Transcripts For SFGTV Planning 20240703

Lines for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. You need to call area. Code 415 a6550001 and enter access. Code 26611397622. And enter pound twice, at which point you should be able to hear or listen to the hearing live and you need to wait for the item you are interested in speaking to and for Public Comment to be announced to comment, you must enter star three to raise your hand and once youve raised your hand, you will hear the prompt stating that you have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you. When you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. For those of you joining us via webex, please log in via the link found on todays agenda and enter password cpc 2023 and use the raised hand icon to ask a question. You will hear a beep and then see a prompt that the host has unmuted you and that is your indication to begin speaking best practices are to call from a quiet location. Please mute the volume on your television or computer, and for those persons attending in city hall, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to state your name for the record, finally, i will ask that we all silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. At this time, id like to take Roll Commission president tanner here, Commission Vice president moore here. Commissioner braun here. Commissioner dimond here, commissioner aerial here, commissioner koppell here, and commissioner ruiz here. Thank you, commissioners. First on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2021 hyphen 010176. Ca at 2261 fillmore street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to november 2nd, 2023. Item two case number 2023 hyphen 006115 map for the Density Calculation and nc and certain named nc dds planning and zoning map amendments are proposed for continuance to october 26th, 2023. Item three case number 2023 hyphen 006114 pca for removing residential numerical density limits in neighborhood commercial districts. Planning Code Amendment is proposed for continuance to october 26th, 2023 and item four case number 2022 hyphen 011623. Ca at 555 ninth street a conditional use authorizing action has been withdrawn further commissioners under your consent calendar item seven case number 2021 hyphen 013000. Ca at 725 sanchez street for a conditional use authorization staff is requesting a one week continued to october fifth, 2023. I have no other items proposed for continuance so we should take Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items that are being proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance or not, the project itself. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Good good morning. Afternoon. Afternoon its the. 2261 fillmore street. Its a theater. Right. So its for continuance until for november the 2nd . Yes, thats it. Right . Well, i mean, you could you dont like that date. You can talk about a different. No, no, no, no. Its my sisters birthday. I say why not . Okay. But yeah, because i want to save the theater. So its going to be thats. Yes so ill be back. Thank you. Last call for Public Comment on the continuance calendar. Come on up. Yeah. I live right behind this building. This this restaurant. I live right behind it. Which one . They turn up the music. Which. Which one, sir . Oh, i live at 126 san carlos. What project are you speaking to . And they turn up the music so loud. Sorry, sir. What is that . What is the address of. I cant even hear the tv in my home. Whats the project youre speaking to . What project are you speaking to . Whats the address of the project that youre talking about . Im talking about the restaurant thats there that. Yeah the one is that we are not. 2214, sir. Yeah well get to that matter and then you can come up and talk to it. Okay. Then all right. Thank you, sir, for final last call for comment on the continuance calendar. Seeing no additional requests to speak Public Comment on your continuance calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners, commissioner, imperial move to continue all items as proposed. Second, thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner diamond, a commissioner imperial a commissioner coppell. A commissioner moore and commissioner. President tanner i so moved commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and will place us on your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. So requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item five case number 2022 hyphen 0057838 300. Ivy street number 105 conditional use authorization item six case number 2023 hyphen 0035478 1870. Union street conditional use authorization item eight case number 2023 hyphen 0039238 2262 three 2266. Chestnut. Chestnut street a conditional use authorization on item nine case number 2022 hyphen 012067 pca for the code corrections ordinance. A planning code and administrative Code Amendment item ten case number 2018 hyphen 008802 map for 68 nantucket avenue. A zoning map amendment item seven has been continued. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be removed and considered at a as a separate item later today. Seeing no requests to speak Public Comment on the consent calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners. Is there any discussion or motions on the consent calendar. Dont all jump at once. Commissioner braun moved to approve items on consent calendar with the exception of seven. Obviously and also for item ten initiate and schedule the public hearing as recommended. Second, thank you commissioners on that motion to move all the consent calendar items forward. Commissioner braun i, commissioner ruiz, i commissioner dimond, high commissioner, imperial high. Commissioner coppell high. Commissioner moore high and Commission President tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and will place us on commission matters for item 11. The land acknowledgment at the commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who were the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramosshahani have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. We as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland and we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Thank you. Item 12 consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for september 7th, 2023 members of the public. This is your opportunity to speak to the Commission Regarding their minutes. Again, if youre in the chambers, you need to come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no request to speak Public Comment on your minutes is closed and they are now before you. Mr. Brown, move to adopt the minutes second. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner braun high commissioner ruiz high. Commissioner diamond high. Commissioner imperial high. Commissioner coppell high. Commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us on item 13 for commission comments and questions. Any comments or questions . Commissioners all right, commissioner mark this morning and actually in some other minor newspaper yesterday i read something about a new form of housing called pods. And im not sure if you all have read about it. It sounds kind of like fun, but im not quite sure if it fits of what we all have in mind. So i direct my question to director hillis as to whether or not you will update us or have any forecast of what this may be. Yeah, we i saw that as well. Weve got an enforcement case open because, as you suspected, it does not meet the code requirements. But you know, well we can follow up and give you an update on what happens. I thought it would be kind of like a youth hostel perhaps, or something to that extent. Well, well let you know, though. We can give you more details on that. Okay thatd be great. Thanks thank you. I dont see any other commissioners with their hands up. Thank you. Theres nothing further, commissioner. Was Department Matters item 14 directors announcements. Just one item. Um. You know, were nearing the end of the state legislative session, so all bills have either passed or not passed out of both houses of the state legislature and are sitting on the governors desk there are a couple of them that are significant to us that relate mostly to housing, but land use items as well. And we plan to come to you in november with an information hearing as we digest them. One i wanted to note because it was in the newspaper and that was sb 2423, which is an extension of sb 35. So basically allowing for ministerial approval if were not meeting our rena target, thats where we measure whether were meeting our rena targets was going to take place in year four of our arena cycle. And then year eight of our arena cycle, which would be 2027. That bill was amended so that we have to look and see how were doing in relation to our rena cycles in year one. So at the end of this year, and if were not meeting our goals is either market rate or Affordable Housing projects or both become ministerial. So thats a significant change. So well come and talk more to you about that. But just wanted to highlight that and again, its on the governors desk. We believe the governor will sign that. So more to come on that in a couple other state bills. I was going to say are there may be some other bills, but i know we routinely get an update, i think as the legislative cycle moves forward on kind of what passes and what we might need to look forward to, or were going to get a hearing in november that just talks about all these great commissioner diamond, director hillis, if you could just elaborate a little bit, we have to make meet one eighth of the goal in year one. I see both in the affordable category and in the market rate. Well, they looked at separately. Yes. So as you can imagine, were not going to meet our rena goals in year one, which is, you know, 8000 a year. So you know, after we report to hcd, they accept our report that we didnt meet our rena goals, which will be sometime early in the spring of next year. Ministerial approval would kick in. Weve obviously got history with that because we havent met our affordable goals. So weve approved projects. Ministerially under sb 35 for affordable projects thatll obviously kick in for market rate projects as well. Theres limitations to it. Youve got to be creating two or more units. Yes, they cant be subject to rent control the existing units or there cant be existing units subject to rent control. It cant be individually listed locally or on the state or national register. There are labor provisions, so theres details. Every project is not eligible for it that will come and talk to you about when you come back to us with a fuller report. Will you be able to tell us how many applications are pending that this might apply to . So we have some sense as to the magnitude of the impact of this provision . Yeah. Thank you, commissioner. More on the Positive Side as the discussion of adaptive reuse of office is heating up, which in the beginning when it was brought up, was actually not perceived particularly well. Would that give us a break on our Housing Element . Because that particular building type was not introduced as a candidate resource for housing anyway . Yeah. I mean, theyll definitely count towards our rena goals if we create the warfield building is moving forward. Currently itll create 40 units. We issued an rfi with food. Responses were due this past week. There were ten responses as i think close to a thousand units where sponsors said, were interested, but we need certain kind of concessions from the city in order to make these projects feasible. So were looking at that and how those kind of guide guide our our policy decisions and land use changes or code changes in the future. So well also come back and talk to you about those, but those will certainly count towards our rena goals and some of those projects 100 affordable as well, which was exciting to see. So youll hear more about that as well. Its a slightly more stinging question, but can we also look for financial mechanisms . Im not talking at calling it help from the state as well as from the federal government because the housing shortages are a national problem, not a solely San Francisco focused problem. And i would be interested to see as to whether or not we are also entertaining discussions about financing, which is basically ultimate be the stumbling stone of why were not moving. Absolutely i mean, were already doing that regardless of conversions, figuring out how we finance and get resources to build the 46,000 units of Affordable Housing we need to build so that is, you know, as weve talked to you in the past, its part of our work Program Going forward. Commissioner id like to respectfully remind you this is not an agendized item and we should. Jonas is always such a limit, but the discussion related to it. But thats part of our thats part of our work program and could it apply or could there be mechanism terms that apply to office to residential conversions separately . Sure. Were looking at that. I would be interested for the department to keep us really posted, not even to schedule a special short discussion on it. Once that agenda is. Sorry, sorry, john. Sorry john. This is a very burning issue and i think everybody is trying to find constructive solutions. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner rees, i saw your hand went down. Did you want to make any comments offline . Okay great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. If theres nothing further, item 15 review of past events at the board of supervisors. I have no report from the board of appeals and the Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday. Uh, good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. This week the Land Use Committee was canceled. However, they did meet last week, first, on last weeks agenda was the duplicate file for the Development Impact fee reductions. The prior week supervisor sophiae proposed amendments to the ordinance that would allow Pipeline Projects projects between 10 and 24 units and those under msf to receive inclusionary rate reduction. As the item passed out of committee withoutrillionecommendation on a unanimous vote, the Committee Also considered a resolution initiating landmark designation for San Francisco fire station number 44. The station is located at 1298 gerrard street in district ten. Supervisor waltons district, who is also the sponsor. A few speakers called in to support the resolution. The item was then forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation. This is just an initiation and it starts the designation process as it still needs to be reviewed and acted on by the hpc. Next on the agenda was a landmark designation of the colombo market arch, located at 600 front street. The arch is the last remaining remnant of the building that was used to house the colombo market, which was eventually torn down as part of redevelopment to the embarcadero. During the hearings, supervisor peskin, who is the sponsor, praised the designation report and said how much he enjoyed reading it and that he learned a lot from the report. There were a few speakers who called in to express support for the designation on and after closing Public Comment from supervisor peskin, the item was unanimously referred to the full board with a positive recommendation. Finally, the committee considered the mayors constraints reduction ordinance. Commissioners, you consider this item in june of this year and voted to recommend approval with modifications. Those modifications included including adding a tenant buyout provision to the eligibility list to be exempt from demarcus and language to maintain the 15 foot setback when there is a predominant street pattern of a 15 foot setback, the Mayors Office did take all of the Planning Commissions recommended modifications and had a set of proposed modifications to introduce at the land use hearing. They included items like maintaining the queue for large lot developments in priority equity, geographies and expanding the priority equity geographies to include all of chimenticook row planning staff. Read these into the record. However, the committee did not take a vote and to accept the modification, saying they need more time to review and understand them. The Mayors Office did not send a representative to the hearing and instead relied on planning staff to answer questions about the proposed ordinance. Questions from the Committee Members were intense at times, mainly focused on how the Mayors Office plans to build the 42,000 Affordable Housing units called for in our rena goals and how this ordinance helped advance helps to advance Affordable Housing Committee Members, specifically peskin and preston took exception to the fact that the mayor did not send a representative to the hearing. There was also there were almost no questions about the ordinance , nor were there any questions about how the ordinance helped fulfill our obligations under the Housing Element as you might have guessed, Public Comment was also lengthy and contentious. Many of the commenters were seemed to be misinformed about the ordinance as their claims that the ordinance would demolish thousands of rent control buildings and lead to mass displacement. Those that supported the ordinance spoke out about our obligations under the state law and that this ordinance would remove bureaucratic barriers to housing production. After several hours of questions and Public Comment, the committee voted to continue the item to october 2nd. At so for the full board and the past two weeks, the extension of the authorization for partial Delivery Services was adopted. That was an interim controls the mayoral appointment of hans baldauf to the hpc was adopted. The landmark designation for columbia arch passed its first read in creation of the landmark designation for the fire station was adopted and the Development Impact fee reductions ordinance passed its first read. Thats my report. If you have any questions, happy to answer them. Commissioner diamond. I read in the paper, as many of you did, with horror about the Public Comment section on at the board of supervisors where people were calling in with racist and antisemitic comments and with board president peskin saying it had to stop and he was going to reconsider to some extent the use of the Public Comment section as a forum for those who are abusing it, which sadly would affect everybody. And i wondered whether that that exploration will have an impact on collins at the Planning Commission hearings. What the status of that is. And i dont know whether to who to whom to direct that question jonah. Commissioner diamond, if the board elects to modify its public remote Public Comment opportunity, is that avail themselves, it would not impact us unless they pass some sort of legislation that would encompass all commissions and policy bodies throughout San Francisco. But we make up our rules as far as Public Comment is concerned. Fortunately, we have not been subject to those kinds of comments and i certainly hope it continues along that path. I just didnt know what he was exploring as a, you know, a rule that would apply to all public hearings or just limited to the board of supervisors. Right thank you, commissioner moore. I unfortunately heard that this is happening in all other surrounding communities, including all the way down to san diego and los angeles. And i hope we will not be having to focus on that. But i think ultimately we would have to talk to our City Attorney because somebody weighed in that it may go against free speech. I personally would weigh in on where you are, but its a very serious issue. I mean, knock on wood, im quite shocked that we have been so fortunate. