress Administration Federal Art Project displaying high art value. And as an excellent example of the work of master artist and muralist, bernard zakheim, the period of 1936 to 1938. Supervisors peskin and safai noted their full support and how important it was to San Francisco and california that the frescos be preserved and accessible to the public. There are two Public Comments which expressed support and that ucst relocate the frescos on the campus and make them accessible to the public. It was moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. The board this week, they continued both ceqa appeals for the media rails. I expect their attention was elsewhere. Thats all i have for you today. Thank you. Jonas i did not receive a report from the board of appeals, but the Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday. And they considered the Draft Environmental Impact report and the preservation alternatives associated with 447 battery street. This is a draft that will come before you next week, november 12. They adopted recommendation for approval with modifications as amended directing staff to continue to working on the area boundaries and with the communities on the americanindian cultural district expansion coordinates. Finally adopted recommendation for approval as amended for the state mandated accessory dwelling controls that you will be picking up later today. And their one amendment was reference to the review standards and to make sure those were updated to prevent any conflicts with the state controls. If there are no questions, that concludes those reports. We can move on to the general Public Comment at this time. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the items is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission 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. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your general Public Comment for matters not on todays agenda by pressing star, then 3. Hello . Jonas yes, go ahead, caller. This is jeremie paul. Private consultant in San Francisco. First of all, congratulations to commissioner tanner. If youre on the same trajectory as director hillis, it will be a few years at the commission before you move on to directorship. My comment is about proposition h. And the impact on our neighborhoodcommercial districts. There is a lot of questions out there in the community. The last thing i would want this simplifying legislation to do is to complicate the lives of people in the neighborhood commercial districts in our Small Business community. I would encourage planning staff to hold workshops for Small Businesses and neighborhood commercial districts specifically location by location if possible so that the information on the impacts of prop h can be fully understood. And the resulting, you know, driving consultants like me out of the need for changes in those communities kind of out of that business entirely, id love to see things simplified for those very stressed communities right now. So thank you very much for taking the time. I look forward to seeing prop h fully implemented and the Small Business communities rebound in this town. Thank you. Linda chapman. For all of the work that hundreds and hundreds of my neighbors did over a period of 25 years. You know, i have a lot of concern, to say the least, about the unnoticed changes that are unnotified changes, lack of notice, that are occurring. On the small scale directly across the street from me, certainly within 150 feet, a 7 Story Building is being built. I would have expected notification under conditional use. Im told im not entitled to it in my district. I didnt receive notice about the variance. Not that i would have objected to the variance with the front yard. I prefer that actually. I suggested it in the past as a good solution, but i would have liked to comment on the fact that if youre doing that, the advantage for the pedestrians to go by the dense area to see it through the windows that are being sprefshed in the automobile sprefshed. But i had no opportunity to comment, nor the organizer of knob hill, both of whom live by had any kind of notification at all. Not even a sign posted. So there is that. And then i discovered that all of nob hill was rezoned, or at least a large part of it, as tide limits. I was the one that gathered 5,000 signatures for the height limits which were 65 feet. Throughout nob hill ultimately. I and other people submitted a series of rezonings. The ultimate outcome was that nothing was going to be built over 65 feet and i think ive already explained the reasons. Well come back to it. We were going to be completely overwhelmed with high rises. Dean makras eventually realized the horrible impacts that were happening even when he thought he could manage the situation by replacement housing. The developers were very happy to build another project to evict all the renters on nob hill and build highrise condominiums. Suddenly, a building was going up 87 feet i was told in the 65foot area. The planner who i talked to ensured me the whole area was 65foot zoned. I knew that. Then you approved it. And then over and over emails and phone calls and so on to get a zoning map. Where are the Zoning Districts . Well, i couldnt get them. They sent me other things or nothing at all. And finally, during the shutdown, i received the zoning map showing that [bell ringing] were raised to 320 feet in some areas of nob hill. Jonas thank you. That is your time. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is georgia chutetice. Congratulations to commissioner tanner. I sent you an email with a guide to the hearing that you can see on sfgovtv march 26, 2009. I encourage you to watch it if you have time because it was the implementation of the code of implication documents for section 317. There is a threepage pdf attached where the staff person at the time explained what was in the document. And the most well it was all very interesting because he explained it very well. As you watched the thing, you could see it or just read what i submitted in the pdf. These are his actual notes. Im going to read the last paragraph because i think its pertinent for today. What he said, we intend to return in a couple of months remember, this was march 26, 2009, with a report on the first year of operations, section 317. It had already been effect for a year by this time. And may make recommendations for adjustment of some of the thresholds that the code empowers you to make. Particularly about the thresholds for alteration projects that are tantamount to demolitions. Thank you, im available to answer your questions. And i found that poignant that remark of his, that statement of his, because of the word empowered. You were empowered and you still are empowered and its something that you can do that youve never done. So ill just leave it at that. I think you should watch the hearing because its really interesting. Youre a whole new commission, except commissioner moore was there then. Thank you very much and take good care. Have a good day. Bye. Hi, can you hear me . Jonas yes, we can. Thank you, this is supervisor stefansteph pete. I ask that you postpone the adu ordinance coming down because this is not the time to building more housing, despite what commissioner jonas im sorry, were not taking Public Comment on the adu matter at this time. You can request that continuance when the matter is called. Thank you. Jonas good afternoon, commissioners. This is anastasia, im a district 8 tenant and member of the San Francisco. I watched commissioner tanners hearing at the rules committee and listened carefully. I was encouraged that so many tenants weighed in. And the fact that you, commissioner tanner, extended an invitation it meet and engage with San Francisco tenants union. Thank you. I did want to mention on the levels, i didnt catch the date that we needed to send in our comment. So if somebody could repeat that for me so i dont have to watch the replay of the hearing, that would be great, thank you. Just to clarify, november 27 at noon. To where . Well put that information on the website. Perfect. Thank you. I just wanted to mention that the embarcadero study came out with numbers that were different. They said that the numbers had been artificially inflated due to some error. So i think that needs to be noted. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome, commissioner tanner. This is tess, district 5. Id like to comment on proposition h and ask that the Planning Commission take certain steps. First of all, you need to know there is some history. A couple of years ago, oewd proposed legislation to make things easier for Small Businesses. Which was ejected by 10 of the 11 supervisor districts. And they made a second effort here with prop h to go around the legislative process, to go around the public input process, and put this rather poorly written measure on the ballot. Everyone wants to do things to help out Small Businesses. Thats not a problem. But the things that are in and the things that are out and the date, thats still considered. Most of our commercial districts have residential units, too. And in prop h, there is a clause that allows backyard activities regardless of whether there are People Living above or next to a commercial spot. That seems to me that those should have been subject to more review. In any case, prop h will be subject to review in three years, so the Planning Commission should direct planning to keep records on activities that take place under prop h so that we can, in three years, consider its success or if any changes are needed. Thank you. I wanted to respond to the comments about planning code section 317 protection. First of all, i say that i like the fact that coding 317 protects the destruction of rental housing, however, i dont think that the Planning Department should expand tantamount to demolition requirements for renovations. And i would recommend that the hearing on Aaron Peskins bill last year for more information about that, because i thought that was a very good hearing where people explained the nonsense that you have to get an inspection, even if you know that there are some studs that are rotten and youre going to have to tear down, you have to get an inspection to prove theyre rotten and say that you can youll try to repair them in like kind and that is going to make housing somehow more affordable. Instead of expanding tantamount to demolition requirements, if we do expand, i think we should at the very least exclude from tantamount to demolition denominator any walls that were external, but the renovation would put them inside of the building after the renovation, because youre not really demolishing a house when you expand it. And some of the exterior walls are now inside the house. But tantamount to demolition considers those to be demolished. Which greatly expands the number of renovations and expansions and ad u conn instruction that would all in the tantamount to demolition regulation. Jonas thank you. Members of the public, last call for general Public Comment. Public comment is closed. We can move on the regular calendar. Item 9, case number 20203248pca, state mandated accessory dwelling unit controls. This is a planning code amendment. Ms. Flores . Yes, thank you, commission secretary. Good afternoon, commissioners. Planning department staff. The item before you is the state mandated accessory dwelling unit ordinance introduced by the mayor. Today i am joined by natalia, our adu coordinator and preservation planner and peter and andrea from the City Attorneys office. After the staff presentation, i will invite the Zoning Administrator to share a few words regarding the upcoming interpretation as mentioned in the staff report. Ill go ahead and share some slides for you right now. So the goal of this ordinance is really to align our adu program with recent changes to state law, which clarified the ministerial review for adus. A focus of the ordinance, i think that we are required to do to comply with state law. The department determined this ordinance is not a project because it would not result in any indirect or direct physical changes in the environment. So it is not considered a project for the purposes of ceqa. This determination is posted and available on the board file for this ordinance. The ordinance itself does not approve any adu project, rather implements an adu approved process that is mandate pleaseded by state law. The ordinance also includes minor