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Starr. If theres nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to general Public Comment at this time. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items. Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three three minutes when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. General Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Good afternoon. George schultz. I sent you an email yesterday morning with a letter and some attachments concerning codify ing the residential flat policy and i know that its mentioned in the Housing Element, but i want to pause icu it with you as to how it should be codified, because i think thats as important as anything. If i could have the overhead please. So yes. So i sent these , these little schematics of flats. These are real flats that were on the market in the last year or so. And you can see that the to me, i think that the predominant thing that that makes them flats besides they are the hallway theres the hallway theres the hallway and all the rooms off of them. And heres another example. There this is a larger flat. Thats a three bedroom flat. Actually, this ones a little different. It this, i think, must be a tunnel entrance building because its a foyer. But the foyer foyer is like the hallway. So thats the same idea that the rooms emanate off of the hallway or the foyer. And thats kind of what makes it a flat. And you have all these rooms and, you know, certainly weve experienced with the pandemic people dont like those big open rooms because they have no privacy and no place to go. So to me, it seems theres another one. See the hallway and then this one here. And it just seems as though it is something that you can sort of definitely sink your teeth into. Say this is what helps it to be a flat. And i think that whatever you do, if you codify it, its important to make sure that that is maintain gained that hallway, that layout out. It seems critical to the whole idea of what is a flat and i dont think a flat should be relocated. And as i mentioned in the letter, theres been a couple of those where the flats been relocated and yet has the egress and the exposure. But its not the same thing and it creates the megamansion and the other two floors. So so and you lose the opportunity for an adu potentially in the ground level. And just to put a fine point on it, the nice article again, please. There are those gentlemen in the home match program that was in the chronicle on friday. I think the home match program, which is like a nonprofit that the city helps fund, theyre in a flat. If you look, you can see the hallway and can see the rooms off the hallway and the front door separate front door. So i hope you and the staff will talk about that. And make that part of the Housing Element because i think its like a bird in the hand or Something Like that that you have housing already that you can keep and maybe even add an adu to and ill talk about it more next week. And heres my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much. Okay thank you. Seeing no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, lets go to our remote caller, eileen bogan will speak an article recently appeared in the business insider, which is a subsidiary of der spiegel. This article was similar to the one in the chronicle. The article quotes the ceo of California Forever about the Solano County mega project. He states that, and i quote, the plans that people put forward will be very inspired by those great old neighborhoods that someone born 100 years ago will recognize as the dominant housing types in the new city should be rowhouse houses, which he called one of the most underappreciated types of buildings, end quote. New subject the state department of finance has released revised demographic projections. For 2020 to 2060. The projection are for a statewide population to remain flat. The projection is for San Franciscos population to decline to point 9 by. 2060 to 845,000 from 870,000in 2020. The San Franciscos Controllers Office has gone on record stating that the trend is in line with what it expected. And yet the Planning Department is pursuing an Aggressive Growth strategy over the next eight years. This begs the question does the right hand know what the left hand is doing . Thank you. Okay. Last call for general Public Comment. If youre in the chambers, you need to come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners general Public Comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar for item 16. Case number 2023 hyphen 003061 pca for the state mandate accessory dwelling unit controls planning Code Amendment. Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica flores Planning Department staff. The item before you is the state mandated accessory dwelling unit ordinance, which was introduced by the mayor. So were back here with the next round of amendments to make our code consistent with the state law. This ordinance covers the new bills Assembly Bill two, two, two, one and senate bill 897, both of which were effective at the beginning of this year. I again, just want to emphasize that the focus of this ordinance is to make amendments. These are things that are we are required to do to comply with state law. And i further want to emphasize that staff is already reviewing and approving permits based on these recent state law changes. So this is really just to catch our local code and the language to the state law. Another change within here is to specify that state mandated adus there are 60 days to approve or deny the adu project with a no action resulting in approval of said adu and some other changes relate to the allowable height limits for the adus. Additionally, within this ordinance, there are also some changes to where the adu programs are located within the planning code. This was identified as a future task in the last round of adu revisions and the goal here is really to make sure that the adu program items are clear, legible and easy to find. All of which will make it easier to use. The Planning Department did not receive any Public Comments regarding the proposed ordinance and moving on to the recommendation, just want to note that the draft ordinance did include in the packet in the pocket. There were two versions of the draft legislature version, and exhibit c is the one that included the amendment points that were identified after the ordinance was originally duplicated and as well as some Planning Department recommendations to move to include some items in the Building Code where its more appropriate. Those have been incorporated in coordination with the Mayors Office, and thats the draft that was featured again in exhibit c of the staff packet. So the staff report did include a recommendation of approval of the ordinance, which again focuses on bringing our local code to be consistent and compliant with state law. Again, were already approving reviewing and approving these permits based on state law. I do want to highlight that we have one new recommended modification , so that will be different than the resolution provided in the packet for you. So i have some copies of that today and the new recommended modification is to amend the code to exclude adus from dwelling unit mix require payments. And this is, i believe on page two of the revised draft resolution being circulated right now. Adus were original, only meant to be able to add smaller secondary units onto the property. Typically projects are only adding 1 or 2 adus at a time. However, there have been cases where projects are adding nine, perhaps 11 adus at the property and it didnt make sense to apply or require the dwelling unit mix requirements. There also, dwelling unit mix requirements are really meant more so for new construction projects. So again, the latest recommended modification we want to include here is to amend the code to exclude adus from the dwelling unit mix requirements. We did brief the Mayors Office on this and they are amenable to incorporating this. Once this moves on or to committee at and lastly, i just want to note with respect to the Building Code changes, this has been tentatively scheduled for the Building Inspection Commission on october 18th. And the goal is to be able to appear before them before this goes on to the next milestone at board of supervisors committee. This concludes the staff presentation and i along with the team, are available for any questions. Thank you. Okay. If that concludes staff presentation, we should open up Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this planning Code Amendment. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no members of the public in the chambers coming forward. Lets go to our remote callers. Kenny you have been unmuted. Kenny all right, lets go to mr. Hogan. This mark hogan with open scope studio. We wrote the adu handbook with the Planning Department and have worked on outreach on adus and have built a lot of adus in San Francisco. And i think this is a great step forward to bring the local law into alignment with state law and also remove the unit mix requirement, which really doesnt make sense considering the type of units that are typically being created in these buildings. And the fact that it doesnt take into account the existing unit mix of the building. I think in the future it would be good to further bring the local program into alignment with the state law so that San Francisco is allowing the same things that are allowed anywhere else in the state of california. It its leading to a lot of confusion right now because we have three separate adu programs available through planning and theyre all slightly different. But but this current piece of legislation is sorely needed. And should definitely, definitely be adopted as written. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment and seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners Public Comment is closed and this amendment is before you. Thank you. Staff thank you to our one caller. Someones watching. Its nice to know these changes all seemed fairly straightforward to me, but i dont know if other commissioners have questions or comments. Commissioner koppell i was just going to move to approve second, second. Commissioner ruiz yeah, i just have a couple questions for miss flores. I was reading in the packet that there was the discussion around the Pilot Program, um, that previous supervisor mar introduced it and i saw the recommendation that the department would recommend to continue to implement that program, potentially expand it if there are funds that do exist. But i was wondering, do you have any information on the status of that Pilot Program . How the 25 qualifying households are benefiting . Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Natalia fassi Planning Department staff my understanding of the program is that it finished the major phase that it was in, which was assessment of select Properties Within district four. And i know aware whether the new supervisor is moving forward with the program, but thats something we can definitely look into and get back to you about. Yeah, i think it would be great to hear more information. I dont know if there will be any future discussions on adus, especially since so many of these are not going to be coming before the commission. And i see that theres going to be a Department Report on the discussion of the affordability rates, the usage of Short Term Rentals. And so maybe if that could be included as well, i would love to have more information on that and maybe what some ideas we have as a department to continue getting funding for that. I believe the funding was from the state, right . To support that. I believe so, yes. And we can definitely share the analysis portion of the document that was published with you all as well. Great. Thank you. I also have some more questions. Fans of the Department Report, i wonder how we as a department are going to track the affordability rates of these adus . Thats a great question. So currently. There is a department of building inspection screening form that has a question air. Its not required. It is voluntary. And so one of the questions is, do you intend to rent this unit and what is the proposed rent . And so those are the numbers that weve used in the past in order to determine the affordability of adus. Okay, great. And is that the only way that we are able to get that information . I believe at this time it is, yes. Okay and then can you explain just as a refresher for my self, maybe others on the commission and for the public, what are the rules and restrictions around Short Term Rentals and adus . Sure. Generally adus cannot be used as Short Term Rentals, so its pretty straightforward. Okay. So generally meaning no one is allowed to rent an adu that theyve constructed and put it on Something Like airbnb . Thats correct, yes. Okay. And thats consistent with state law. Yes, that is great. And in terms of enforcement, it is. It just complaint driven in terms of if someone is renting out their adu on airbnb, how would we find out about that . Yes right now it is complaint driven and so whenever we do get a complaint, we investigate. And if there is enforcement action needed, if there is a violation found, we do move forward with that action. Okay, great. Just just to also add on to that, actually our short term rental Team Approaches enforcement a little bit differently than our sort of general enforcement. So we do have dedicated staff that do some proactive sleuthing on the platforms to make sure that there arent listings that havent received licenses from us or certificates from us. And the platforms also have to report that type of information. So we actually have a much more stringent proactive approach for Short Term Rentals than we do for typical enforcement. Great great. Thank you. Yeah so im generally supportive. I just wanted to ask those questions, emphasizing how we also thinking about, you know, the benefits for homeowners who may not be able to afford constructing adus and what are we doing as a department to continue pushing that amazing Pilot Program that previous supervisor maher implemented and getting some more information as a commissioner on and for the public. So other folks know about it as well. I dont know what kind of marketing there is in terms of how are we educating folks at this Pilot Program even exists and how can we expand it if the Pilot Program is successful for the 25 qualifying households . And then definitely interested in hearing in the future of, okay, this is looked at as an affordable type of housing, but what does that mean . And what are these being rented for . Yeah. And then yeah, doing the great work of just ensuring that these are not being put up as Short Term Rentals. So thank you. Great. Thank you. Commissioner moore. Thank you. Thank you for bringing up that subject matter. I had flagged also as an issue. I do not even know as to whether the supervisor of mars program has any pilots already happening. Anyway, it sounded like a very , very interesting and Sensitive Program among everything else. But i mirror that particular question against a rather bleak reporting on your social and Racial Equity analysis is because it seemed to be clearly speaking to the fact im speaking to miss flores or mister starr or you. It seemed to basically indicating that adus under this program are not providing much of a pathway for people with limited income. That is very depressing. And id hope that at any step of the way we would try to find some way other than the Pilot Program to thread that in, because weve got to find a way somewhere along the way, i have a couple of other questions aside from the fact that we obviously need to integrate those two programs, i find this effort not not simplifying, but rather further complicating of what we have practiced since 2014. Our own program seems to be quite clear. It was very much understood in the context of the city itself. Were now adding descriptors, which i find as there seem to be very absolute, more difficult to understand. One of it deals with height and a description of what is called a high quality transit corridor. A new word professionally for me, i have never heard the word high quality transit corridors. Perhaps. Our venice falls within that category since our other streets have rather rough pavement. I would call neither of them. I wouldnt call the others high quality transit corridors, although we have busses and they seem to be operating at reasonable frequency. So that is one question. And then what puzzled me, puzzled me is why would a adu allowed up to 18ft is if it is within half a mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor. That particular logic doesnt quite it doesnt mean anything to me. I try to think it through and i couldnt find anything for me to make sense and that may make sense in some outlying suburban areas. I do not think that makes any sense here in the city. And you dont have to answer my question. Im voicing my concerns and the other issue is, and im kind of reading randomly because its a little bit difficult to read, there was something about garage walls attached to a building wall or a garage wall for an adu. Perhaps miss floors could explain that a little bit more. I try to architecturally figure out of how a garage wall could become a unit wall or why a building wall cannot become one. Could perhaps i misunderstood that. Could you explain that to us, please. Thank you, commissioner moore, can i just clarify, is this related to the detached structure for aspects so in. Thank you. In the last round of legislation, we had defined and wed been reviewing permits that define a detached structure as an adu, thats not physically connected to the primary building where main units are or or any other ancillary structure on the property. So to be completely separated from anything on the property. We recently we had gotten an interpretation from Housing Community development at the state level saying that the detached adu, it only means that it the adu cannot be physically connected to the primary structure. So the interpretation says that its okay for the detached ada to actually be connected and physically connected to the garage detached garage, for example. Its the distinction between the primary structure and otherwise. Okay it is not quite as clear as you were explaining it, but thank you. Perhaps it requires a couple more tweaks in the way its being said, and perhaps i could be a piece of conversation with sacramento. The way some of this reads is not really clear. Im very sorry if i would be doing this. I am sitting here and feeling its more complicated than it was before. I said that before. I have a couple of other issues or questions along the line. Why are we trying to replicate a pitch of an adu with an existing building, particularly when were trying to avoid not to make it look like Historic Preservation . There are a couple of things which dont quite gel with my understanding. I think again, i restate that i think this makes it more complicated and i wish that perhaps sacramento would give us a little bit more breadth to take the lead and how these things are done rather than where to actively forcing us to do certain kinds of things which dont quite work. I have, and i will admit to the public that i personally object to the fact of being threatened. And i feel again, that there is an implied threat that relative to if we dont accept these, modify locations, we will not be getting funding or mta will not. I find that intimidating to an open discussion about the quality and the suggestions for legislation. That is a generic comment, but i do personally object to have that in writing in front of me. Thank you. Thanks. Can i go to ms. Wadi . Do you have some comments or responses . Okay commissioner diamond. Thank you. I had the same two questions as commissioner moore about the 18 foot height and the high quality transit corridor. Are those required by state law. So i dont know if were in conversation when these laws are written about how that actually works in a very dense urban area , especially when we dont even know what a high quality transit corridor is or why 18ft makes sense. I totally get that in a suburban area, and im trying to understand why you need 15 instead of why you need 18 instead of 16. If youre a half a mile away from a transit corridor, what are we you whats the aim there . Whats the objective . My understanding this is just from previous work ive done in the profession is its around how many floors can you fit in . So how many how many floors can be within the adu and so theres lots of discussion around 16ft. Can you or can you not fit a second floor . And then theres a lot of different machinations. And so i think part of it is with the 18 and the 25ft that essentially my understanding is its allowing two story adus thats my understanding. 