amendments to the citys local discretionary approval process, but those amendments are clarification to the citys process. And again would not result in any physical environmental effects. As a reminder, the ministerial review means there is no discretionary action on this adu if it complies with the state law requirements. These are not subject to ceqa review and we cannot review them against design standards. Additionally, for changes made last year, state mandated adu have a shortened appeal period. Under state law, there are two types of state mandated adu brackets. The first here were calling this streamlined adu. They are in existing Single Family or multiple family dwellings. They can only add one adu. The adu is the most flexible for Property Owners because there are no requirements for setbacks. The second bucket is the ministerial adu. This applies to existing and proposed singlefamily dwellings, or to existing multifamily dwellings. This closely resembles our current in that the adu requires planning code clients, such as rear yard and open space. The only exemption is for density. And under this bucket, there is also a new type of adu called the junior adu. Junior adu can convert up to 500 square feet of a singlefamily dwelling, which requires an efficiency kitchen and may or may not share sanitation facilities with the dwelling. The owner needs to occupy either the junior adu or the primary dwelling. So with the different buckets under state law, keep in mind our local program, a Property Owner may qualify for more than one type of adu. In that case, they will work with them, but ultimately it will be up to the applicant to decide which type and which path they want to pursue. The ordinance includes a few big picture changes that i want to go over with you today. State law now requires that all permits for the state mandated adus are issued within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. Currently the city has 120 days to act on the complete permits and this now cuts the time in half. I just want to share that starting this meets the Planning Department online application for all new adu projects. And the Planning Department has taken on the primary role of accepting and issuing new adu permits in the city. This new online submittal process will also allow streamlining the adu [inaudible] the ordinance also amends article 10 and 11 to explicitly say that proposed state mandated adus and individual buildings or districts and articles 10 and 11 are exempt from certificate of appropriateness and permit to alter review so long as they comply with state law. So this change to article 10, 11, is required by state law, no discretionary mandate is requested. Some of the changes outlined in the ordinance clue that related to include that related to impact fee. There is impact fee waiver for all state mandated adu that are smaller than 750 square feet and for state mandated proposed properties with three or fewer existing dwellings on the lot. Additionally, there would be a reduced impact fee for state mandated adus that are 750 square feet for larger. And this proportion is calculated based by comparing the size of the existing dwelling unit. The singlefamily dwelling. Or the average size of existing dwellings in a multifamily dwellings. Last year there was a 30day notice requirement added to adu within singlefamily dwellings with a notice to the tenants of the property. The ordinance would change this requirement to only be required if there is a tenant within the singlefamily dwelling. And if so, the Property Owner would either need to complete the screening form if its applicable or complete a planning or notice. Or either the d. B. I. Screen form or the planning notice would need to be submitted with the application to be considered complete. This allows tenants to learn about the proposed adu sooner rather than later and ensures that the 60day time frame mentioned earlier. In this ordinance, there are two certifications to the local program. These changes are nonsubstantive and clarify the first clarification is related to waivers and clarifying that waivers from the planning code are only granted for adu proposed existing battlegrounds. Buildings only the density waiver may be granted for the new construction buildings in the local program. The second clarification under the local program is related to noticing. With last years change to permit adu in new construction buildings, there was confusion on what was exempt or not. So the changes state that the new construction buildings themselves are subject to neighborhood notification, separate adu permit and its not subject to neighborhood notification. After we receive the packets, the department did receive emails with concerns related to not being able to impose control on state mandated adu and a general comment regarding tenants rights. The item appeared in front of the Historic Preservation commission yesterday. And after discussion, they recommended a modification to reference to standards ive highlighted the language on page 13 of the draft ordinance here. So please let me know if that part of my screen is not viewable. But the [inaudible] again is to architectural standards. And this came up because under state law, we can still apply these objective standards to state mandated adus. However, some of the standards that were adopted last year conflict with the new state law requirements. So the ordinance proposes striking reference to such architectural review standards, when in fact its the standards themselves that should be modified, not the planning code. So h. Pc. Has proposed modification and facility to impose the review standard, which again, is permitted under state law. The h. P. C. Also directed staff to return to them at a future hearing to clarify and remove any of the standards that conflict with state law. Staff approval of the ordinance in front of you today, which focuses on bringing our code and compliance with the recent state law changes. These are all the things we need to do to comply. Additionally, when you take action today, youre able to mirror h. P. C. s recommendation to [inaudible] on state mandated adu. Again, thats the background that i highlighted for you in the draft ordinance. This ordinance also supports the Housing Elements and also builds on previous efforts to allow more adus. And help adds more and different types of dwellings to the Housing Stock. And at this time i want to go ahead and pass it off to the Zoning Administrator. Again, im available to answer any questions along with the rest of the adu team that is on the call today. Thank you. Jonas thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Cory teague for Planning Department staff. We had a brief note in the case pact that i wanted to touch on to give the commission a headsup. As you know, the Zoning Administrator is tasked with interpretations of the code, very large and complex. In general, that is done ad hoc, one off basis as needed. My office has been working for some time to collect a fairly large amount of interpretations that are necessary for the code in an effort to release them all instead of ad hoc, instead more as a larger set. Most of them are minor and technical in nature. But some of them a lot of them are related to housing in one way or another which is why its part today of the adu legislation before you. A lot is due to the fact that, especially over the last five years or so, the Regulatory Framework around housing has evolved and changed so much. Whether its adu program that continues to evolve. The Legalization Program and so on. So there is a lot more issues that need to be addressed through interpretation. So that will be coming out hopefully by the end of the year. More specifically as called out in the staff report, we will be reevaluating the Zoning Administrator bulletin number 1 to help make sure it better responds to just the very different Regulatory Framework that we have today that is very different from when it was issued in the early 90s. So there is different room to liberalize that to a degree that works under the current framework. And again, this will be released, were hoping by working toward this release by the end of the year. Well send you a copy and we wanted to make you aware of that going forward. Thank you. Jonas if that concludes the presentation, well take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this item. Each member of the public will be provided two minutes. Hello, this is stefani peak with land use coalition. In my opinion, it would be unwise to eliminate oversight over these adus. San Francisco Open space is limited and right now especially we need outside areas to meet and let us not forget our most important shared responsibility, that is to protect our environment. Our porous earth. You may not know for the First Time Ever this year, californias temperatures reached 130. Unsustainable for humans. This last month these last months have been very difficult. But they have given us an opportunity to reflect and reset. Please do not let Real Estate Tax streamline a building at the expense of our planets life. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is bruce bowen. As you consider this resolution and ordinance carefully to ensure that the code changes and the more general language in the resolution do not go beyond the requirements placed upon us by state law. Im particularly concerned about the promise or threat that we soon will be seeing proposals on the changes to take advantage of the ability to be less restrictive than state law and go beyond what is required by state law. And already discussed zoning. This sweeping of zoning provided by recent state laws are perhaps at best a worthy experiment, but given the changes in demographic and economic demand in San Francisco, we dont know what the effects will be. We dont want to get ahead of state law. In particular, any streamlining that kneecaps the controls and neighborhoods that we are able to do in San Francisco today. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is jennifer oppose this premature proposal. I understand that the goal is to not but i feel like planning interpretation goes way beyond never [inaudible] planning summary includes poorly defined categories. What is going to be ministerial. Its going to be stream lined. Will it have rent control or wont it . Even scott wiener supported rent control as a condition to get his legislation passed. The rent boards definition of rent control has been very broad. It applies to twounit buildings built before 1979 and it doesnt matter whether the second unit was built legally or not. Even if the planning map doesnt know that the second unit exists and what size it is. If a landlord of a singlefamily home rents that room with separate leases like boarding home situation, the rent board considers those tenants to have rent control and cause for protection against eviction. Im not sure that planning is acknowledging this. These interpretations need to be acknowledged and better reconciled. Eliminating this can violate the just cause rules. You cant take spaces away from existing contracts, that includes garages and storing spaces. The planning in some cases [bell ringing] that is proposed adu may take space away from the existing volume. Does that mean with existing tenants . Tenants in singlefamily homes, 15 years and older, do have just cause protection from eviction. You cant boot them out to build an adu. Is that going to be acknowledged . The ongoing problem is how is the [inaudible] space since they werent asking applicants where these places are occupied when the plans were submitted. [bell ringing] what happens if the [inaudible] area jonas thank you. Thats your time. Hello . Jonas hello. This is francis. Im an old and infirm gentleman in district 2 and its interesting, im calling pretty much to piggy back on what the previous lady just said. My fellow tenants and i are looking down the barrel of what appears to be an unjust eviction for parking and storage. And weve tried to get organized on this and were having a heck of a tough time figuring out how we go about proposing discretionary review and maybe keep our parking. Ive been here 42 years. I dont get around well. Losing my parking so somebody can make extra few bucks by building adus is upsetting to me. There you go. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is jerry with the San Francisco land use coalition. Im against the proposed legislation because it is not a citywide solution to expediting the approval of adus. It is unnecessarily narrow departmental solution. There are four departments involved in approving adu. D. B. I. , public works, puc and planning and the proposed legislation only deals with planning. The proposed legislation does not force collaboration between d. B. I. And planning. It perpetuates the two separate silos. If the goal is to streamline the adu approval process, the mayor should adopt the standards of sb1069 which would be much better than the proposed legislation. Adopting sb1069 would allow the city to prohibit adus in areas of the city that lack adequate water and Sewer Services or where adus would have negative impact on traffic flow and public safety. I am also concerned that adus share walls in existing buildings and unlicensed individuals can submit plans for adus under the state planning code. Its a conflict with the citys policy of constructing [bell ringing] buildings. The city should outsource adu plan checking to licensed professionals and not have inexperienced planning staff performing plan checks. The proposed legislation is ineffective and the enforcement of unit affordability and the proh prohibiti prohibition. The enforcements rules are vague and unfunded. Thank you. Linda chapman. My whole life ive lived in places where there were adus and i certainly favor them in certain circumstances. At 18th and kirkham, where we lived, it was a singlefamily home with threestory bedroom on top, before we moved it was turned into an apartment. Room down i used as a graduate student. When i lived on mason street in the coop, we had five rooms we rented out. We had a bathroom and added efficiency. Where i live now, which hope to put an adu in the basement where im told it could be done. But there is a difference as density which on nob hill we regarded as a good thing, and eliminating open space that is important. You know, for the children or the Central Block area where you look out. Or eliminating the proper notification. If notice is not done by the Planning Department, i have the impression here that perhaps notification might be done by the Property Owner . People are not going to get notices. Remember lower polk neighborhoods, the nice lady opening the club, the permit expediters, she was required to send 1700 notices by abc as opposed to your department doing your own notices for the conditional use. She didnt send one. I investigated it. Turned it into abc. They didnt care. [bell ringing] later, she violated her conditional use, which i happened to find out about. Notification has to be done by the department for sure. Ask the state to change the law. The laws that are not good for San Francisco. That can be done. You know, either they had unintended consequences or they dont care to do a little set aside for San Francisco so we can have workable rules. So, yes for adus, but you know, things like open space, exposure and so on are important. [bell ringing] jonas thank you, ms. Chapman. Id like to second the comments made by jerry. Would like you to send this back for further work. Youre asked to approve this on the findings of public necessity. Well, where is the evidence . Just because the state has passed a law, yes, you have to reconcile with that, but where is the public necessity . Adus are a good idea, but they are conditions. For example, the original adu legislation in San Francisco mandated that these units be placed under rent control. So while they could be charged anything for their initial rent, at least over time, they would become more affordable housing. And calling them affordable is without any restrictions, without rent control or any other restrictions is a joke. So that has to be changed. And allowing units to be subject to use as airbnb . That is, again, a travesty. Its not a Public Benefit to have an adu used as an airbnb. We need housing, not airbnb. Also, the loose verification of tenant occupancy is another flaw. Asking the owner to provide notice to any tenant in place [bell ringing] allowing that to be notice. Thats hardly sufficient. Please protect the tenants of San Francisco. This needs a lot more work. And should not go beyond what is required by law at this time. Thank you. Yes, hello, commissioners. This is kathrin howard. I oppose this legislation. This legislation, despite what staff said, will result in changes to the environment because it means the end of inner block open spaces in San Francisco. Backyards are an important part of our open space. They provide a safe place for children to play and place for families to socialize at all times and especially now during covid. Further more, wildlife now depends on open spaces in our cities. They provide habitat for them. By eliminating backyards were shrinking the territory open to them to forage, nest and raise their young. That tree peeking out behind the building, that will be gone under this legislation. I am concerned because this legislation is also part of a planned attack on the ceqa process in San Francisco. Developers hate ceqa and are always attacking it. Thats to be expected. But i find it disturbing that our City Government has decided once again to attack ceqa. I would like to outline the benefit of ceqa and why we should support and not attack it. Ceqa sets up an orderly manageable track that project proponents and residents can follow. It protects public health. The ceqa process has been used to cut climate pollution, reduce air and Water Pollution and protect open space and habitats. Ceqa ensures Environmental Justice and equity are part of the decisionmaking process. [bell ringing] it gives san franciscans the opportunity to know what is planned in their communities and weigh in to help reduce health and environmental impacts. And it minimizes Court Challenges to projects. This legislation really needs a lot of work. It should be rejected for the attack on ceqa and the attack on the much needed habitat and open space. Thank you. Hello. This is anastasia, district 8 senior tenant. Actually the basis for recommendation by the department to support the proposed ordinance, i disagree with it, because it supports the Housing Elements goes to ensure adequate housing for current and future san franciscans. Well, these are not affordable units. These are going to be marketrate units. And in fact, right in the its called the your executive summary, it says even if adus are less costly due to smaller Square Footage, adus are not typically rented at very low or lowincome ami levels, so there is still an affordableability issue. This is on the section of racial justice. Skipping down to the tenant issue, it says, well, if there has been e evictions within the last 10 years of prior to filing application for the adu, or the tenant was evicted in five years prior to filing the application. Now where is our rent ordinance telling people im just so upset that [bell ringing] any owner could say, yeah, nobody lived here prior. I never evicted somebody. So there is no validation. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. I have been the permit consultant after utilizing illegal dwelling units and creating new dwelling units, quite often in odd places, in basements. Ive been doing that since the late 80s. And ive watched as the policies and legislation have developed and amazed were finally dispensing with our carobsessed planning policies. Its about time that we have taken these steps and stop linking a kitchen sink to a parking space. The elimination of the rooms matrix is long overdue. That was created very specifically to prevent people from adding bedrooms or creating new rooms for people to live in in their basements. And the way we live now is very different from the ward cleaver version of american reality that was experienced at the time that was first conceived, never mind it already being obsolete at the time it was put in place in the early 90s. I have seen that on policy brought into being from my experience, it seems based on a racist and [bell ringing] perspective on what a family is and what a family is not. I welcome the rooms matrix going away and making it possible for families to live in their homes the way they choose to live in them. With multiple kitchens if they need them. With outdoors separating them from their parents or their children. Without security separations. Its time to free the home. And let more people start to live in our neighborhoods. Thank you very much. I agree completely with the previous caller. Thank you for the adu changes to bring San Franciscos law into compliance with the new state laws. I wish we could actually go further and repeal planning code section 207 and move the streamlining sections into a separate part, because frankly, planning code 207, as a are emine der, its the density units that prohibit you from putting a two unit building in the excelsior. Almost my entire life i have lived in undocumented inlaw units in San Francisco. If it werent for those undocumented inlaw units, i would not have been able to grow up in San Francisco because of the lack of housing and the fact that adus are the most affordable form of housing. The units are obsolete in 1990 and even more obsolete today. We should just take out the dwelling completely in my opinion. Not just commenting on Zoning Administrator cory teague mentioned about that one. I agree its obsolete. The roomsdown policy was to trying to prevent adus. Now that the state and the city have made 180 turn on the issues, there is no need to prohibit rooms. We should encourage homeowners to make adus. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Calling in opposition to this new adu ordinance. And i am absolutely disappointed that at a time we are facing evictions, were facing people that are having a hard time paying their mortgage, mayor breed, instead, is introducing a legislation, introducing an ordinance that is absolutely insensitive to the plight of the people in San Francisco. What is the rush to adopt a state law that was passed before the pandemic changed everything . Why the rush to streamline approval process at the cost of removing the neighborhoods voice . And at the cost of screwing over the tenants . These spaces for the most part are leased to tenants on a legal contract. You cant just take them away because the planning decides to run a process, socalled streamline the process. Plus, at a time that the construction has slowed down, as evidenced by what director hillis stated a few weeks ago. 19 million budget shortfall. Thats 42 of the Planning Department budget that the department is short. So why the rush to do this . Commissioners, heres my question for you. Why dont you ask the staff has adopted this . Another question. Wouldnt this adu in the backyard have impact on the yard averaging . I encourage you to look at the planning code from section 134c to see how the interpretation from 1986 would allow yard averaging of a legal residence in the backyard so that neighbor next door could actually even build further into the backyard. Why is it at a time that our only [bell ringing] backyard, safe space, is why is it that the [bell ringing] rent control status is being denied. A city with thank you, thats your time. Hi. Good afternoon. I was glad the staff report noted about the mid lock open space and the issue there. I think your staff has done a report where the greatest source of tree canopy in the city is the private open space. Cumulatively, the mid block open space, thats the greatest source of tree canopy. And thats our lungs, hypothetically, of the city. And weve already seen a lot of that lost in noe valley where they turned the backyard into nothing more than cement bunkers. I guess thats my issue with this legislation. It doesnt distinguish between somebody who wants to build a place for their mom or dad or their kids or an aunt, versus a speculator. And the whole issue with the kitchens is very, very important. Because were already seeing and this has come up a lot with the second units, the legal second units, nonadus, where they dont have real kitchens. They have wine refrigerators. And they pass mustard with d. B. I. So when he said that, he was spot on about there is no coordination with d. B. I. And you. It happened last night in the board of appeals as well. It happened across the street as well from me. Thats that. I think you should look at 653 28th street which you put an adu before, back in 2017. Its still not done. The adu is not in there yet. Its basically below ground. The house that was there could have easily had an adu in the garage and been expanded a little bit and kept the backyard. So one more thing i want to say, i know people dont like cars, but some people still need their cars [bell ringing] keep the curb cut and let people park in their driveway. They can do that now anyway. Youre not giving up anything to the public by doing that. Think about the trees and the importance of the backyard. Im done. Thank you, goodbye. Thank you, too. Good afternoon, this is sara ogleby, a renter in the Mission District. I would like to speak in support of the state mandated accessory dwelling unit control. I would like to affirm the comments of mr. Randolph and the caller before him i. I think its time to completely revisit the use of the space in San Francisco, especially considering our up coming Housing Element. State mandated things are happening because we havent built enough homes. So we need to really take a look at these opportunities to do so. If were going to question this type of legislation, other legislation should be forth coming in the next four years that will definitely upzone parts of San Francisco. And so this is an important first step. I think that the Planning Commission has done their diligence. And they have made findings consistent with the general plan. And the eight priority policies of the planning code. So, again, i urge you to approve the recommendation and support this legislation in San Francisco. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is letisha young. Im a homeowner in San Francisco. And i am also a Real Estate Investor in San Francisco. However, i am calling today to oppose the Planning Commissions adoption of this ordinance for a number of reasons. First of all, the ordinance misstates the Government Code Section 65852. 2, which is the most recent adu legislation. It says that ministerial actions are not subject to ceqa. The statement is absolutely untrue. The latest government code does not mention ceqa at all, much less say that reviews are not subject to ceqa. That is an untrue statement. The second issue, this ordinance ignores that many physical changes to the environment may happen and this does in fact require the ministerial actions to be considereds a project. As a project. By allowing this to move forward, there could be significant environmental impact. There could be a direct impact on the biodiversity for plants and animals that depend on urban space to survive, impact the open space by reducing the quantity of the space and impact the air quality which we struggle with so much these days. These are just a few of the very long list of very potential important effects. The last thing i would say, is that the Planning Department staff failed to provide a copy of its ceqa determination [bell ringing] attached to the ordinance. This determine nation and its reasons must be provided for public review and comment. We dont know what the activity is being provided by ceqa, who exempted it and for what legal reason. Great, thank you. Members of the public, last call for Public Comment. If you wish to submit your testimony, please press star and 3 to enter the queue. Commissioners, i have no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. Public comment is now closed. The matter is now before you. I understand that City Attorney there he is. This is deputy City Attorney. Can you hear me . Jonas we can, yes. Thank you. Planning staff just asked me to weigh in here. I wanted to confirm a few things. For the commissions benefit. The first is that with exception the exception of the minor clarifying amendments to the citys local discretionary program, this ordinance is necessary to bring our local controls into compliance are recent amendments of state law. Those amendments do require the city to ministerially approve projects that meet certain requirements and do restrict further restrict the citys discretion to impose certain planning code standards on certain adu projects. Once that is indeed the case. Ms. Flores was accurate in the description of the need for the ordinance. I want to touch on the ceqa determination and mention that determination was available or is available on the boards website in the board file. And its also cited in the ordinance itself. Thank you. While im waiting other commissioners, i wanted to say im in favor of what is in front of us today, seeing that based on City Attorneys advice, this is just bringing us into compliance with state law. Commissioner fung . Commissioner fung question for either our staff or the City Attorney representative who just spoke. The one change that was being proposed by the Preservation Commission, does that conform to the state ordinance . Thank you, commissioner fung. I know that probably was a little confusing, so thank you for allowing me the time to explain a little further. The ordinance as written currently removes the to the architectural standard that the Historic Preservation Commission Adopted last year. So that striking of the language is not required by state law. We do have the ability under state law to impose those objective architectural standards which is something that the h. P. C. Wanted to continue to do so. So part of the effort will be for the standards themselves to be modified at a later date. And in the interim, we will we will impose those standards that do comply with the state law. So the there is a slight change in the that part of section again, striking it is not required by state law, but we want to be able to retain that authority. Commissioner fung and the review standards, architectural review standards portion of it, it would be not be a certificate of appropriateness then . So the state mandated adu, we do not have the ability to have any discretionary action, including things like certificates of appropriateness, which are inherently discretionary. So only those under adus under our local program would be subject to the certificate of appropriateness if they do not meet the minor report that are outlined in the delegation agreement. In the h. P. C. Allegation agreement. I see on the video here, if she has anything else to add, id like to invite her to speak. Thank you. Planning department staff. Veronica is correct. So state law seeks permit and takes away the discretion of the process of the [inaudible] article 10 or 11 property. That is mainly for adus added for state law. Our local Program Still remains used more widely and adus added to 10 or 11 properties will still have to go through the process of certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner fung okay. President koppel commissioner tanner . Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Thank you, ms. Flores, for the presentation. Can you tell me about i heard a lot of folks talking about rent control. Can you help me understand why the rent control cannot be applied to the state mandated adus . Is it something specific in the statute or considered a discretionary action . Why can we not impose rent control on those units . Sure, thank you, commissioner tanner. So with respect to the rent control question or rent control concern. State mandated adus do not receive any waivers. Only those adus that are pursued under our local program are granted waivers. So in exchange for granting these waivers, that is the time, the only time when the city is able to enter into the agreement to be able to impose rent control. So again, that is outside of what were talking about today. And i know its a big question. And it does come up often. That is the highlevel explanation. [please stand by] [please stand by] the and theres been local and state law standards. Well have to do more research on the impact of the later state law changes on a. D. U. S in the process. Thank you. Sorry, commissioners i will keep going through the rent control topic. When it comes to the monitoring of rent control units how is the Department Monitoring those and what is the information and data gathered around the rents or other things related to rent control or a. D. U. S . A. D. U. S are monitored as part of our housing inventory. We do subject a. D. U. S through the rent control agreement and [indiscernible]. Are we monitoring and getting information about this affordability of the units and wondering if were able to monitor and how much theyre paying for rent or heres the number of permits issued. We dont know how much theyre being rented for . The data we have available how many a. D. U. S have been built subject to rent control. To date about 380 units have been built and 281 are subject to rent control. Our local programs still the program primarily for a. D. U. S and certain cases it offers more opportunities as well as [indiscernible]. Does that answer your question . Commissioner that does, thank you. So curious to see that for detached a. D. U. S space up to 1200 square feet is that correct . It could be in the rear yard, for example. Is that correct . The detached a. D. U. Could be in the rear yard. Anywhere on the lot which requires fourfoot setback from the property line. Commissioner why not have the maximum size for the a. D. U. s be 800 square feet . My understanding is 800 or 850 is whats required by state law to be approved. It seems if we do want to retain the open space pattern at least as much as we can trying to streamline the size of the a. D. U. S would go further and folks that want to go bigger would have to use the local program and have more exchange. I dont want to reduce the a. D. U. S constructed by any means to having them conform more to our code and design is better and in line with policies. Why would allow a 1200 square foot a. D. U. To be approved. Under the program that Square Footage is 800 square feet. Commissioner commissioner imperial. Commissioner thank you. Those were really good questions regarding the rent control. I think my one big issue on the ordinance is not be subject to rent control and how will this impact the existing tenants. Here theres wait on the City Attorney on waiting on the ordinance. I do have a question when it comes to affordability. How are we going to ensure that these a. D. U. Are also meeting goals for San Francisco . These are what should be discussed and have analysis. A. D. U. S are 20 cheaper than market rate. And another question i have is in 8068 which i believe the ordinance cited, it does look into the factor at the traffic, sewage, parking. How are we and maybe this is a question for our administrators, how are we going to designate areas that the local agency can designate areas with different factors . I how are we going and if were complying with state law, how are we going to regulate the a. D. U. S that need to look at other aspects . Thank you, commissioner imperial. Regarding the first comment on the goals, i do want to say that the department has been working on the next set of the Housing Element and well touch base and have more information for you regarding the a. D. U. And how it all relates and director hillis has also joined us and dont know if they want to comment on this matter. Commissioner, you both raised issues about data selection and look at how the a. D. U. S weve produced under the past ordinances and potentially under the states rules, whos living in them and what the rents are and theres discussion about these being generally more affordable but we recognize these are market rates generally but i think as part of our Housing Element we can dig deeper into that question about rents and who is living in these units and try to get out that question because its an important one. I think it would be important for us as we consider future policy discussions around a. D. U. S. We dont have that data. Another thing too is when it comes to i bring up the issue of ceqa. Ceqa still exists and [indiscernible] how are we not how is this ordinance are we in compliance or not in compliance with ceqa at this point . Thank you, again, commissioner imperial . Again, the state mandated a. D. U. Permit, these are ministerial permits and not subject to ceqas. Thats a highlevel response for you and i did want to get our ci City Attorneys available for the more Technical Details for you today. City attorney yang did you want to hand that will question . Sure. So the issue before the commission today is the ceqa analysis for the legislative code and these are changes to the process in which a. D. U. S are considered and staff made a determination put in the board file and available