15 does not allow you to do floors as well. Its not 15, its 16. So again, in palo alto, we had many deliberations and drawings about how people wanted to try to get to two stories, and it was anyhow, im not going to go to all the details, but my understanding and my imagination would be that this is trying to allow that to happen. And as far as the corridors, i do believe that state law does define what it is. I cant remember, but i do believe its based on the headways of the transit stops within whatever radii theyre referring to. So i just think it would be useful to have a discussion about why, you know, if assuming which makes sense, that it was designed for two stories, if 18ft gives you two for two stories under our Building Codes and 16ft does not you know, is that correct . If we had 16ft here, you couldnt get two stories. Hello commissioner. Currently we see 16, 16 foot tall, detached adus be able to get two stories only when they excavate it because Building Code requires seven foot six clearance per floor and you have to function in the floor plates and roof. And so we have seen some projects be able to get two stories only with excavation. So it is my understanding that the 18ft does get you to two stories as the government code does define the high transit corridor. I believe most of the city of San Francisco is within that buffer. There might be select parts of maybe twin peaks or other parts of the city that are technically not within that buffer. Okay i just im having a hard time understanding if we think two story adus are a great solution for San Francisco, why is it limited to a half mile from a transit corridor . I guess they think what . Its easier for more people who want denser adus where people can take public transit. Im just not seeing a connection if we think theyre a good idea, then why arent we doing it everywhere . I dont understand the linkage to the high quality transit corridor. In our particular case. So i, you know, to the extent you have and i hope you do discussions with the state when theyre pursuing this kind of legislation and i very much want to echo commissioner moores comments about does this you know, it seems like the state doesnt have a problem adopting specific San Francisco oriented rules, as we saw in your report, director hillis and im wondering whether we need to think about what in the adu context, what makes the most sense for San Francisco, given that it is much denser than any other urban area in the city, in the state. Thank you. Just the question around the financing and certainly would love to know the outcome of the program that had been proposed, but i know this is before the pandemic, so im not sure if its still in operation. The Real Estate Industry has obviously changed a lot since then. There were some private companies that were helping to try to finance adus for folks, and so i cant remember the exact arrangement, but there was working work on that. So i hope that we do see more of that happening so that more folks is kind of to your point, commissioner moore, who maybe cant pay out of pocket, obviously very expensive to build an adu can have the opportunity to add that. So it might be a few years maybe before some of thats back. Given the current economy. But hopefully well see some more programs in addition to anything that the city is offering. Do you have any further comments . Commissioner diamond okay, great. I think we do have a motion that included the modification that was proposed today. Indeed, theres a motion that has been seconded for approval with staffs modifications submitted to you today on that motion. Commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a thank you, commissioner diamond high commissioner, imperial no. Commissioner coppell high. Commissioner moore no. And Commission President tanner i so move commissioners that motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against commissioners. That will place us on items 17 and 18 for case numbers. 2019 hyphen 020115e and v and. Zero and 2019 hyphen 020115r for the ocean beach Climate Change adaptation project. Youll hear both presentations on the final Environmental Impact report and general plan conformity findings. We ask that you consider the certification first, separately and then the general plan findings. Second, please note that the public hearing on the draft eir is closed and the Public Comment period for the draft eir ended on january 24th, 2022. Public comment will be received today. However the comments will not be included in the final eir okay, good afternoon, president tanner and members of the commission. Im julie moore from the Environmental Planning section of the Planning Department. The item before you is the certification of the final Environmental Impact report or eir, for the proposed ocean beach Climate Change adaptation project act. As a reminder, we brought the draft eir to this commission in january 2022 to refresh your memories, ill start my presentation with a brief overview of the project. The eir conclusions and the Environmental Review. Can you step closer to the mic please . Oh, certainly. I will then discuss the responses to comments document highlighting a few additional studies that were performed to address agency concerns that were raised and concluding with our recommendation for certification of the final eir. So lets see. The city proposed as a coastal adaptation and Sea Level Rise resiliency project along a portion of the citys western shoreline from slope boulevard to fort funston, known as south ocean beach. The project is a collaborative, multi Agency Initiative involving the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. San francisco recreation and parks. Public works mta. The National Park service, and potentially Us Army Corps of engineer. It is the result of more than ten years of planning and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, starting with the 2012 ocean beach Master Plan Vision coordinated by spur and the amendments to the western shoreline area plan adopted by this commission in october 2017. Specifically, the project would permanently close the great highway. The great highway between sloten skyline boulevards to public vehicles include adding reconfiguring affected intersect sections and zoo parking access. It would construct a buried wall to protect existing Wastewater Infrastructure from Shoreline Erosion and remove pavement revetments and rubble and debris from the beach and reshape the bluff and plant native vegetation. It would construct a multiuse trail beach access stairway, coastal access, parking and new restrooms and provide long term beach nourishment or sand replenishment of the beach. Okay this slide shows renderings of the proposed project with a view from the north end near slope boulevard and a view of the beach access stairs near the proposed coastal parking lot at different times of year and sand elevations. Thanks the eir determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts in three topic areas. Project operations would redirect vehicular traffic around the closed portion of the great highway, which would result in substantial additional project and cumulative vehicle miles traveled impacts as redirected vehicular traffic would also result in significant project and cumulative traffic related noise impacts. Project construction would result in significant impacts on the fort funston bank. Swallow colony. Five new mitigation measures were added to the final eir based on additional study and agency consultation, which ill discuss further later. Therefore for the San Francisco Public Utilities commission and the recreation and Parks Commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to sequa should those commissions approve the project. It the final eir also concluded that other impacts on noise biological resources, air quality and paleontological resources would be significant, but could be mitigated to a less than significant level, with measures identified in the eir. All other impacts were found to be less than significant or would result in no impact. The eir analyzed for project alternatives a no project alternative increased beach nourishment only a conventional seawall all and replacing the lake merced tunnel with inland infrastructure other than the no project alternative, the increased beach nourishment only alternative was considered the environmentally superior alternative. However there is some uncertainty as to whether the alternative would be able to meet the project objective of protecting infrastructure in the long term, which would then result in similar significant, unavoidable impacts as the project at the department solicited and incorporated Public Comments on the environmental analysis throughout the Environmental Review process. This slide presents the key dates in that process, including issuance of a notice of preparation of an eir in september 2020. Publication of the draft eir in december 2021, the public hearing on the draft eir at this commission in january 2022 and the Public Comment period for the draft eir, which concluded on january 24th, 2022. The responses to comments on the draft eir was published september 14th, 2023. The responses to comment document addresses all comments the department received on the draft eir during the Public Comment, including the environmental topics shown here. As i will discuss in a minute, biological resources was a major topic of concern raised the responses to comments document includes revisions and clarifications to the project description section and evaluates the Environmental Impacts of these minor changes. The project revisions would not result in any new significant impacts that were not already identified in the draft eir or substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the draft eir. The document also responds to comments on the project description with detailed explanation versions of project components. The responses to comments document also includes the results of additional biological resources studies that were performed to fully address Agency Comments received on the draft eir such comments included, among others, concerns from the California Department of fish and wildlife and the National Park service regarding the projects impacts on bank swallows. The photos on the left and center show nesting habitat south of fort funston that was used by the colony last year. The photo on the right shows habitat that would be removed by the project. We engaged with these agencies to better address their comments and in response directed our consultants to conduct a bank swallow habitat assessment. The purpose of the study was to quantify the Square Footage of existing historic and potential bank swallow nesting habitat available in the greater fort funston area and to evaluate wait, additional potential mitigation measures for the projects removal of bank swallow habitat. Biologists from fish and wildlife and the park service participated in scoping the study in the field survey reviewing draft findings and developing a range of feasible mitigation measures to reduce project impacts include adding new artificial habitat creation concepts that have had some success elsewhere. These new mitigation measures are included in the final eir, however, due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of these measures to fully offset project impacts and because implementation of some of these measures is not fully within the citys control, the impact on bank swallow habitat is still considered significant and unavoidable with mitigation to address comments from the California Coastal Commission Regarding the projects impact on coastal dune habitat, the Planning Department engaged a coastal dune expert to assess and delineate dune habitat. This study identified dunes that may be classified as potentially environmentally Sensitive Habitat area, or esa under the coastal act versus dunes, resulting from routine clearing of sand from the great highway. The findings were incorporated into the final eir and informed the projects Habitat Restoration and enhancement plan. Based on this assessment, no additional sequa mitigation is required before i conclude, id like to note that yesterday the San Francisco Zoological Society submitted a letter to the Planning Commission stating concerns regarding the projects construction transport, nation noise and vibration and air quality impacts on the zoo. The eir adequately considered these topics and in accordance with the required of sequa and the concerns raised in the zoo letter do not require any revisions to the eir. For your information, the Planning Department sent the zoo the notice of preparation of an eir and scoping meeting as well as the notice of draft eir publication on. But the zoo did not submit any comments at any point prior in the Environmental Review process. As i know that representatives of the sfpuc have been meeting with the zoo and can answer any questions you may have about that coordination in addition, this morning i had an email from eileen boca of speak regarding a number of topics. I replied where those topics are addressed in the eir , the Planning Department has prepared the final eir in accordance with sequa in chapter 31 of the San Francisco administrative code, the final eir provides Decision Makers and the public with the information required pursuant to sequa to understand the potential Environmental Impacts of the project. Alternatives and mitigation measures. On this basis, planning staff requests the Planning Commission adopt the eir certification motion before you. The motion does not approve the project, but instead certifies that the eir complies with sequa and is adequate, accurate and objective. Live. This concludes my presentation. I will be available for questions, as will representative of the sfpuc and rec and park. Thank you. Thank. All right. Hello commissioners. Thank you, julie. Happy to be here. My name is danielle. Go and im a senior planner in the citywide division. And josh sawicki is also here today, acting director of citywide to talk about the general plan referral portion of this project. So for everyone in the room benefit, well talk about the general plan and general plan referrals before talking about the details for this project. So the general plan is a Long Term Community Vision for the city. Its a proactive policy document that guides activity and change pertaining to how we live, work, play and move about at all parts of the general plan. Go through a public adoption process so that it can reflect Community Values and priorities for a 20 year plus life cycle, both public action and private Development Must conform with the general plan inside the general plan, theres all these components. Thats chapters also called elements that apply again to all city departments and agencies, commissions, city actions and its used to balance competing land use and other policy decisions in addition to the general plan elements. Theres also a land use index, 19 area plans and Environmental Justice framework and an introduction. Of the 19 area plans. There is a western shoreline area plan that you can see on the left hand side of the map and this area plan is the primary component used to judge the ocean beach Climate Change adaptation project, along with a handful of other relevant elements such as the recreation and open space element, the transportation element, urban design, safety and resilience. And so just as julie mentioned, the ocean beach project is the result of more than ten years of planning and engagement, including the 2012 ocean beach master plan and the update to the western shoreline area plan in october 2017. So now that we know the general plan, what our general plan referrals and general plan referrals or jeepers are required when board of supervisor action is required on the project and the action would do at least one of these criteria below acquire, vacate or change use of City Property change streets or transportation routes, demolish and construct city owned buildings, affect Public Housing and publicly assisted private housing. Allocates a local, state and federal resource fees and pertain to property subdivisions. So for this specific project. The project requires a general plan referral because it would involve board action on and these are some of many aspects of the project. Closing a portion of the great highway to most Traffic Building public structures and potentially other matters that require a pr per the admin code like obtaining easements on property under other ownership. These other matters would also be covered by the pr for this project, notably , a pr is not a project approval, its a statement that the project would or would not conform to the general plan. Its an evaluation of conformity with the general plan and so the city charter and the admin code for San Francisco require that this evaluation can be done before the board can take action. So why is the Planning Commission acting on this . Pr most prs are issued administratively by the department, but the admin code requires the commission evaluate conformity when the proposal is complex. This project is complex on many levels. Its a collaborative action between multiple entities city, state, federal and spans many jurisdictions. It addresses city priorities across multiple topics like the long term protection of crucial infrastructure, expansion of recreation, habitat and Natural Resource conservation. It encompasses numerous independent physical elements both above and below ground and it includes immediate construction as well as long term monitoring and interventions. So were here today for you all to consider the projects conformity with the general plan as depicted in the staff report and the general plan referral documentation. The Department Finds that on balance , the project is in conformity with the general plan, including , but not limited to the western shoreline area plan multiple elements and the eight priority policies in planning code section 101. 