to the public. But they followed the procedured required. Im looking at a multifamily building and i think of different scenarios as well. And what will take in the input of the community and another thing for me as well is how it will impact the open space in the city . This is something we dont have analysis on as well. Im wondering if these are things that we have right now is it going over to the state law that and i believe its cited different laws 8068 seems to be the most and i wish it was in our packet as well which state laws i believe 88 1, 8086 it would be good to have that citation in our packets and how it will impact our open space. Regarding the comments on which the bills cited ab8068, abf1 and apologies if that was not stated in the staff report for you but id like to confirm that again for you right now and with respect to the question regarding the open space, this is an area where theres an expansion on types of a. D. U. S well be seeing and where theyll be located on the property. Mmhmm. As explained earlier under the streamlined a. D. U. S is the ability to add a detached a. D. U. Up to 1200 square feet in the rear yard of the property so long as it has the fourfoot setbacks. We recognize this is going to have an impact on the open space however, with the size and height restriction we feel that theres still a balance there and again i did highlight if we come into conflict with the concerns you, as the commission have, such as the issues brought up but i want to emphasize the ordinance and this type of a. D. U. And detached streamline a. D. U. Example wed like to have you approve. Commissioner commissioner moore. Commissioner thank you. I think we share many of the same questions and id like to thank the public for having added a significant amount of questions to the discussion which make me think we may need more time and work and theres been criticism on the acknowledgement and you mentioned yourself the complete absence of knowledge which state legislations being used here is very difficult for both of us who are not [indiscernible] day in and day out hovering over state legislation for myself i say i do not. I periodically follow things and follow 8068 particularly the change to rent control and protections of rent control. I found that issue as being part of the citys dna and for the protection and expansion of rent controls basically with this particular a. D. U. I think the concerns expressed about open space are the once significantly shared if were having open space ajace edjacen multiunit Apartment Building the open space is for the tenants who live in the building and follows the criteria for necessary open space and would be greatly diminished. By adding an a. D. U. Up to 1200 square feet in that open space were diminishing the open space for those who live in the building i consider that as a reduction of quality of life not to talk about the usability of open space with an independent structure there. I appreciate your attempt of putting more to this ordinance by saying it needs four feet here and there. I think that is a circumstantial thing and i do have problems with all reviews being category automatically exempted [indiscernible] we received letters from the public on the ceqas determination and this is only in your presentation i understand was filed and a do not research the supervisors backgrounds and would appreciate that would be acknowledged as missing because it needs to be there. Ill take one more moment here. In your motion under findings and under compliance and the general plan im reading into the record Housing Elements objective 1. 5, identifying making available for development at thecyte at the cite to make permanently affordable housing. Thats not being addressed you were describing today and policy 1. 5 the secondary unit with support and can be achieved the housing was made permanently affordable to households and the support requires review and participation and we are not talking about permanently affordable to lowerincome households. I believe that particular statement policy 1. 5 is a contradiction to saying Racial Equity because i find that essential for us to know what were voting on and that particular element makes me feel uncomfortable. Thank you. Commissioner chen. Commissioner thank you fole fellow commissioners by your questions. Im encouraged about collecting more data on the a. D. U. S built so far and the affordability levels theyre currently offered at and i want to thank for clarifying and responding to specifically 8068 and sb13. And for me im wondering how the department operates under the state mandates insect with other state laws ab671 which requires governments to have an element to promote the creation of a. D. U. S offered for low to moderate income households. It seems we should be talking about the state requirement with the whole package of mandates. I feel whats getting lost in the discussion right now and im not hearing very much about is how were coming up with a plan to make sure a. D. U. S will be affordable for low and middleincome households. Im interested in supervisor mars Pilot Program and hearing the outcome because i think it acknowledges correctly that not everyone is equally able to participate in the program. A. D. U. S require a certain amount of capital and knowhow and people come to the Development Table with Different Levels of experience and particularly lowerincome households lack resources and we have a. D. U. Developers who are not always incentivized to make it affordable to lowerincome households. I think having the state mandated a. D. U. S are not going to create the affordable a. D. U. S in the Housing Element and policy 1. 5 as commissioner moore mentioned. I want to see the department get ahead of the curve and to think creatively and intentionally on what such a plan looks like and that may be coming up with a plan on incentives or outreach programs that really aim to get at those outcomes. I think is a good example is the programs. Its also been cleared and having a program alone doesnt mean equal access. The department has also been agile and show that it can come together to provide resources and support so that program can be equitable. So i think the a. D. U. Program isnt just looking at building the number of units alone, its understanding the equity barriers. I think thats a particular problem and i think we can have a plan to make sure that were not just building a. D. U. S but creating a. D. U. S as affordable rental housing for lowerincome households which we need to be doing any way as part of the a. D. U. 671. Like the other commissioners, i do think theres some missing pieces in the staff report and i think in particular i would really want to see for example an audit of a. D. U. S proved to date and having the information in support of the supervisors will be useful to have the commissioner before them i think is the ordinance and in particular i think the questions are how many of those a. D. U. S are at rates that are affordable to low and moderate Household Incomes and under the new program what is the potential loss of rent controlled units and i think overall hows it help us to understand how many a. D. U. S create under the state laws will allow us to mandate for affordable rental housing at low and moderate income households. Commissioner diamond. Commissioner one clarifying question for staff and then a question for the City Attorney. For staff, im a little confused by the impact of the streamlined a. D. U. S on mid block open space. Ive been reading the summary correct correct correctly so long as you meet the fourfoot setbacks you can have a detached a. D. U. Of 1200 square feet we can say for arguments sake is 30x4 and many are on lots 30 feet wide. Are you saying we could have detached a. D. U. S that essentially fill the backwards . Backyards . State law requires we meet the fourfoot setback and requires 60 foot in height limits and the Square Footage of 1200 square feet. We would violate state law. I want to clarify or the ministerial state law the detached a. D. U. S would have to be within the buildable area and would have to meet the code requirements. Commissioner im not concerned about the ministerial ones but extremely concerned about the streamlined ones because the state law seems like it didnt allow for it didnt distinguish between the areas like in San Francisco and larger lots that exist in the state and the 1200 square foot size could eliminate our back yards or our neighbors back yards which is an area of extreme concern to me with regard to open space and it strikes me if the city is going to consider lobbying the state at all about changes, that is one that we might want to take into account because of the extraordinary impact it has in dense urban areas. Just a point for your consideration. You do have a question for the City Attorney which is a number of the points that were raised by my fellow commissioners were all excellent points but what happens if we dont adopt the ordinance . What is the im tell me what the state of affairs is if we dont adopt the ordinance given its a state requirement . Commissioner diamond, the state of affairs is essentially the current state of affairs. The state laws took effect january 1 of this year and the city has already required to approve a. D. U. S pursuant to the state law ministerial approval requirements. Whether the ordinance pass or not, the city will be required to apply those ministerial standards and not only those ministerial standards to a. D. U. Permit applications. Commissioner and the ordinance and therefore adopting the ordinance does what . Helps us create a smoother process for implementing whats been otherwise is going to exist even if we dont adopt the ordinance . City attorney i think theres a number of reasons why the ordinance should be adopted. To the community and public is probably the primary one. Our local code should be accurate and reflect the requirements and apply that to s throughout the city. Its important for our code to keep pace with changes in state law that require it it to change. It does also allow the city to be very clear about how the state law requirements interact or relate to other provisions of local codes and so making those connections and cross references is important as well. Commissioner okay. Thank you for that clarification. While i agree with my fellow commissioners there are many areas unclear and where Additional Data would be helpful and areas where data might lead to legislative changes and i like commissioner koppel would support the ordinance at this time but i would like us to pursueyy the data request other commissioners and will be helpful in understanding the impact of state law and what changes we might want to pursue with the state. Theres things like rent control, mid block and open space and others like affordability were having to implement this within our code nort and informing local ordinances. Def we are already required to implement the law. You can already put a 1200 square foot a. D. U. In your back yard. We dont know how many people will avail themselves to it but wewe do know the attached a. D. U. S are more affordable and with a detached a. D. U. You have to run a separate sewer lines and barriers to constructing a detached a. D. U. So whether a lot of people take advantage of it or not, the a. D. U. Is always stated in our case report for the ceqa determination. We dont ever include a ceqa determination in the actual form e. P. Sends out to the board because its an extra added piece of paper. We just say what the ceqa determination is. It is in your packet. Im not sure what the confusion is it. Those are clarifying points i wanted to make. Thanks. Thank you, mr. Stark. Commissioner tanner. Commissioner thank you. Thank you for that information about the constructability of the detached a. D. U. S. It does give hope the other pathways are achievable and building on the idea, i wonder and maybe this is a question for you, mr. Hillis, what do we have to incentivize people to take the other programs or c waivers the report mentioned as 750 square feet there are no impact fees and there are proportional fees. That may be an encouragement for 750 square feet a. D. U. I wonder if we did develop another fee waiver could we implement rent control for those with the Fee Waiver Program or restrictions such as not having a 1200 square foot detached a. D. U. And talking about fees may not be looking at fees and thinking about incentive around how can we make other programs more attractive and also more equitable and accessible for folks to build a. D. U. S . Maybe the City Attorney can chime in. What the fees are for locally controlled a. D. U. S. I agree with you the incentive is you can build an a. D. U. Under the state laws will be to take or do it under the state law because its ministerial and not required to do some things for the local ordinance. I think its a fair point. I think one we can look in to. I think theres currently the fees are relatively low on our current locally controlled a. D. U. S but maybe someone can look in to that. Ill respond on the legal question whether theres an opportunity to pursue fee waivers and exceptions under costa hawksin. I dont have an a hawkins. I think fee waiver was sufficient in utilizing the exception to coste hawkins and we need to make sure theres represent control. Does anyone know what the freeze we currently charge for a. D. U. S . Im thinking about the barriers to constructing them we can alleviate a path to allay some fears weve discussed in the commission. A. D. U. S are subject to the Standard Building application fee. So those are pretty standard across the board. It depends on the cost of construction. Certain a. D. U. S are smaller and up to code. We pulled data to understand the impact fee. Its pretty minor. A. D. U. S are added in neighborhoods that dont have specific impact fees. On average the only fee triggered depending on childcare or residential fee and it was around 600 per application. And then in regards to your first part of question about incentivizing the program. A local Program Allows more opportunities for a. D. U. S and many cases an unlimited number of a. D. U. S may be created and usually an incentive for Property Owners. In some cases the applicants are able to also partner with the mandatory program to allow a. D. U. S. Commissioner id it seems the fees could be high or low and not forward to appropriate to put forward a fee waiver at the time but maybe once we recover from the economic downturn as an incentive or opportunity to supply low and moderate income home owners and decrease building fees to help improve our racial and social equity goals. If we can look at that over the next year or two, i think that its suggested in the staff report but theres questions as operating some type of program like that would need to be considered and i dont think would be appropriate to put in this ordinance at this time but something id like to see. And on a totally different topic, interior connects between attached a. D. U. S are they allowed or prohibited . Theres an ordinance about needing exterior or independent entrances. Theres also concerns when its not an a. D. U. Which may show rest rooms and it may have an expanded home which may be fine or whatever but its not achieving our goals for more housing units. Are there prohibitions around shared entries or interior entries and access from the main unit and if not can we add those to have more assurance or at least try to have more assurance to have an independent living unit that is not just an extension of an existing home. Because a. D. U. S are a type of dwelling unit, they do require to be physically independent. Thats always how the a. D. U. S have been constructed. Now because of the new type of a. D. U. , which we refer to as a junior a. D. U. Is the only one that allows for an interior connection. And state law requires a separate entry. These are always functioned as separate and distinct living spaces. Thank you. Thats my questions. Commissioner moore. The questions that i still have are partially answered and i will bid my time to the commission. Thank you. Commissioner imperial. Commissioner thank you. Just one more question because i saw that in this ordinance that an existing tenant in an a. D. U. Theyll be given a 15day notice. What is the basis on that and the notice and is there state compliance for providing a notice for a tenant . Thank you, commissioner. State law does not have a noticing requirement. The proposed changes to the noticing as part of our ordinance refer back to the department of living instruction screening forms which has been in effect for quite some time. That requires the Property Owners to post a notice for 15 calendar days if theres a removal of Housing Services and affected tenant. The proposed legislation requires if there are tenant in these situations the Property Owner post before submitting to give heads up to the applicants applicants applicantsesapplicants or tenants. This was in the legislation . The addition of a. D. U. Was not normally noticed unless its part of an expansion and the expansion is what triggers it under the planning code. If i can clarify one thing, im not sure if i was clear. The screening form does apply to all a. D. U. S being added so regardless if its a local program or statemandated program, that form must be completed by the applicant if theres a lack of Housing Services or affected tenant. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner fung. Commissioner the question before us is not whether we like this particular ordinance or the things that will change within the code, there are some things that im not in agreement with in terms of the ordinance. However whether we adopt this or not, the requirement is still there from the state. I would be supportive of at least at this point in time creating a conformance with the state codes. I would request those with the state legislators there needs to be some changes for dense urban settings such as San Francisco. Did you have comments . Yes, thank you. We heard your request to have our data on the a. D. U. And staff is able to gather the data requested but i did want to emphasize once its enacted. We dont the how many a. D. U. S will pursue the law under the program. Thats ultimately up to the owner on which they qualify for and two if they qualify for more than one program its really about what are their goals for the a. D. U. If any of those cater more to their goals. In looking at the data its not fully telling of what the future will look like for a. D. U. S. Thats one commented i wanted to reiterate for you today. As commissioner fung point the out what is required under state law and a want to emphasize that state laws dont allow us to be less restrictive and to that means we can go in and have some more flexibility than what the state law man dates. Were not looking mandates. Were not looking into those aspects but we can do so in the future. The focus is to bring up to compliance under state law the three bills under affect as of january 1 this year. Thats an overall comment i want to reiterate to you and well look more into the questions and comments or others offered in the department. Lastly, as a reminder, h. P. C. Did recommend keeping the preference to the standards which is currently in the draft ordinance. In your action you have the ability to mirror this recommendation if youd like and is appropriate and would allow us to impose the standards which are consistent with state law. Commissioner moore. Commissioner its not one size fits all legislation. As outlined it flies in the face of the type of dwelling units were talking about and thats where state legislature is [indiscernible] with the plans of stran francisco and im obligated to bring that into the record and consider and i do share the other commissioners concerns about [indiscernible] and until we have clarification im not able to support it particularly as outlined there may be certain things coming to us in the future. That is not enough. This is a major shift in general city policy with particular aspects unclear i would have to know more about it to support it and i like the idea of a. D. U. S. [indiscernible] and i would not be prepared to support whats in front of me today and willing to entertain a robust conversation on refinements. Do i dare ask any commissioner make a motion . Okay, ill wait. Commissioner im prepared we move to adopt the ordinance with the amendment proposed by the Preservation Commission that applies to landmarks and landmark districts. Second. Very good, commissioners. Just to clarify, the standards the standards from the ordinance of the Historic Preservation commission. On that motion to approve this ordinance with the amendment to include a reference to the review standards. [roll call]. So moved commissioners it passes 52 with commissioner imperial and moore voting against. That would place us on item 10 for case number 2020005123cua. Is staff prepared no make the presentation . Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Before you is a commissioner use authorization pursuant to section 303, 303. 1, 703. 4 and 745 to allow for a general retail sales and Service Retail use within the Mission Street Zoning District. The proposed project would authorize a general retail sales and service for retail use in a vacant ground floor tenant space. The tenant space was previously occupied. With no expansion of the existing building. The project site is located in the latino cultural district. It recognizes the contributions of the latino communities to surrounding neighborhood and San Francisco as a whole but does not present any land use controls. Within the 300 foot radius of the project site, six of the approximately 29 commercial storefront on the frowned floor have retail ground floor have retail uses. If approved it will increase the concentration of retail from 21 to 24 . For many Retail Store Fronts will increase from 36 to 38 . For the section of the code without concentration limits or set maximums for retail use. The project sponsor conducted a preapplication meeting. To date the department has received six letters of support and none in opposition. Its on activate vacant score storefront and wallbeds n more as tenants and they have held outreach meetings. In a zoom meeting representatives asked how the location was chosen and how the business will benefit local residents and what Job Opportunities are available. Concerns were raised about the furnishing being too expensive and the project sponsor discussed lowercost items as well as Financing Options and making products more affordable also. The Department Finds the project is unbalanced, consistent with the intent of the Zoning District and the Mission Area Plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will activate a vacant storefront and provide Home Furnishing tailored towards smallersized apartments like the San Francisco Housing Stock and they find it necessary, desirable and compatible with needs. This concludes the staff presentation. The project sproerns sponsor is here and ill be ready to answer any questions. Thank you. I commend staff for after the a. D. U. Discussion we have a very simple solution to making good use of the existing structure without having to go through legislation or permits. So having a wallbed you can turn a onebedroom into a twobedroom or a bedroom into an office. This is a great product for dense urban settings. Also what is noteworthy is this is [indiscernible] for those who have encouraged brick and mortar buildings and its important space saving which is important for land use with our housing crisis. The location is also extremely beneficial. This is a vacant space. Vacant for two years. Its in the middle of [indiscernible] so very prominent in terms of the district because its relativelyy furniture it happens to have the benefit of a yellow zone right next door. And its protected from traffic on the street. There was Community Outreach on this and we found nothing but positively, as you can imagine given what this is. The operator is available. Basically they want to integrate in the community. They want as much bilingual staff and involved in groups and also we have inclined for all the beautiful art behind there and wants to display art and is working with local artists. I cant think of a better fit and theres only 12 of these in the entire world and a few in texas and washington. Im available if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, that concludes project sponsor presentation. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, youll have two minutes. Caller hi, this is ryan mots with the Mission Merchants association. We first met the project sponsor we wanted to understand how wallbeds and more would benefit the Mission District and how it could serve an area where highend and expensive furniture is not needed. We learned wallbeds and more as a lot of Affordable Solutions and can benefit the mission by offering affordable solution for tight spaces in the area are space is very scarce. It was noted that that area in the building has been vacant for two years and currently vacancies seem to be higher than ive seen in recent history. After learning the intended use and what was need from the constituents and serving the district we unanimously put it to support for this project we think its a good addition and needed addition to the Mission District. Thank you very much. Members of the public, last call for Public Comment if you wish to submit your testimony regarding this matter press star 3 to enter the queue. I see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. Public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. Commissioner chan. Commissioner when do you think youll open if approved for conditional use, when would the store be open for business . Well, i think the first thing since ive done a lot of permitting i think we can [indiscernible] the way this works commissioner i dont need the process but i want a sense if the store will open later 2021, early 2021 . 2021 and theres an appeal period after that we have to wait and for any restrictions to come and the Property Owner has to execute that and then goes to the Recorders Office and then its recorded and to the architect and [indiscernible] upon that approval the owner can offer Building Permits as well as cite site permits. It will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] its ait will t commissioner. [indiscernible] its a site. It will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] its asite perm. It will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] its apermits. It will take about 90 days, commissioner. [indiscernible] its a perfect location. Commissioner okay. Can the project sponsor speak to how many employees would run the store and what skills they would need. [indiscernible] these are operational questions she could answer. Theres obviously employees on the floor for the sales and theres insulation and [indiscernible]. Additional services in the San Francisco market. Commissioner i know your reference is on the [indiscernible] by accident . One of my questions i was trying to understand the real benefits to community. One getting a sense of whats opening and theres a pandemic and timing for the store to be successful and who will be employed because thats a benefit and i want to know more about that benefit and lastly is about the operations in terms delivery of these. We all experiences park in front of the shops and the furniture is big. You need a truck and need to move it around and are you offering Delivery Services . Would that be something thats needed in the area having a loading zone so that either the guest or customers or the delivery trucks have an opportunity to safely get the furniture and take it to the location where its being delivered. You may not know the answer to that question. The parking i can speak to is on the 2600 block of main street 22nd and 23nd and next to the grand theatre. Theres a yellow commercial strip which is perfect for the business. In terms of the passenger [indiscernible] i dont know if youre family with this area. From the 21st to 22nd its a block away from the Public Parking block. They can come in and buy a box spring and theres a range of product which is are affordable and theres neat stuff and i believe and you can have a bed in the evening and dining table in the daytime. And in terms of bilingual folks thank you. Thats a great location for this type of use. Thank you. Commissioner imperial. Commissioner thank you. For the project sponsor because the packet didnt say what you had or the things that are going community especially the ones here can you elaborate again the discussion youve had with the community and the one thing that i ask about bilingual staff being there and can you elaborate and theres some echoing as well so we can hear in the record what has been discussed. If i can interject, i dont flow if youre Computer Speakers on or have volume turned on but there is a significant echo coming. Ill try to annunciate better. We have smaller ones than those built here and qua ive seen is sales people somebody coming in and during covid i understand theyve been making appointments. Its not like going to ikea or Something Like that. Its much more personal. [indiscernible] you cant get convertible sofas and what not we have special events its good for business and the project sponsor said theyd work with the Merchants Association to do special event marketing which is very important to have merchants. I mentioned about working with the local artists and giving them a place to display and sell their art. Its at the price point you talk about and the merchants are favorably inclined towards open store fronts. People are able to look in and walk in its what you want to have. And they want to give equal opportunity to do that. Theres concessions with the neighborhood groups. Its good to see you reach out in the cultural district and though having that effort to reach out and incorporating them we know the best is the community where youre doing your service. Commissioner moore. Youre muted. Commissioner i have a question for you. The furniture thats being sold in this particular store is this a show room and is it put together and to what you mentioned or is all furniture directly sold from the store to the buyer . Its mostly a show room. Its too heavy to tuck under your arm and walk out the froont door with and the installation of it, you should know what youre doing. You want that secured against the wall. I think it makes a more interesting store when people can look at their own fabric and see what they want. Thats a great idea. Any other stuff you listed with the community informalized and in the memorandum of understanding or have an ongoing evolving formalized and in the memorandum of understanding or have an ongoing evolving relationship . We have an m. O. U. And signed it and dated and signed over to the c. E. O. So you have adoption commissioner moore. Commissioner thank you for saying that because obviously we like to hear active Community Engage the and like it and we have ongoing productive relationships and i appreciate you explaining that and im prepared to make a motion to approve the project. Second. Second. Commissioner fung. Commissioner motion has already been made. In that case commissioners, if theres no further deliberation we should take one more Public Comment that came up. Commissioner go ahead. Go ahead, caller. Caller this is peter popo p popodoplous. I had trouble getting in. We were kept in the loop and i like what im hearing and the details from local artists and bilingual staff and space for local artists is i premium right now and lastly making sure making sure theres an greeme greement an agreement to make sure theres affordable items because wallbeds and mohr can more can be a pricier shop and make sure people can buy things for well under 1,000 and we always find items and we appreciate that and thank you for your work on this and thank you for digging into this a little bit and giving me a minute to log in. Thank you. That will conclude the Public Comment and theres a motion to approve. [roll call] so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously. 70. The final item on todays agenda, item 11, 2020006148cua. A conditional use authorization. Staff are you prepared. Yes. The item before you is a list for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 202. 303 and 739 to establish a 1,455 square foot cannabis unit. The project also includes a rear addition to the structure including construction of a new secondfloor deck at the rear of the building for the residential unit and replacement of the stairs leading from the rear yard up to the residential unit. They originally requested approval of the rear yard hands been moved the department indicated a request may not be afforded to the residential unit. The project was found to meet the rule as the finding section 202. 2 and that its more than 600 feet from any school, public or private, and any other cannabis storefront including medical cannabis dispensaries. The project applicant was found to meet equity requirements at the office of cannabis. The project does not include request for authorization an on site smoking or vaporizing room and the packet is to prohibit smoking or vaping of cannabis product including in the rear yard. Permits only allow for the consumption of edibles an topical cannabis products. The department received one letter in support and five in opposition including one from a residential tenant that resides in the subject building. The letter in support is for the operator and Business Model and using a vacant storefront in an area with a significant amount of vacancies and the letter of opposition generallicyte genera cited the neighborhood was not in need of additional locations and letter was receive about the proposed retailer and that as part of the project there was an attempt to vacavacate tenancy a access to the unit and approved under the project scope. The sponsor is no longer pursuing eviction of the tenants and contact the tenant directly on multiple occasion to followup and see what has occurred since that last letter that was issued october 9 but unfortunately we have not been able to receive any response from the tenant. The project sponsor may proved Additional Information about the issue during their presentation. The department has received an additional 25 letters in support of the application citing support for a new cannabis retailer in the neighborhood. As the project meets the requirement of the planning code and policies of the general plan, furthering the citys equity goal and provides a retail asset contributing to the breaking news of the uses within the balance of the uses in the city the Department Recommends approval. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions and the sponsor has a visual presentation for the commission which i will display now. Thank you. Are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, sir. Have you five minutes on your presentation. The slides are up. Thank you. Hello commissioners and thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you a little bit with the project. My name is skip ald ness and one of the partners for the dispensary at 2845 gairy boulevard. My family has deep roots in the bay area and my partner was born here and raised in the city and my partners and i have been in hoy hospitality, real estate and marketing for over po years. My wife 30 years. My wife andry passionate about cannabis for medicinal use and we want to bring awareness to the use of cannabis and its many forms. Were dedicated building our Community Relationship with much needed well paid jobs and creating revenue for social Equity Partner and will provide tax for the city and its our goal to bring sunlight into the areas where the dispensary is locate. Though female oriented it will be a safe and reliable resource for everybody. Id like to push it back over to our Vice President of operations and shell talk to a little bit more about the details and give a quick presentation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you the Planning Commission board for your time. If you can move on to the next slide, please. Im jane. Im the v. P. Of operations at mary modern and have the privilege of working on the project since its inception. Ive been in the cannabis industry several years now. Prior to the project i took great pride in the opportunity to share product and knowledge that hopefully will contribute to a positive Cannabis Experience for the consumers ive heard and we have a commission to create safe spaces for women and all allies can gather and share experience, educate and share wellness products in the community. Were excited to be wedge you all today with with you all and share how we plan to support the community at mary modern how laurell heights and as well as the diverse city of San Francisco while further supporting social equity. Our team of collaborators is supported by a talented and caring team and our a majority of women its a space designed by women with women in mind. This is a rendering of the proposed dispensary. Its space is primarily designed for women and open to all consumers. The floor plan display has an floor plan and will allow flexibility