1. So if the planning code sorry, if the Planning Commission finds that the project conforms with the general plan, then the board may act on the project or may decide not to do so. If the Planning Commission finds that the project does not conform with the general plan, the board may reverse that finding. With a two thirds majority. And so the full pr finding is are in the case report. And i just wanted to share some excerpts to highlight this for everyone. So the excerpt from the western shoreline area plan, oh, this is very illegible. Pardon for the text size but policy 12. 1 is adopt ing managed retreat adaptation measures between slope boulevard and skyline drive. The project follows the implementation measures detailed on this policy, such as incrementally removing shoreline protection devices, relocating parking and restrooms away from erosion and Sea Level Rise hazards, closing the great highway, importing sand. Et cetera. And beyond the western shoreline area plan. Here are some excerpts of policies from other elements the recreation and open space Element Transportation element and safety and resilience element. I pulled these as excerpts just to illustrate the breadth of relevant findings and to show how complex the project is. Hence, being here today for your determination on. So thank you for your review and consideration of this general plan referral. And josh and i are available for questions as very good if that concludes adds staffs presentation, we should open up Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Hi good afternoon, commissioners. Zack lipton im a volunteer with friends of great highway park here in support of certificate ation of this eir. We submitted a letter alongside our friends at kidsafe San Francisco. The sf bicycle coalition, and walk sf to support the certification. The project is here to protect essential sfpuc Wastewater Infrastructure. Its already been adopted city policy since the lengthy public and interagency process to develop the ocean beach master plan in 2012. And the question before you today is a really narrow one. Its not whether everyone loves every aspect of this project that will be reviewed in other committees, but whether the report adequately assesses its Environmental Impact and i think with years of study and over 2000 pages of reports before you today, the Environmental Impacts have most certainly been assessed. Meanwhile, the relentless forces of Climate Change induced Sea Level Rise is dont participate in any Environmental Review process and continue to eat away at our shoreline, causing the road to erode into the sea and threatening the lake. Merced tunnel that thousands of us rely on on daily. Its time to take this action to address the reality that is Climate Change and protect our citys coasts and infrastructure for future generations. As the passage of prop j and the failure of prop i in fall 2022 demonstrate pronounced public support for portions of this project, with 65 of voters and majorities in every supervisorial district rejecting a measure that would have sought to block the projects planned vehicle circulation changes where especially pleased to see the new accessibility, beach access and native plant elements added to the project. These will add new access for people with disabilities looking to get to the beach, help stabilize the dunes with native plants instead of ice plant and improve safety through a really treacherous intersection at skyline. For everyone trying to get between lake merced and the multiuse path thats included in this project at the certification today is a first step to confronting the reality of Climate Change and the coastal erosion threatening critical city infrastructure. We support this certification and look forward to collaborating with the city as they move forward with new recreational and access improvements. As we seek to build an accessible and joyous oceanfront for all. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other members of the public coming forward in the chambers, lets go to our remote callers. Eileen bogan with speak the great highway is included in the dpw emergency route map and could be used as an evacuate route when the great highway was built, did it change the natural coastline and set up some of the current vulnerabilities per the Us Geological survey study, sand mining and San Francisco bay have exacerbated these vulnerability is causing changes in patterns of sand deposits, especially erosion on south ocean beach. The psc has done some coastal armoring projects without Coastal Commission permits with questionable results. The puc has also installed the west side transport box underneath both sides of the great highway between sloat and lincoln way. This carries wastewater over to the oceanside Treatment Facility for processing the puc has committed to do whats necessary to protect this asset. The us epa is currently suing the psc regarding wastewater discharge issues next to ocean beach. Managed retreat is being used as a rationale to close the great highway to vehicular traffic between sloat and skyline in order to manage erosion while the ocean bleach beach Climate Adaptation project seems to ignore other options, such as changes to sand mining activities, a managed retreat is a direct benefit for bicycles. And what is similar rationale be used as a possible phase two two and also closing the great highway between sloat and lincoln. Way to directly benefit bicycles, other issues are the snowy plover habitat and the waters off ocean beach could be part of the Greater Farallones National Marine sanctuary as part of its Management Plan review. Thank you. Hello, my name is josh. I live in the sunset neighborhood. I live really just three blocks away from this project. I wanted to comment that as someone who regularly drives to daly city, that the southern extension is completely unnecessary. I never drive on it. It is redundant. And during a weekend when the great highway is closed to car traffic, the traffic on our side streets is a little higher, but not worse than many places in San Francisco. So we really arent going to lose much locally when the southern extension is closed. I will note as a driver that at the current intersection where the great highway ends at skyline is dangerous, with drivers running a stop, signs or changing the lanes at the last second. So i hope when that turn is eliminated, that we can see that this intersection is calmed and made safer, especially for people crossing into lake merced. And finally, i think i think path connecting us to fort funston would be a benefit to the neighborhood. And, you know, Climate Change is real and we need to protect our sewer plant. But again, thats my sewer line. Id like to see protected. So as a local in the neighborhood, i would ask you to certify this proposal. And i want to say thank you for all the consideration regarding this issue. Thank you. Tonya peterson with the San Francisco zoo. Yes go ahead. Thank you. The San Francisco Zoological Society is a nonprofit that manages the San Francisco zoo, is in a 90 year Lease Management agreement with the city. And the zoo continues to object and have concerns with this project. We appreciate the studies of nearby habitats, but no impact on the zoos habitats or animals. Were conducting. And while were living with the temporary closure of the great highway, its during our peak times, weekends and holidays, we are witnessing visitors engage in dangerous activity, including illegal left turns, uturns and driving through our parking lot at reckless speeds to avoid congestion around the zoo. We have yet been made aware of any final or feasible plan to mitigate it, either. The short term or long term impact on the zoos parking or animals. While we are aware and have been aware of this project and in fact have included great highway in our long term closure of the great highway and our long term planning, we still await from the appropriate city agencies a feasible plan to mitigate the zoos concerns. And we have been raising this for years and feel it goes on deaf ears. Thank you. With that, i finished my report. Hi, can you hear me . Yes, we can. Thank you so much for taking the time to highlight this study. I have three concerns. One, with respect to the general plan. Two, with respect to the Environmental Review, the general plan concern has already been highlighted by a previous speaker who mentioned that the roadway is part of the Emergency Evacuation Route in the city. So i would hope and expect that the department of Emergency Management has taken it upon themselves to look at that plan and ensure that there is adequate access in the roadways, which ties to my first of two Environmental Concerns. The comments noted that vmt vehicle miles traveled would be impaired, would be increased with this project, which i find troubling from an environmental perspective. Living locally in the neighborhood, we already know that the intersection by 39th and scott has seen significant congestion and so i query how an Environmental Review could approve a project which is going to increase vehicle miles traveled and therefore by a common sense application of how vehicles work emissions. I hope that the commissioners will please take a closer look at that. But most importantly, my key Environmental Concern and i heard the word uncertainty used by the project proponent, its clearly a difficult prospect to evaluate a project thats intended to address erosion when there is limited data in the project plan, which actually demonstrates and measures the amount of erosion thats taking place along ocean beach. Personally, i think that there is a fair amount of erosion. In fact, i think significant enough in that particular location that the Wastewater Treatment plant is actually under threat and query how and whether a seawall , which i believe may raise legal issues as far as the California Coastal commission is concerned, is going to address rapid erosion. So i would hope and assume that the Commission Takes a closer look at the actual review of the amount of erosion. I dont see the building. A seawall is going to actually necessarily address the critical problems. And i hope that folks will please take a closer look. But i do want to go back to the emergency piece. We just saw what happened in maui. When people get routed into a fire storm because there are limited roadway travel. So i hope that the commissioners will please consider their personal liability risk if theyre going to go ahead and approve the closure of an Emergency Vehicle evacuation route. Im really sort of mystified that after ten years, the local community has continued to point out that building a seawall and a high rate of erosion and not addressing the roadway and not addressing the core Environmental Issues continues to be punted back and forth with a project manager who is now using the word uncertainty ante when they present the project. Please take a closer look. Come up with plans to move the Wastewater Treatment plant, set up a fund to fund it because its a multiyear project and do the proper work to analyze the erosion and actually protect the infrastructure and the roadways. Thank you kindly for your time and hard work. Looking at these key issues. Okay. Last call for Public Comment yet again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no request to speak, commissioners Public Comment is closed and the final eir and general plan findings are now before you. Well, i want to thank staff for working on both the eir and also the general plan referral. We certainly dont see many gps here, as was stated, i did have a couple questions. I wanted to lift up some of the conversations that have been happening with the zoo. I want to thank the representative from the zoo for calling in for writing as well. Director hills can you tell us a little bit more about what the conversations with the zoo in terms of i think its not so much the Environmental Impact, but just the Practical Impacts of this project on the entering exiting the zoo just whats been going on. What are the discussions been . Yes, so we have been talking with mta with the puc, the Mayors Office and rec park about access to the zoo. Obviously the zoo, we recognize, is an important San Francisco institution. We want to make sure visitors to the zoo can get there via transit or automobile. And its an easy its an easy route to get there currently, you know, theres access from the south along the great highway. You turn right on sloat, you can go into the zoo entry or when the great highway is open, you can come down the great highway, make a left on sloat, get into the zoo. Or if youre coming westbound on sloat, its an odd configured in that you have to make a u turn at the end of at the end of sloat in great highway. When this project happens, the zoo entry will be primarily through that access from sloat westbound u turn at the great highway, especially on weekends when the great highway is closed. And then the entry to the zoo. I think from a you know, from the zoos perspective, thats thats kind of an awkward entry. And i think we recognize that during this during this process, will it serve their needs . Yes like other broader Environmental Impacts or transportation impacts . No, but its not the most gracious entry or kind of direct entry to the zoo. So weve been working with puc, rec park and mta and have committed to work on that entry to the zoo. Clearly it would be costly to reconfigure kind of the 47th avenue making a left hand turn to get into the zoo. Its slightly off that intersection, the zoo entry, the zoo entry could move. It could be signalized in a way that works. There could be an additional signal. But weve committed as a team to work on that entry to the to the zoo. I think its outside the scope. I mean, its in this project, but i think we can do that. Wouldnt necessarily have Environmental Impacts. You know, we would do what ever environmental work needed to be done, but that we would do that and look at how this is performing, you know, especially over the next couple of years when construction is underway for this project. So is anybody from the puc either here . Can they address kind of the conversations again around this topic and how you might what youve been the conversations with the zoo have been around the entry. Yes. On roche with the sfpuc im the project manager for the city project and weve been working with the zoo for many years on what would need to happen. Related to this project. Weve reconfigured the entrance at sloat as mr. Hill is just described. It will serve as their entrance and exit. We didnt identify any additional impacts under sequa that would require anything beyond that, but we have committed to and in fact will be introducing that as part of our resolution at our Commission Meeting on october 10th to continue that work and take a look at that after the project has been completed to determine if there is some other action that needs to happen and that it would require its own Environmental Review. Okay. So i just want to make sure i understand that there would be conversation to figure out this entry exiting thing. And then if it was a signal or some other intervention, would that be a separate reviewed as a not as part of this project or its own project environmentally . Okay um, i think i would just reiterate just to say, yeah, theres a way to get in the zoo under the current project design, but its, i think less than desirable, to put it mildly. And so i would certainly hope that the puc rec park planning, to the extent that we are related to it, really do take seriously the need to engage with the zoo a very proactively and i hope the zoo folks are still listening to make sure we can have it be easy. Delightful fun, inviting place for people to come so they dont say, well, im never going to that zoo again when they get there. Okay. So and we can minimize any interference or potential conflicts with pedestrian and cyclists and all the other things that happen when people have to make u turn to do things that make them take longer than they do more dangerous things. And then were all worse off for it. So really, i understand its not maybe related to todays approval, but really think its very important to figure out these questions with that, i want to call on commissioner diner, diamond and any other commissioners that have comments or questions or motions. Um so im a big fan of the zoo. Ive spent countless hours there with my three children in the 1990s and early 2000 and definitely endorsed the idea that we need to make it as easy as possible and not put obstacles in the way of people entering the zoo. But im curious and have a question for the City Attorney. Do you have any do you see any issues from a sequel perspective . And are certifying the eir and taking action on the general plan referral today, knowing that theres future discussions that are going to take place on the zoo entrance, concerns that were raised. Can you thank you for the question. My mic seems to want to keep going off. There we go. Deputy City Attorney kristen jensen. No, i dont see any problems. I will remind the commission that the comments came in after the close of the Comment Period and so planning staff has nonetheless s done their best to respond. And based on those issues that were considered in the responses to comments, notwithstanding the fact that the comments came in late, in any event, the and i also have asked my colleague, who is in another location today to confirm that there are no issues raised in the general plan referral. And he has confirmed that there are no issues there either. Okay so i spent several hours reviewing the response to comments. I spent many hours reviewing the underlying draft eir and i would make a motion to certify the eir because i take it we want to do that first. But i see that commissioner moore has a comment, so im going to you can make a motion. I would second the motion. I am very comforted by the fact that the department in all aspects of the plan is indicating that certain data will arise as we are sitting here, the winds of the last few few weeks have greatly eroded the beach adequacy field, something i have never seen before. There is basically the beach has shrunk to a minimum of what it used to be. So we are encountering changes that are not predictable in this eir. That includes the severity of storms that includes the direction of unusual winds taking beaches away or creating new beaches. And i just want to say that because i believe that this eir and its kind of finite printed statement makes it important findings. It cautions us to that many things will have to continue to be observed, particularly in the area of noise control. I raised that question just a few days ago. Are we fully tuned into the sensitivity of animals under noise . We all know what dogs do during a firework. If this happens for four years and there are unusual noise levels, what do we know and what do we do to sensitize the process in real . Using this as a project which has been ten years in the making in this statement, it will probably take another, probably double digit years to implement it. I dont have a number, so i would say that i am in full support to certify and get on with, really perceive this as a real project. Great. Thank you. Commissioner braun. Im also in full support of certifying the eir, and i just want to thank Department Staff for the robustness of the follow up on the comments that were received , including the banks follow habitat comments and to say, you know, its a its a very robust analysis, including finding that there are significant and unavoidable impacts from this project. But those are the kinds of things that were trying to determine through this analysis. So thank you very much. Thank you. Very good. If theres nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the final Environmental Impact report on that motion. Commissioner braun i, commissioner ruiz, i commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial i. Commissioner coppell i. Commissioner moore and Commission President tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. I i would now move to adopt the general plan referral. Ill second thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the general plan referral. Commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell i. Commissioner moore i and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and will place us on item 19 for case number 2022 hyphen 011793 ca for the property at 213 Upper Terrace a conditional use authorization. Thank you, jonas. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ashley lindsay, Planning Department staff. The case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to demolish an existing three story 2664 square foot Single Family home and proposes to construct a new four story residential building with two units and a 1333 square foot, two bedroom unit. The project includes excavation of 86yd t of soil due to the steeply sloping site, and the project also proposes two vehicle spaces in the garage and two class one bicycle Parking Spaces. The project is located within the Corona Heights special use district per planning code. Section 249. 77. The district was established to protect and enhance existing neighborhood character, encourage new infill housing at compatible densities and scale, and provide for thorough assessment of proposed large scale residences that could adversely impact the area and Affordable Housing opportune cities in order for the project to proceed, the Commission Must grant a conditional use authorization in pursuant to planning code sections 249. 77 303 and 317 for demolition of the existing structure and Residential Development and increases the existing legal unit count on the parcel within the rh two Zoning District and 40 x height and bulk district. The project is exempt from the California Environmental quality act as a class one and three categorical exemption an to date, the department has received one letter in opposition of the project and one phone call with general comment. The comments pertain to proper notification rental and tenancy special use district compatibility and request for additional off street parking. Staff has investigated the comments and determined that proper notification was sent and the design maintains a built form and appearance that is compatible with Neighboring Properties and contributes to the mixed visual character of the neighborhood. Please note a buyout agreement was filed on july 28th, 2017, and no tenant was served with an eviction notice. Ten years prior to september 26, 2023. Id also like to read into the record that on page six of staffs report under conditional use findings item seven b to the beginning of the last sentence reads, the resulting garage will approximate be 135 gross square feet and will be revised in the motion to read the resulting garage will approximately be 533 gross square feet. The Department Finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The size of the project and the units resulting from the construction of the new four story two unit building is in keeping with other Residential Properties in the neighborhood and result in a net increase in density. The Department Also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity and recommends approval with conditions. This concludes staffs report and the project sponsor is present and available to answer any questions. Thank you. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is steve walker. Im the architect and if you have any questions, let me know. The project is pretty simple. Weve got a client that has a nine person multigenerational family and we have elected to demolish the existing home and build a two unit structure. The reason that were getting a conditional use authorization is because were demolishing, but were also exceeding the Corona Heights district maximum 3000ft s for te principal residence. That principal residence has got four bedrooms in it. The project sponsor, the owner here, thad, has, in addition to his to his wife, two biological children, and to adopted children from india that hell be housing in that home. And then in addition, a sister in law and a grandmother that will be living in the inlaw unit, which is a smaller in the future, that inlaw unit can be converted into a rental or or other, depending on the familys plans and how it evolves. So if you have any questions, im here. Thanks. Okay. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jeffrey dido and i live directly behind adjacent or behind and where this project is. And im here to actually to approve or to urge you to approve the project. The house that is currently there is hasnt been occupied for a number of years. It is not in good shape. Actually. I toured it when it was an open house and there was parts of it which were not allowed to go in because it was sagging. I also do happen to know the Connelly Family personally, having my children have gone to school together, so i know that i actually live at 65 clifford terrace, which is right behind that. And ive seen the plans and they do match with the neighborhood. And i think by adding another unit, we are talking in the city about it, adding more units and more density. And i believe this project does that and it will be benefit to the neighborhood to have that property be upgraded. And both seismically as well as visually. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment, seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners Public Comment is closed and this matter is now before you. Thank the project sponsor and staff for a great summary and an overview giving a little more depth also to the commenter kind of the condition currently i dont have any comments or questions myself. Do other commissioners have comments, questions or motions . Commissioner moore i have a question. I asked a question to miss vardy just a few weeks ago that in this particular case its not just a cautionary judgment that were exceeding the proposed 3000ft s because 3660, whatever square feet, is beyond discretion. So my question would be, if i would be in the same situation as a family and since other family related people to live in the second unit, why not create more unit equity and indeed make the prime three unit not larger than 3000ft s in order for us to uphold what Corona Heights has fought for, for the correct reasons for many, many years, im here to basically create like a level view, not about a very specific family related situation, but about rules that apply to everybody. And in this particular case, it would be the Corona Heights neighborhood. And why not then create more unit equity and stay at least not only within the 3100 or whatever, square feet using your discretionary explanation from two weeks ago and make it not so difficult for us not to be forced to make personal or emotional decisions about a family. 3000ft s is a very large facility. Me, i live with two two adults in a 1100 square foot unit and you need to kind of accommodate each other. But that is quite possible. I know quite a few families with a number of children who live in units far below 3000ft s. So i personally experienced 3000 square 3000ft s as established by Corona Heights as a reasonable measure here. And i would ask that this project is approvable, but the primary unit needs to be more equitably divided along the guidelines that we are supposed to be sitting on. Judging by whats in front of us. Those those would be my comments. Thank you. Uh, did you want any response from the applicant or did you want it . No, i would like this for a moment to stay here with our commissioners and see if somebody feels us the way i did. Because this will happen again and again. And were not here to ultimately prove that this family will stay in this house. I am looking at the building of reasonable units which, irrespective who lives in here over time, holds up some common sense rules. That is my feeling about what were doing here. Yeah, certainly, commissioner imperial. Yes. I also share the sentiment of Vice President moore on this as we have approved cars before for and large resident suv and also now in this Corona Heights. And you know again, based on for me as a commissioner, if we are going to approve more than 3000 of the suv that perhaps there should be some sort of a guideline for us. What is actually good that is, if its, lets say 300, 300ft s, more thn 3000, what does that look like . Because im afraid that whats going to come is that and it keeps coming to us where its almost about closer to the 4000ft s. So its i would like o have more guidelines for us to base off as what it is acceptable to go beyond 3000ft . And i am very sympathy stick to the big families that are big families in the city. And i do appreciate this project. Have another unit as well. And i do appreciate that. But with suds that that we have here in the city, i think it would give us more guidelines so that, you know, we dont get a car at some point where its going to be a 5000ft s. And we have and we hae to appeal under what is the need of that particular family or household. So that is kind of like the objective point of view that im trying to also base my decision as well for this kind of projects. Great. Thank you, miss. What do you want some comments . Sure no, thank you for that. And for the chance to sort of have this conversation up here. Im a we always love having objective criteria whenever theres new legislation that is adopted that helps sort of guide our Decision Making so we dont have to craft it on our own and see how it goes. So were on the same page on that. I think as it relates to this project and the Corona Heights in general, one of the fundamental principles in the adoption of that ordinance was to really prevent, particularly in Corona Heights, where you do have a lot of through lots that are on these steep slopes. We were starting to see a lot of buildings that were really basically taking over the entire hillside that were really, really out of context and that werent either sort of a typical upslope building from the bottom or a typical in context downslope. And were kind of gaming some of the rules to make these really massive out of context homes. And i think that was the fundamental principle coupled with shouldnt we be looking at densifying these neighborhoods when density is allowed . So i think to us, as i mentioned a few weeks ago, those are two of the sort of primary factors that we look at. I can guarantee you personal circumstance, those are not the things we look at. So although its a very empathetic story and im sure it is true, that is not what was guiding our Decision Making on this. I think when it comes to the specifics of this project, whats really helpful to look at are the side elevations. I mean, all of the plans in conjunction, but particularly, i think the side elevations. And when looking at the rear elevation, really realizing that theyre taking advantage of what is right now, a lot of unused space, which we see on a lot of steep hillsides where theyre not building out at that ground floor level because often a lot of buildings were just built on posts. And it seems like an efficient space to stack some additional habitable space within that. And when you really look at the side elevations, as the proposal is very much in context with the adjacent to buildings, it is not building or getting more than those buildings, both of which i believe and staff can correct me if im wrong, here are Single Family homes. So this building is effectively sculpted within the same envelope as its neighbors, but yet it is being more dense in whats contained within that envelope. And although the Square Footage is might be greater again because of capturing some sort of bottom of hillside and Square Footage, i think those two principles to us are really the most important that it is densifying and within context of the adjacent to so hopefully that brings a little bit more color to the conversation. Ryan, did you want to respond to commissioner moore and ill get to you, commissioner brown. It actually does, but it doesnt. I think it makes a very positive point about appropriate massing, which is one one reason which drives the conversation of establishing maximum things. But here were talking about primary unit. And 660 was in that envelope form based code, so to speak. You can still re arrange things in order to stay a little bit more in the equitable guidelines. And that is what i would like to see. I mean, if i look at just 600ft s on its own without specifically addressing that in context of this buildings, those are two adus on top of everything else. So i believe that needs to be slightly more unit equity. And since we are talking about a related or expanded family, where where the end or one of the growing daughters sleeps at night can be basically be more flexible between units being more responsive to the overall challenge of what we are supposed to deal with here. And that would be really a true response to density action and more equitable densification. Thank you. Commissioner braun. Uh, i just want to say i do appreciate the comments that commissioner moore has been raising. I think as far as the guidance on the special use district and equity of the unit equity question is certainly objective Design Standards or objective guidelines would be better. Um, you know, i, we really are going on our guts right now on that and kind of what our gut feeling is on this. I do always keep in mind i, i hope others do as well that we are approving approving the use, not the user for the use, not the story. And so i view that as being part of being equitable about this. But then it does become this judgment call of what is too much above 3000ft s. And i appreciate your comments about the context mattering as well. The design context. You know, we do have the conditional use authorization findings for this. The special use district. And so, you know, i always look very carefully at those to see if i agree with them. I do have a lot of comfort in this particular project from the fact that the smaller unit is over 1300ft s, which is actually quie a large unit. I mean, its certainly larger than anyone ive ever lived in San Francisco. And so thats not to say that it couldnt this couldnt have better, uh, a better split between the large main unit and that smaller unit. But it gives me some comfort, at least, again, a little bit of a judgment call here with the fact that it is such a large second unit. And it does seem very, very practical. Great. Thank you, commissioner diamond. If we want unit equity, i feel like we need to objective standards, although i will say i dont necessarily agree that, you know, in every project we should the goal is unit equity. We need larger houses, you know, and we need smaller houses depending upon the size family. What made me happy here is that its going to be a two unit complex and that the second unit, the smaller one is 1333ft s and has two bedrooms. And its not one of these cases where we have, you know, 5000ft s and 400ft s with some little room in the back. This feels like its totally appropriate for two different families. At some point. And so i dont have any problem would move to approve. Second, commissioner reese. Yeah, i just you know, again, with the subjective versus objective, i feel like we continue to see these projects before us where folks say, you know, were going to move in our whole families. And so this is why were choosing to expand and this home, i mean, it would be great in this particular instance if we were seeing, you know, two apartment being built to put on the rental market. And so i feel quite uncomfortable like using our subjective judgment in this particular instance and really hear the comments that Vice President moore and commissioner imperial have said about equity. And im kind of getting tired of seeing these projects before us where were just approving these monster expansions. Um, so yeah, i just, you know, want to say that on the record that i think at some point we have to come to some type of solution to address this problem. You know, we want more Equitable Development and we dont want to see the same projects over and over before us that are frankly only benefiting a particular type of population in in the city. And so i feel like we continue to approve of items that are not truly upholding some of the Racial Equity statements that we have made and have discussed over and over again in in our Housing Element. So i just want to honor the comments around equity. Thank you. I would just say before i go to director hillis from my part, i would join commissioners brown and diamond being happy to see, you know, a one house being replaced by two units and that the second unit is pretty significant in size. It may not be the equal to the other unit, but it is, i think, proportionally if youre having if youre not having like an equal duplex side by side, i think its a pretty good ratio between the smaller unit and the larger unit as opposed to some of the projects where i think we all join together and try to get a few hundred extra square feet into the 500 or the 400 or what have you. Adu thats kind of at the bottom or tucked in the back of a much, much larger home even than the one that were approving. So i certainly think and look forward to some of our other larger policies. I think two by two is great. So thank you for the project sponsor bringing this forward. Whether your family lives there or other families live there is irrelevant to me. What i look forward to more are the larger projects, a larger rezoning that really is where were going to see equity and be able to achieve some of our goals around racial and social equity and projects like this. I think where they do also fit in is if this building, not that it would be were to become a condo or other place. Thats where we also see opportunities for Home Ownership of smaller units that is more affordable for folks who are trying to get into the ownership and build equity and build wealth through that. Whereas buying a whole home, even the 2664 square foot home that was here, you know, thats going to be more expensive than a 1300 square foot condo. And so i think were losing some things perhaps, but i think were gaining quite a bit with this project. And what i really hope for is agendas that have more than two Housing Units overall on them. So hopefully we can see more of that in the commissions future. With that, i want to call on director hillis, and i think we have a motion thats been made and seconded. Yeah, one, thanks for the conversation and i agree, totally agree. And were grappling with it as we do the rezoning on the west side and four plex zoning is put in place because were not necessarily seeing folks come in and wanting to build for units. You know, youre seeing larger Single Family homes and its because of that. This is in Corona Heights and theyre doing a 317 demo that this is even before you, right . Because you could do an expansion of an existing home, not demo it. Its not in Corona Heights. And this project would be code compliant elsewhere and not even be at the commission. So we get the we dont want to see this kind of project by project, but what that entails is, you