to deploy product during covid19. With Cannabis Consumption on the rise its important to remember the effect on the community. Our social responsibility is not limited to the safety of employees and patrons but the community surrounding it. And we look forward to contributing to the organizations. We also to ensure were on the right and we are helping to tailor the brand to fit their needs. I information our time is running out. In term s of our Community Outreach we exceeded what we think it means to be a good neighbor. Posting an additional Community Outreach meeting instead of the requirement of one we also notified the community and our neighbors within a 500 foot radius and not just the 300 foot radius. Weve become active members of a local Cannabis Community and have had an opportunity to discuss mary modern with well respected groups and leaders in San Francisco such as the San Francisco chamber of commerce and [please stand by]. The last message we received was from a lawyer, apparently be the lawyer and they reached out and let us us know they have a lease cart and until everything is resolved, my wife and i are still opposing the construction. Thank you, very much for your time. Best of luck. Hi, my name is jenny hayes. Im a San Francisco resident and native and i was born down the street i actively and strongly support it and San Francisco needs a dispensary that supports women and the comfort of women because to be honest, as a cannabis user i feel uneasy. I love everything that has been propose inside this protect and really strongly support it. Thats it. My name is andrew and im a resident of San Francisco and native as well and my family lived four blocks away for over 10 years now and i strongly and actively support the construction of the distance re. My mother is who is stopping physical illness is no longer able to travel to other areas to get access to state medication and thank you, very much. Great, thank you. Members of the public, last call for your testimony. Seeing no additional requests to speak, Public Comment is closed and the matter is before you. Commissioner moore. Im very interested in this particular project and i think its a great idea to have a home operation cannabis operation to which i am inaudible and its something we need to be aware of. I still dont quite understand why its being at it and i understand the scare and i need to know as to whether or not this particular alteration and as a displacement and i feel uncomfortable about it because the tenant, i didnt go into detail. Seemed to say that they are all of a sudden being the store on its own would not necessitate that. So, with regard to the tenant, i think there are two issues at play here. The first is the actual physical modifications to the property. The initial proposal was to remove the connection from the residential unit to the rear yard and thus cut it off from that opening space. So the depth proposed as a replacement useable open space for the residential unit and its indicated to the sponsor that was not supported while its common tuesday a rare yard in some cases they have a lot of ut i have so its Housing Service thats was not really there wasnt a balance of something that was gained so in response to that, the they readd a connect from that second floor down but the deck is a remnant of the initial soak its something is that can be done. The second tricky portion of this is there was unresolved a parent unresolved discussions between the Property Owner and the residential tenant and at the end of the 12 month Lease Agreement there was an attempt to terminate the Lease Agreement and its not required for the project scope. Theres nothing that really requires that the residential unit be vacated and there are some modifications to the hear but those are fairly minor in scope and step i canal and so, that issue of the attempt to term enat the tenancy is a separate issue that is a little difficult for us to grapple with. Not something that is physical to the property. Its unfort a at this particular time its a different issue we just talk about tenant protections which is often very hard to get and hard to document and because the tenant wrote to us, i have to ask the question and hope that you had an answer and i can obviously project sponsor either because the project sponsor is a commercial challenge is a mixed use building. So the owner is here, the owner needs to ask the question. The commercial tenant is the owner of the property. They discussed this and the project sponsor is the Property Owner. Could we ask that question . I would be happy to answer the question. Thank you so much. So, just a quick background. We had included our tenants in the Community Outreach and had let them know that what our plans were and there wasnt an issue there and so we made the assumption they were going to take over the stop unit and they want today stay at the last minute and so we had several minor issues as far as the build out was concerned moving a sub panel up there. We had to solve those trash and you couldnt access the trash. The only way to do that was to go through the commercial space down below so we had to solve that and part of that deck, that everybody is talking about, is the addition was because currently theres a attached shed that was modified and we have to take that out and i lost his voice. Mr. Al bin, are you there. Thank you so much. It looks like theyve called back in. Hello. Yes. Can you hear us . Yes. Can you hear us. Well put a deck upstairs so the tenants can enjoy a deck because we were going to remove the stairs because we needed to bring the building up to code, remove the shed and the existing stairs so it was more of a safety issue and a Maintenance Issue and they want to stay. We have a trash shoot to put their trash in there and we will take the trash up for them and its up in their unit and they can stay as long as they want and theres not an issue there. Theres access to the rear yard and so all of them have been addressed and as far as were concerned. I hope that answers your questions. And as they normally do. Im comfortable with what i could accumulate and the customers have to ask. Commissioner tanner. Thank you. I want to followup and build on commissioner moores questions. We just had the tenant on the phone saying the last contact with you or your agents was from a lawyer seeking to enter into a new Lease Agreement and thats the last they heard of it. Im going to ask you a series of questions that basically hold up the tenants description of what happened and see if you think thats accurate and you will continue to be honest and fourth right. When is the last communication you had with the tenant and the current lease with you right now . You apparently seem to be muting yourself. You need to stop doing that. Its a technical issue were experiencing. Can you hear me. I was going to have jade my v. P. Of operations handle that question. She has more contact and shes involved in the situation with the tenants. That is an inaccurate statement. Do you have a lease with the tenant. Yes, theyre currently on a month to month. Theyve finished their oneyear tenancy on the lease and month to month aspe as per this reque. So theyre on a month to month lease. When was the last contact with them or your agent had with them . Our Legal Council attempts several times to reach out to them. I believe october 6th, it was also my understanding that our planner tried to inaudible and they had to clarify as well with no response. What is the attempt to clarify . To enter into a longerterm lease. What are the attempt to do . Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding and the short term and longterm plans to mitigate any issues that they might have. What is the short and longterm plan that you have. I know some of them were access to the so they plan to relocate that up to the residential unit. We have given them, weve modified our plans to allow them access to a trash shoot as well as access to the backyard. In doing so, we will be bringing the stairs and that back half of the unit of the code making it the tenant in the letter had a couple things they needed including they were threatened with eviction, they were threatened by a lawyer, i believe, stating that there has been many lawsuits and not messed with them and how do you respond to those a serrio assern the ten apartments letter. Those are inaccurate and myself and other project sponsors on this project are not currently in any type of litigation nor recently. So when they said they were told they were not lawsuits and its not true. Ok. Or there were many lawsuits, rather. You may not be on the line anymore. One person asked to speak and it may be the tenant. We can take that caller when were done. Theyre related to different topics and we can come back to that potential caller and if you are the tenant and you can raise your hand that would be helpful. Theres mention about the car wash next door stepping to keep it tidy. Aim understanding that correctly. Was that about trash or something related to that business. I think its a sore point for the community and so as part of being a good neighbor, we want to help keep the parameter of the story front as clean as possible and that included the excess debris that tends to occur from the car wash. I see the glitter from the car wash ends up around the car wash site and you guys are going to clean that up. Great, thank you. I think thats all my questions. If the tenant is available, i would like to hear from him just what the state is currently if theres a lease or have been attempted to enter into a new Lease Agreement. Hi, this is gabriella, i am one of the tenants who lives at 2843. If i could just first off say is that we actually never had any intentions of moving out nor did we lead them to believe we did. There was a text message showing we have to move out after our lease is over and we can provide that for you later if needed to reiterate that they were trying to force us out of our house. Maam, at the moment, i know its been challenging for both planner and it seems like the project sponsor to get in touch with you, have they made any attempts . Are you aware of any tempts to reach out to discuss items like the trash shoot and relocating the breakup panel and other items . We have not been reached out to. After they contacted us with the lawyer, we did reach out to a lawyer and he has reached out to us with for instance they said they were going pop for nor what they would say and we have not received any notice about a new lease except for potentially to pay more money and get released in that way. If can you pay more. Is it your goal in your residency you want additional lease or are you comfortable with a monthtomonth lease and the discussion some of the improvements to your unit to make you can inhabit it. So, we just want to stay here. We were very shocked by the announcement we would have to leave because of protection in San Francisco. We just want to stay here and we are concerned that they took away access to our breaker box and were not able to move our trash cans in and out. They moved them out this last monday but for months we had no way to bring them idea. Thats my questions, commissioners. My question is on a different issue. Im in full support of this project and ultimately i just wanted to ask about the plans to benefit the community because i wanted to know more about that. So, thank you for addressing that. O. Well this isnt a question and answer period so that concludes your Public Comment. Yes. Very good. I dont see any additional members of the public to speak at this time and did you have a comment to make. I just wanted to offer the commission sort of a grounding reminder about our considerati consideration. And run it by the users. Is president koppel, i press the button and im sorry, commissioner, moore, go ahead, please. Thank you so much. Thank you for remind us us its a different matter in front of us and please give us room because of the great concerns we have about tenants, tenants and it makes me feel comfortable about the project and i move to approve. Second. Commissioners, if theres no further deliberation theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner tanner. Aye. [roll call vote] clerk so moved commissioners, that motion passes 70. And that concludes our agenda today. Were adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Good afternoon and evening. Boomer, please call the roll. [roll call]