know, having some limit on the size like you saw on supervisor peskins legislation a couple of weeks back in rem, where we set a cap. You know, its got to be 3500 or you cant expand beyond 25. I think of the existing home and youve got to maximize density. But those are you know, thats thats setting a cap on existing size of homes, which i think you would need to do if you dont want to see all these as kind of discretionary actions. So but were having that discussion, you will see that discussion. Youll be able to have that as part of the Housing Element as well. Yeah, and i certainly think that legislation and other things can be opportunity for us to pick up that type of thing as we do the rezoning and be thinking about some of these issues. And i will say, i know again, when we when we did it with supervisor mandelman legislation, it was hard to think about the whole city. And so just as were thinking about the west side up zoning to think about not just like, you know, is it is it one size fits all for different Zoning Districts or is it more nuanced with, of course, trying to keep it simple, which is always a hard thing to do in San Francisco. With that, commissioner dimond, did you raise your hand again . Okay great. Thank you. I think we are ready to vote. Very good commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner braun, high commissioner ruiz, high commissioner diamond high. Commissioner imperial no. Commissioner coppell high. Commissioner moore no. And commissioner. President tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against item 20, case number 2023 hyphen 001895 coa for the property at 2214 Mission Street a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioner. President tanner and commissioners, this is kalyani agnihotri Department Staff. Im presenting a conditional use authorization to establish an Outdoor Activity area and expand an existing liquor establishment in a portion of a parking lot at 2214 Mission Street. This area is to be associated with an existing restaurant doing business as b2, which is located at on the adjacent parcel at 2224 Mission Street. The project proposes to remove six of the nine parking stalls and creates this Outdoor Activity area at the rear of the lot. The proposed area will be used for Outdoor Dining and will consist of seating for restaurant patrons. It will. It will have a service station, temporary tent structures, storage and restrooms. This area can be accessed from the Mission Street frontage of the parking lot and from the restaurant as well. Three Parking Spaces will still be retained at the front of the lot since it is located at the rear of the lot. The activity area is separated from its immediate neighbors by midblock open space and its neighbors to the north by lightwells the hours of operation for the proposed activity area will be limited to between 9 a. M. And 10 p. M. To reduce any concerns about noise. Currently the restaurant only operates between saturday to wednesday, the hours being 12 p. M. To 9 30 p. M. And sunday between 11 a. M. To 3 p. M. The restaurant has previously conducted Outdoor Dining activity and Alcohol Service by means of a shared spaces permit at the subject location during the pandemic, the restaurant holds a valid abc type 41 license and the operation for the Outdoor Activity area shall be in compliance with the operating conditions for eating and drinking uses which are also specified in exhibit a since its establishment in 2019, the restaurant has not received any active complaints regarding noise at packet publication. The department has received around 40 letters of support for the project. The Public Outreach expressed support to potatoes business. They commended the value it has brought to the Mission Street commercial corridor and encouraged the establishment of this Outdoor Dining space to increase the diversity of spaces in the neighborhood. In summary, the project complies with the zoning and policies of the Mission Area Plan and the general plan. The project supports the retention of an existing local business. It provides additional employment and it contributes to the Economic Vitality of the neighborhood. So the Department Recommends approval. This concludes my presentation, and the project sponsor also has a presentation. So thank you. Very good. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mark dimalanta. I am a licensed registered architect with the state of california and my firm is based here in San Francisco. We are certified a Architecture Firm based in south of market. Im very happy to present this project to you. We dont get to do Something Like this that we feel very strongly is a nice contribution to the community. This restaurant has been there, opened right before the pandemic. In short, obviously i can answer the technical questions with the architecture side, but i want to reserve a lot of time with the executive chef and the owner. But the outdoor area is an extension of the dining. So all of the food prep and all of the bar is in the main portion of the enclosed restaurant that it is now. And then this essentially has been a something that morphed during the pandemic when they first had their business plan. It was all in indoor, but that changed quickly. With that being said to the new outdoor area will be accessible. Weve kept the parking to accommodate the patrons and then added an accessible ada parking spot as well. Yes, the plan is which i believe you guys have in your packet. I can answer, but in short it weve placed the dining area towards the rear to keep the front portion of the parking lot, the existing parking lot easily accessible for the cars and not obviously interrupt the any of the dining. And to turn the page how do i turn the page. Okay thank you. And then we put together a quick diagram of how the space months are. You can put the next. One but in short, i think you see that in your in your packet. So im going to leave the time with the executive chef. Thank you. Half day and good afternoon, commissioner. My name is sean abc. I am the owner or coowner and chef at restaurant barbecue located in the Mission District. By allowing these plans to move forward, it will allow our business to grow and contribute to the community. We provide a beautiful outdoor setting to mission and 18th that really adds a vibrant space and a beautiful. To the area Mission Street doesnt have the same welcoming appeal to residents or tourists as valencia street does. Particular at 18th street. We really want to contribute and changing that perspective, we put love and attention providing fun, comfortable space, outdoor space for everyone to enjoy. We received positive feedback from our patrons, especially expressing gratitude for providing safe and Family Friendly environment to enjoy outside are something that is not common. Offering in sf. These plans will also allow us to retain our current position and keeping all our staff employed and secured their jobs, contributing to their wellbeing and feeling of security. Ive always dreamed of owning and operating a restaurant in San Francisco since i moved here in 2003 to attend culinary school, and that would be it. Thank thank you. To use up the rest of the time, ill describe the outdoor area has a lot of plants very tropical. Give you some sort of connection to visual guam is like hawaii much much much more smaller much less developed in california. This is the only guam restaurant youll ever find in the whole west coast. West coast. Youll you could google it, find great comments from gq magazine, esquire magazine, sorry. And michelin mentioned last year San Francisco got mentioned in a very positive light. This restaurant is a beacon for the tiny Little Island which is part of the us, but a territory at that. Theyre theyre they pride themselves on hiring and keeping in contact with a lot of the local guam people in the city and in the bay area. Its drawn a lot of great attention. The outdoor music is ukulele. Guy comes out on thursdays, come out tonight, youll see him. Hes very laid back. Its a its again guam music is like hawaiian music. But i dont know its just the Reference Point that i could tell you. And if you havent checked it out, by all means, please do so. Thank you. Thank you. If that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should open up Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter in the chambers. Please come forward. Hello. How are you . My name is marcel yang. I own piglet and co at 2170 Mission Street. Just a couple of spaces down from prabhat icu as a lot of you know, and a lot of you have seen the mission is a really struggling neighborhood. As far as Mission Street specifically is concerned. Theres tons of graffiti. I mean, i find myself on a regular basis just, you know, mid service, like going outside, making sure were staying up on that. I appreciate their outside space as well because they really make an effort to maintain their storefronts. Theres a couple other businesses that you know, we really want to try to rebuild that area of the mission that has keeps getting neglected by, you know, for whatever reason, you know, like we have like abanico. We have like ramen. Well, we have all these other businesses that are really trying to like, keep the neighborhood alive, like invite other people from out of San Francisco, you know, south bay marin on, you know, east bay. And you know, its really disheartening sometimes, not necessarily. We just being in the mission and crying just like people sometimes like they dont want to come there because we cant not provide certain types of experiences for them. You know, and my hope is that we can continue to like, grow that neighborhood. And especially like the Mission Street area to where people do come out from like north, north beach or the marina or san jose or whatever, because like they do feel comfortable. They dont feel like theyre going to come. And its going to be like a threatening environment. And you know, all of the businesses and especially prabhat you like i love their outdoor space. Like even before we signed our lease and we moved into our space like its so welcoming. And yes, theres parks and yes, theres other places, but theres so much more potential for something to happen in those other public spaces than the outdoor space that theyre providing for the neighborhood to come and enjoy. And its not something where, you know, i know sometimes, you know, anytime involving a liquor license, people are concerned like, oh, how is that going to increase possibly like crime in the area or whatever. But its such a warm, welcoming environment, like theyre so professional and its just like so such a compliment as far as having a neighbor that is takes their business seriously, respects their space, respects the neighborhood and is really trying to just, you know, improve overall what were trying to do, again, as neighbors, as fellow Business Owners in that area. So i would really like you to consider approving ing their plans because, again, like were all just trying to, like, survive together. And if like its a main part of their business, it really helps them and im not going to lie. Im a little jealous. Its a little cool. Thank you. Thank you. That is your time. Seeing no other members of the public in the chambers, theres someone. Come on up. If anybody else wants to speak to this matter in the chambers, please come forward. Good afternoon, commissioners. I was in city hall this morning. I had no intention of coming in, but i happen to be canvasing the mission. And i got a phone call from a chef that sean had mentored and said, staff, can you please come down to city hall today . Because i cant make it. And this guys a great guy. He taught me and hes really a great contribution for the mission. So i said, well, you know, i cant just run down there unless i go visit the place and maybe canvass it and talk to some people. So i was literally about a block away and i walked in and i met the staff member, nicole. I said, please, can you show me your place and tell me a little bit about who you are and what you do and what you plan to do and she said, by all means. So so i dont think the model works with just the indoor anymore. I think what happened is when they opened up in 2000, 19, they were in in the midst of the pandemic where we were in a crisis here in the city. We were all on lockdown. So when they finally opened the city up and they opened up the outdoor where people felt it a little bit more comfortable, a little more safe, i have asthma. I like to eat outdoors right . So i went out there and i said, this is beautiful. And they do have plants and do everything. And i said, okay, so youve got an accomplished chef. Youve got great food. You give people a choice. Youre its a safe environment to eat. How many employees do you have . And they said about 20. I says, so you have 20 people that make a living off this restaurant . Yes. And they believe in the restaurant. So so now were offering people all diversity in the mission. Which what is the mission . When you say the mission . And i go, theres the mission is alive and well with diversity and the people and the energy. And this is consistent with what the mission is all about. Now now 18th in valencia, is there going to be a little bit of noise . Yeah, 18th and mission. Is there going to be a little bit of noise . Yeah. Why why . Because its a vibrant part of our city. And there are other quieter parts, too, to live in. But i could see having this there and maybe cutting it off until 10 00. Its a restaurant. Its not going to morph into anything other than a restaurant. But if you want a culinary experience with great food, with people that want to make sure that you have a good time and an outdoor setting, this is what San Francisco is all about, not some of the bad press that were getting right now. We need more places like this. Thank you. Okay if there are no other members in the chambers, is. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is andrew. Im also a patron too, at perpetue as well as a staff member too, as well. Id like to go ahead and say too, so ill have to just pause it. Can staff speak for projects . I know we have some times challenge that as mr. Secretary, you sort of have a financial interest in sorry, correct. Financial interest. Your enthusiasm is noted. Thank you for being here. Okay. If there are no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, lets go to our remote callers. Mr. Halesworth hi. Do you hear me . We can. Oh, great. Good i just have a couple of comments that i when i received the letter in the mail from the city saying that there was there was going to be this hearing. I read it and i actually couldnt really understand why predator, who i am, a patron and who has done such an amazing job with the space they have with the food they serve, why they why the city would be asking them to go through this swoop to do something they were already doing with the parking lot. Unless this solidify lies, the fact that the parking lot is now no longer going to be a parking lot that i could appreciate. But hearing everybody talk about it, it sounds as though theyre defending themselves to the city for something that is a wonderful thing. Now that said, the ukulele has been playing for three years. I think now nobody in the neighborhood have i. Ive heard and i actually live directly across or diagonally across from venue has ever had a problem with it. Its nice music. It goes on it it cuts off early and theres not a problem. So those were confusing things. So then when i im reading through this and it says the project description an Outdoor Activity area. Well ive seen theyve had childrens playgrounds out there. Theyve had all kinds of things. The only thing i want to say is a week or two ago, there was something that happened there that was much more than just a nice restaurant with a beautiful all, you know, ambiance with the plants and the childs playground and everybodys happy and the great food. But there was more of like a concert at and the ukulele started off at 2 00, but at 945 in the evening, it was full on amplified disco. And it wasnt just loud. It was extremely loud. And so that part makes me when i read this and i see Outdoor Activity thats not really defining what theyre going to do to. And i just would like them to comment on that that issue there. Because even though it went on for seven, almost eight hours, i kind of was like, wow, that is really different outside of the privy to normal and is that where things are going to head to . Thank you. Mr. Becker. Hi, joel becker, a homeowner and resident at 2208 Mission Street. The building directly to the north of you on september the 17th of this year , rebecca held an outdoor concert with live amplified band for multiple hours in their parking area, in violation of their liquor license. The license stating of course, that no sound shall be audible in any nearby residence. I live on the other side of the building on the fourth floor, facing away from rebecca and the noise was so loud it rattled my windows and shook my walls. I went downstairs to the restaurant and spoke with the owner and asked that the music be turned down. He refused. He also expressed his intention to hold similar concerts more frequently. I do not have a problem with rebecca operating as a restaurant in their parking area. I like the outburst seating and the thing is bringing things. It brings to the mission neighborhood. I agree with that comment from everyone, but i do have a problem with their destruction of my ability to live in my own home and what their blatant violation of the terms of their liquor license. I strongly object to the use of this location as an outdoor concert venue now or in the future. I moved to this area to live in a home, not next to an outdoor concert venue, and i expect the Planning Commission to hold prevention to their license, including noise that is not audible beyond the premises and does not significantly disturb the privacy or affect the livability of adjoining or surrounding residences. Now, during the outreach session, the context of concerts and other possible amplified music came up and multiple neighbors and myself included, expressed severe concern if these concerns were not forwarded to the Planning Commission or the Planning Department, then this is an inaccurate representation of the outreach session. Again, i have no trouble with this area being used as a restaurant area, as an eating area, as adjacent to the restaurant. I think its lovely, but i ask the Planning Commission to not approve this project without significant conditions to ensure that there is no amplified music and it does not disturb or destroy my ability to live next door. Thank you and thank you for all your time. Hi, my name is robert. Ive been native san franciscan. Ive enjoyed growing up in this diverse city where im able to experience many different cultures through celebrations and eating their food. The Mission District has been, in fact, a melting pot for these cultures to do so. Since ive discovered fugetsu, ive been there many times for lunch and dinner as well to celebrate the small culture with their outdoor patio events. For b2 as a whole is one of the only restaurants to where i feel comfortable and safe to bring my family and friends and not to be bothered by the foot traffic of the Mission District. For b2 has brought back life to the mission for family and friends to enjoy with the music and their culture that have given us. Thank you. For hi. Hey sherry. Yes, we can. Hi sorry about that. Im in new york. My name is cheryl cruz. I am a longtime resident of San Francisco since 2001. And my husband is also resident here, San Francisco. And im here to talk about my concerns, opposition to demand being a proper you for those of there things to be approved. Its the patio space is going to be full of hope and joy during the pandemic. So providing the space once more for and socialize is needed in the Spacex Mission and also in a place like San Francisco where weve seen it gone on over the past few years under the current leadership, its been a vital lifeline for the business, the patio space and it is enabling and it will continue to operate and contribute to the vibrancy and diversity of the neighborhood. So disaster prevention has survived through the disaster to not have it approved would be significant financial burden on this office, on the community of the mission, and on the people who work there and the patrons and everybody who loves the space, particularly during a time when businesses are struggling to stay afloat in this economy, and especially in the mission park, San Francisco. So it would be unreasonable to not approve what they are asking for, for something as simple as noise. That doesnt happen. So often for someone to come on and complain about a one time concert, its just absurd and completely selfish and not in the spirit of what it is to be a san franciscan. The patio space itself is unique. Its a valuable asset. Its one of the only outdoor spaces in the mission and in the area, and its a popular destination for locals and visitors alike to close it down for a reason. Of noise and not a place. It would be a tremendous loss to the community and a blow to the neighborhood. So i implore of the city and consider if they want to shut it down or whatever it is you want to do, you want to do it. I dont know. Whatever undue financial or trying put on this business. Its wrong. And you need to recognize the tremendous value that prevention patio space brings to the community. So please work with the business to find a solution and continue offering this outdoor space. Dont take this gem away from the community or the city because that is not the spirit of San Francisco. Thank you. Half a day. My name is sandra cox and im calling for item 20 in support of the continuation of the prevention patio on 2224 Mission Street. I cannot express the importance of this space to the community and my family. This patio came from a tragedy of covid and blossomed into something beautiful to showcase chamorro cuisine, which would not be the same without the ability to fiesta in nature. Whether thats on the beach or in the city. Perpetuo is one of the only restaurants that serves chamorro food in the bay area and adding to the diverse dining opportunities that makes the mission special. Well, i urge you to the committee to continue to support perpetue and thank you so much for your time. Hello. My name is jessica butzer. I am also a patron of beach. Being a ucsf nurse, an icu nurse, im very well aware of covid difficulties and even the fact that its essentially on the rise right now being able to go to probe and have a safe space outside to not only bring my mom and my family, who i would be worried about getting sick, but also cowork neighbors of mine who have come to perpetue and efforts to hold meetings and such. We wouldnt normally have a space or even go to this part of the mission if it wasnt for the outside space that perpetue provides and the safety and the community portion of that. I think considering all of the Small Businesses and restaurants closing in San Francisco and other neighborhood is essentially going dark, it would be a shame for this to also happen to the mission. Granted, yes, noise is a thing, but as stated by previous patrons before, i think having loud noise once out of however many months there are that it shouldnt be necessarily that big of a deal to create a financial burden for a restaurant. Thank you. Hi there. My name is rose barron. I am a patron of barbecue. I am a Health Care Worker here at San Francisco general hospital. Um, on many occasions, as i like to walk and bike to perpetue, i am a proud guamanian as well. And so to know that there is a place for me that i can go to, to enjoy food from my Little Island of guam. Um, i appreciate having it there. Um, i get that noise is an issue for some neighbors in the area and i havent seen too many events that they would put on. And so, yes, this is very much a one off. And i agree and would ask for you guys to please approve their plans. Thank you. Hello, my name is grace reilly. Im a longtime customer of rebecca. And i just want to say that if you had seen this space before they moved in that parking lot was really a haven for people to drink and do drugs and litter. And it was really a not a nice space. Its been an amazing about face what theyve done with it. And they also have a trickle down effect of not just being a family business, but of supporting other businesses within the community. They shop from local butchers and local produce markets and the produce and the plants that are there in that patio. That person who created that space also now has a business where he can show off his work that and his landscaping business. So its more than just one people. Its really a whole community. And i think that all of the attention that they have given to being conscientious during the pandemic hasnt stopped just because were in a space where its become endemic. They still are careful about how the seats are positioned and making sure people feel welcome. And san jittery and cared for and introduced to the comoro cuisine, culture and music. So i would ask you to approve this, please. Hello. My name is finn and im a resident of the Apartment Building directly adjacent to the lagoon. Question and id like to start by saying id love nothing more than to see the continued success of probation. The restaurant. I personally think that it has done a lot for the community. Mission street does see a lot of continued struggles and. I think the outdoor seating as well as the weekly live music, does add a lot to the community. I would say in the year that i have lived here, there have been perhaps two occurrences of events that were loud enough to significantly impact the ability of me to spend time in my apartment. And while i understand that occasionally there may be events which warrant having, you know, large celebration actions, i think thats great. I think thats something that should occur from time to time. I would be hesitant to understand how often that might be occurring with the new zoning of this location. I do see in the planning code section 145. 2, it does state that Outdoor Activity areas must not affect the livable city of adjoining or surrounding residences. And to date, i dont think that has affected the livability. However, i do think should there be more regular and reoccurring concerts that are loud enough to impact the livability of my apartment, i might be somewhat concerned about that. Not to say i dont want to see outdoor seating or outdoor live music, but i would like to see the committee take into consideration the volume and occurrence of concerts that might be occurring. Thank you for your time. Hi, my name is rosie choe. Im a resident of the Mission District. And first i want to say hello to sean and apologize for not having been to the restaurant in a while. But the pandemic has really affected my life and those of the people that i live with. But i want to say that i have enjoyed provecho since they opened in their original location, which was very, very small and i was so excited that they were moving to this new location on Mission Street. And i know how hard, hard they worked to find an affordable space and to stay in the Mission District, which was a goal of theirs. And when they opened, we were so thrilled for them. And then for the pandemic to happen, i mean, it broke my heart not just for them, but for many small Business Owners who were so challenged by by what the pandemic wrought and to see them, you know, make do and survive and open up that public space. It was wonderful to see. And ive been living in the Mission District for so many years and ive seen the many ups and downs and ive seen so many Small Businesses. His open and fail to prosper and given how hard it is for small Business Owners, i have to give you so much credit for their survival and what theyve done. I know that the chefs, sean, i know the owners, they are such wonderful, warm people. And i know that its really important to them to serve the community and do everything they can to make the Mission Community district vibrant. And, you know, if San Francisco wants to be a world class city, we need to be more flexible and make places like barbecue happen more often and in greater density. I sorry, i, i appreciate that some of the callers with their concerns about noise and you know, im sure that sean and everyone else would be willing to work with the city and the neighbors to address those problems. You know, i live in the mission and there is constant noise all around me. And frankly, you know, thats the fact of life of city living. So you know, restaurants in general just have such an uphill battle surviving in the city. I you know, i hope we can do all we can to support small restaurants and businesses as like for becky. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing no requests to speak, commissioners Public Comment is closed and then this matter is now before you. Thank you. I did have a few questions for staff and just to make sure i can understand a little bit about, i guess i should say first, congrats for staying open, opening and staying open and being open still. Im going to start by saying im super excited to approve this this project and will be supporting the request. But i want to understand a little bit more about the noise and the amplification in particular. I understand and maybe im misreading the conditions that no amplify loud noise is allowed in the Outdoor Activity area. Am i misunderstanding its under number six planning code compliance is a letter a it says the project will not feature any amplified noise. So just help me understand. So and how it relates to this request before us. Sure so youre right commissioner. That amplified noise is actually i. I want to bring your attention to condition number 19 and exhibit a, which states that entertainment shall be performed within the enclosed building only. And there are other requirements that the project sponsor shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Entertainment Commission prior to operation. This project has also been prelim, thoroughly reviewed by the Entertainment Commissioner commission and they have not yet specified any special requests. But they will need a separate permit to operate a live entertainment. You know, in the Outdoor Activity area. Sorry, excuse me. Would it be acoustic or amplified entertainment would need a separate permit . Yes. Okay and for one time, events like it was called out, they may also get a temporary use authorization permit, which also is a separate permit from apart from this conditional use authorization. Okay, great. So that helps clarify, i think, for those who are concerned, not to say that its that what we are approving today is not a loud amplified noise and i think i also see under condition 15 that noise from emanating from the project related to this permit should not be causing disturbance in nearby residences. So certainly would behoove the project sponsor to be mindful even when theyre getting their special permits or a permit for amplified or for acoustic music, maybe suggesting acoustic most often and amplified certainly for special events. But to that point, one of the things that we also require is a Community Liaison condition. 17 so maybe the project sponsor can share who the Community Liaison is. If folks are having issues, as weve heard, who do they call . Who do they contact when there are noise issues . Hi again. The two concerts that were questioned, there was an Entertainment Commission permit that day. The police came around 2 00 and then they showed them the permit and thats why they left and thats why it continued. It did end at 7 00. And this is its not a all night thing. I think that was very exaggerated. There was a recent at Current Events on guam that typhoon blew everything away. There was no power. Theres no water still till now past four months, a lot of residents we they had that concert to raise money to send back five generators to five families that needed it the most. And then the one before that is july 21st. Its guam liberation day, which is very, very similar to the cinco de mayo. And that happened in july. And that also ended roughly at 6 00. So. Okay. And then if there are future issues, again, you were required to have a Community Liaison. Who did you guys have you selected, who that will be or who folks should contact . You know, i cant personally say it was selected, but im sure chef has always been readily available. He did speak to the neighbor that called in, but they left it at that point to the polices hands. And thats what happened that day. Okay. Well, i would just advise you to select the Community Liaison read condition 17 if you havent that we can make sure folks are aware of who to contact so hopefully that they can deal with you directly and youre able to resolve these issues. Certainly if you have to go to the Entertainment Commission, thats another place where you want to get good reviews, not just for the food, but for being a good neighbor. Thank you. With that, maybe director, i had asked you a few questions and maybe you can just explain because i imagine we might be seeing more of these, like why this was before us. I know we have so much work to try to help to have there to be more Outdoor Activity areas. And i think youre explaining some things about both the abc license extending to the outside is one reason. And also kind of the configuration, i believe, of the particular Outdoor Activity area. Yeah, absolutely. So shared spaces is obviously end. So were sort of back to the planning code rules around Outdoor Activity, which is sort of part one of their. Q because the outdoor area is actually an adjacent lot, its not on the same parcel as the restaurant. Thats one of the triggers. The code basically says it would be principally permitted if on the same lot and basic contiguous to the street. Those are the two criteria necessary for it to be as of right. If its not that, its a conditional use. So thats why the Outdoor Activity area needs a conditional use. The second part of this, though, is its in the alcohol mission, alcohol special use district. And so because theyre effectively expanding the alcohol from the building to within an outdoor area, that also triggers a icu. Okay, great. Thank you. I just was curious. I was like, well be seeing a lot more of these and so kind of maybe it depends some of these special cases, we may see more of those. Okay. Thank you for those those answers. As i see, commissioner braun then followed by commissioner diamond and commissioner moore, uh, yes. You know, i, i have a lot of love for this area and also a little distress about some of his challenges to my first apartment in San Francisco was very close to here. And ive spent a lot of time in the adjacent building that used to house duck loi, which is now vacant. Um, and so i really appreciate that this restaurant is present there and using this space and activating that lot in a really exciting way. And so i think thats great. But i do at the same time, you know, i do have concerns about the amplified noise. Im glad that we got the clarification. Actions. Can i ask the two events that were permitted for the Entertainment Commission was one of them, the one that was on september 17th, is that right . Okay. Okay. So um, you know, i think it just behooves you to continue to, to work with the neighbors and be good neighbors. It sounds like youve made that effort and you were getting the proper permits. Ive lived in a neighborhood commercial district for a long time, right in the heart of one. And, you know, we expect noise when folks choose to live in those places. But at the same time, theres a limit. So hopefully those interests can be balanced out. I am also curious if neighbors wish to make a complaint to the Planning Department, but since this is a condition of approval of a planning authorization just for the folks who are listening in, i mean, what would be the process for that . Whats the best way to do that . Sure, i would say if it has to do with amplified music and entertainment, those complaints are best directed to the Entertainment Commission as kalyani mentioned, both getting any kind of Entertainment Permit for the indoor space as well as for the outdoor space, whether those are amplified or theres two different permit types. So it sort of depends which one they apply for or just speakers for like a playlist. For example, if they wanted to get that outside. Those both require permits and hearings of the Entertainment Commission. Those hearings are agendized and notice just the way this commission is. So they really have the regulatory purview over those issues. Obviously ultimately its the San Francisco noise ordinance that they are charged with sort of issuing permits for. But ultimately, the Police Department enforces. So id say if people have concerns about that, the Entertainment Commission obviously, as it relates to the other operations around the Outdoor Activity area or compliance with their conditional conditions of approval, that would be just filing a complaint on our website. Okay, great. Thanks for letting everyone know about that. And besides that, though, im very happy to support this project and im happy. Im excited to see the restaurant succeed. So thank you. Thank you, commissioner diamond. So i too am excited about the restaurant expansion and the ability to have outdoor space and a place that people can enjoy. But im still confused about the outdoor music is the ukulele outside. The ukulele is outside. There is an Entertainment Commission for the amplified music. Its called a jam permit. They currently have that. Okay because when i look at this, conditions that you cited, commissioner tanner, it looks like 15 be only deals with music inside an enclosed spaces and 19 again deals with enclosed spaces. So its confusing to me as to what the conditions are that send them to the Entertainment Commission for outdoor music. Sure and i will need to reread the conditions. But i think generally speaking, regardless of what this commission approves, the applicant is allowed to seek a variety of different art music related permits from the Entertainment Commission and so once they seek those permits, are the Regulatory Agency at the Entertainment Commission. So i think part of probably the confusion is also like what they are telling us, right now that they want for their Outdoor Activity area. It doesnt preclude them from applying for other types of permits in the future. Again, ill defer to staff and the applicant of exactly what they have right now , but i think thinking about it in that context of we are not the Approval Agency for any music so they can tell us what theyre intending to do right now. But i dont think we should make our decisions on what theyre telling us because they have the right to apply for a variety of different permit typologies that the Entertainment Commission at any moment in time, after they get the space authorized. Im just surprised that our standard conditions, because i assume these are standard deal with with inside music only and are silent as to outdoor music. And it feels like if in fact theyre ukulele outside is whether its amplified or not is regulated regulated by the Entertainment Commission then why is condition number 19 limited to enclosed buildings only . It talks about soundproofing for the building and all the other things, but theres no mention. If you want to do outdoor music amplified or not. You got to go to the to the Entertainment Commission. I feel like we need a condition that just, you know, do we need conditions that say comply with the law . Weve had that discussion before and generally we dont. But if were going to have a condition that deals with indoor noise, why do we not have it seems like this should be applicable to indoor or outdoor noise. Absolutely. I mean, i think thats a very good point. I dont necessarily want to craft a revised condition on the fly here. What i can tell you in terms of the permit types that the Entertainment Commission, there are relatively early end times that are associated with when the music occurs. So depending on Zoning District, like a limited Live Performance , which is people performing the music more than one person is typically amplified, but it doesnt have to be so it could be, you know, the ukulele player and a backup person, right . Is kind of considered a limited Live Performance. Thats usually where its restricted to like 200ft s or less. Its sort of a small ancillary part. Those end by no later than either 10 or 11 p. M. And again, those can be either indoor or outdoor, but the Entertainment Commission applies a lot of other conditions onto them. And then similarly, theres also a fixed place outdoor amplified sound permit, which basically is playlists and a speaker that is also regulated. So even if they just want an ambient Classical Music from a playlist, they would they would need a permit from the Entertainment Commission. Even for that. And they similarly place hours of operation and a bunch of other operating conditions. Right. And you have. Right. So it feels to me Like Commission condition 19 should similarly say, you know, any outdoor music needs to be approved by the Entertainment Commission. And i would propose adding that to this. And any motion to approve should have that as a modification. That sounds great. And then, of course, you know, the neighbors who are concerned, if they feel like theyre violating the condition, you know, they can obviously call the Community Liaison. But do they also call the Planning Department if they have a concern or do they call the Entertainment Commission . I would direct them to the Entertainment Commission. Obviously theyre welcome to reach out to us if theyre confused of what city agency to access. And we can direct them there. But the Entertainment Commission would be the sort of regulating agency overseeing their conditions of approval. Right. Because, well, i am super supportive of outdoor restaurants, you know, many of them are going to be directly adjacent to residential buildings. And we need to find a way for the two uses to live together. So you know, i would move to approve this project subject to the modification to condition 19, indicating that they need a permit for outdoor music from the Entertainment Commission. Second, thank you for the motion. A second. Commissioner moore. Did i did second it. I was calling on commissioner moore. I just like to add the comment that everything this particular owner entrepreneur needs to know about the use of his outdoor space. He has already done. Ukulele is not an amplified piece of music. Its a very small flute and the people said thats been there for three years and people live next door, called in and said it has never bothered them. It may actually be quite pleasant to hear some live out there since the applicant rebutted people by saying that they illegally performed. But they explained that they had in both cases had the permission from the entertainer commission. I personally do not believe that we need to amplify what were approving today because they are already within the law. They know the speed limit is 25 and they dont drive 40. So i feel i dont want to load on to the department doing more when the intelligence is already evident. And so i personally want to just add that comment and not extra burden anybody on this. That would be my expression of support for the project. Im also very happy that you mentioned the cultural context of what youre doing. I hope when you advertise it, when at events youre educating your neighbors of what this is really all about and the day of liberation is a great day to celebrate and you had your permit. And the second event, i forgot what it was, was equally joyful. So here we go. Actually great. And its great to see people getting their permits before they do things which sometimes we dont see at this commission. And commissioner brown, i mean, just one little note on the change to commission or to condition 19. I mean, in a way, i mean, ironically, in a way, it actually makes it like clearer or easier to get the outdoor permit. It doesnt really have any bearing on it. But right now, all it says is that other attainment shall be performed within the enclosed building. Only and if its possible to get a permit to do something other than that, it doesnt seem to have a whole lot of impact. I appreciate where youre coming from, commissioner dimond, but i think it basically functionally still is the same process of getting a permit for any Outdoor Entertainment or outdoor music. Well, for the sake of ease, that motion was made and seconded. So i dont know if the maker wants to amend it or if we have the four votes, but maybe we could see. Commissioner dimond and commissioner imperial. You know , this particular applicant appears to have complied with the law. I feel like the language of our standard condition is confusing. And we should be very clear when we set the rules for what standard conditions are. And while this you know, i dont have any issue with what hes proposing, he went and got the permits he was supposed to. I just think its confusing and ambiguous when we regulate indoor music and were going to see an increasing number of outdoor restaurants. We had one a couple of weeks ago where i raised the same issue around, you know, how do we make sure it not incompatible with the adjacent residents . I feel like we should be revising our standard condition so make it clear to everybody, including not only the applicant, but to anybody who reads this and is trying to figure out if theyre in compliance or not, and if they have the right to complain that the rules are really clear and you want indoor or you want outdoor music, you know, go to the Entertainment Commission. So thats my argument for this. Thank you. I, i, i support commissioner dimond. And that is i think it is mainly for the clarification for the public. So either way, i know that the project sponsor knows what theyre doing. But for us, as a condition is also for the public, for our own. I think we do need to update this, this, this number 19 in the future, too. So i do support that. Commissioner dimond, and maybe i can just suggest and i dont know if this is exactly the amendment that youre suggesting, but in reading condition 19, we could strike the condition up until the second to last sentence so that the condition just reads the project sponsor shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Entertainment Commission prior to operation, the author authorized entertainment use shall also comply with all the conditions imposed by the Entertainment Commission so its just saying go to the Entertainment Commission and do what they say. I think that would be much clearer. And then i think folks, you know, we were all confused. So members of the public certainly figuring out where exactly the music is coming from, if you will, could could be confused. And this will clarify that. Did you get that, mr. Secretary . I will just quote it as being read into the record and get it from ms. Waddy after the hearing. Certainly so there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as as amended and read into the record on that motion. Commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner dimond, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell, a commissioner moore and Commission President tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. I thought a ukulele was a small guitar. Anyway item 21, case number 2022 hyphen 008829. Cour for the property at 2277 33rd avenue. A conditional use authorized motion. Okay. Were going to take just a short break. Five minutes. Well be expeditious okay. Welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for thursday, september 28th, 2023. Commissioners we left off under your regular calendar on item 21 for case number 2022 hyphen 008829 ca for the property at 2277 33rd avenue conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Sharon young Planning Department staff. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for a change of use of a vacant Residential Care facility back to its original use as a residential use. Single family dwelling with approximately 3312 gross square feet of floor area located at 277 33rd avenue within the h. One residential house. One family Zoning District can afford the height and bulk district. The proposal will also include interior renovations, which include new interior wall partitions and exterior alterations, which include new windows and doors at the rear and side of the building and removing the side exterior stairs to the two Story Building to convert a nine bedroom, three and a half bathroom, vacant Residential Care facility, use to a four bedroom, four bathroom, Single Family dwelling. The proposed project will not involve an expansion of the existing building envelope. As far as a little background of the history of the project site, the Residential Care facility use had been established by the prior Property Owner in 19 1996 under conditional use authorized in case number. 95. 570. See motion number 1408 for the current Property Owners have owned the property since 2014 and have leased the property to a licensed care facility operator for approximately seven years. On march 21st, 1996, in the conditional use authorization had involved in expanding the Residential Care facility from 6 to 12 residents in the existing house. Commercial owners. Just for the record, just to note some corrections and clarifications on case report and findings that the project sponsors were not the operators of the residential Residential Care facility, but had leased the property to a licensed care facility operator and the licensed care facility operator had forfeited the license of the facility to department of social social services. Community care licensing division. When the facility went to down to the 25 capacity or three persons and was no longer viable to maintain at this location, the project sponsors were undergoing construction work on the building under a Building Permit application and issued in april 2021 pertaining to interior renovations to the Bathroom Remodeling and had exceeded its scope of work of the permit. As noted in the building inspec action complaint, the project will involve just legalizing and completing some of the construction work and legalizing the removal of the interior wall partitions and exterior side stairs and window and door openings located on the side and rear of the building to debate this complaint and to complete the renovation elevations needed to convert the vacant Residential Care facility back to its original use as a residential dwelling unit. To today the apartment has not received Public Comment in support or in opposition to the project. However the department has received correspondence from district one supervisor connie chan, regarding the project. In this project and another project at 255 10th avenue two, which was heard before the Planning Commission. A couple of weeks ago. And in her correspondence she had respectfully asked for careful deliberation from the Planning Commission and staff and regarding the conversion trend of Residential Care facilities into Single Family homes. And then the Department Also received correspondence from one person requesting information on the projects proposed plan drawings. As far as the planning parks recommendation is approval conditions. The projects, on balance is consistent with the intent of the rh one Zoning District and objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of planning code. The project proposes to convert the vacant Residential Care facility use, which had fiscal and operational operational challenges for the current Property Owners to maintain back to the original use as a residential use. Single family dwelling. And the Department Also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be significantly detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Danielle turner from ruben junius and rose here on behalf of project sponsors for the project at 2277 33rd avenue, the owners, tara and peter, are here with me today and are ready to help answer any questions you might have. As you know, the project is seeking a conditional use authorization to convert an existing Residential Care facility, use back into its original use as a Single Family home. Before i get into the project background, i wanted to start with a few important clarifications. As sharon noted, the first is that the owners are not Residential Care facility operators. They own the property and have previously previously leased the building to an operator, but they themselves have never been operators. Further, a care facility operator must be licensed by the state and each facility must have its own. Each facility must have its own license, even when an operator operates multiple facilities, each of those facilities is a distinct and separate entity for licensing purposes. Once the previous operator forfeited their license in 2021, all care facility operations at the property were terminated and any new operation would need to apply for a new license from scratch. This includes existing operators of other sites. They cannot simply extend an existing license to this property. Importantly, a facilities license is between the operator and the state licensing agency, and the owners have no control over that process except to make the premises available to the operator, which they have eagerly done a couple of times. Also as share noted, the im aware of concerns expressed that this conversion would create a mega mansion. But i wanted to assure you that this project is an interior renovation that will result in a two story, four bedroom Single Family home. The gross floor area is not being increased at, and the building generally accords with its Single Family neighbors. With respect to the project background, i believe the central issue here is the practical and Economic Feasibility of a care facility at the site, both with respect to the previous operator and to the owners efforts to locate a new operator. I want to stress that the owners accommodated the previous operator through his business struggles, that the operator was the one who decided to cease his operation and that owners strove to find a new operator for over a year before applying for this. Q the owners purchased the property in 2014 when it was already a care facility. The owners intended to keep it as a care facility and under their ownership. It was operated as such by a licensed operator for seven years until mid 2021. The previous operator of the property quality care homes three, which was operated by fernando farrell, had struggled prior to forfeiting its license in 2021. The operator began making late rent payments in 2019, and the owners tried to be accommodating by accepting those without penalty. The operator then began missing payments and by june 20th, 21 was ten months behind on rent. The operator felt the operator, the operator felt the operation was no longer economically feasible for him and expressed his intent to wind up the business to the owners. At the time, the operation was operating at 25 capacity, with only three residents at the operator attempted to find another business to take over his license for the property with the owners eagerly, eagerly agreeing to negotiate a new lease or potential sale of the property to a new operator. Again, i want to stress that the license is the operators and any transfer is wholly between the operator, the transferee and the state licensing agency. The owners have no authority on how the operator handles the transfer, but they were willing and eager to negotiate a new lease or sale of the property to an interested operator. As such, the operator took the lead on finding a new operator and the operator found some interested parties in june 2021, including some who toured the then still active facility in july 2021. The owners and the operator had discussions with katie iseman, who was the operator of Sunset Gardens, a nearby care facility, at 1338 27th avenue, about taking over the care facility at the property. The plan was to have katie operate the property under the existing operators license, while Sunset Gardens worked to apply to take over the license. However, that arrangement ended up falling through due to due to disagreements over the license transfer process between the operator and Sunset Gardens. After that, Sunset Gardens looked into applying for a new license for the property from the state, but found that it would likely take over a year and felt that that wasnt an economically feasible timeline for them. Notably these efforts to help facilitate and accommodate a new operator preceded the enactment of this requirement. And even though conversion could have begun with a simple Building Permit at the time, the owners primary goal was to find a new operator rather than to convert it. Only after Sunset Gardens, an established operator in the neighborhood fell through due to the time and expense of obtaining a new license, the owners decided it may be best to convert the property back to a Single Family home at this time. The old operator was winding down the operations and moving the three remaining residents to other care facilities in compliance with state law. The first permits were pulled for the renovation in august 2021, two months before the requirement became effective on october 30th, 2021. Although some unpermitted work occurred, as sharon mentioned, once the owners became aware of the new requirement, construction completely halted in 2021. The house has now been vacant with the with the interior partially demolished for close to two years in november 2021, the operator completed his license forfeiture, meaning the operation at the property was completely terminated for state licensing purposes. This was no longer care facility and any new operator would have to apply for a new license for the location. The Property Owners then enlisted the help of asia pacific group, which is an established property management. But that is your time. Thank you. Commissioners have any follow up questions . Im sure theyll call you up. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Hi, president tanner. Commissioner im kelly growth with supervisor chans office. I believe you have a letter from the supervisor here on the specific item and also a letter of inquiry. I wanted to read into the record just the letter that was sent, but happy to read into the record the letter of inquiry as well. Dear Planning Commissioners, i am respectfully requesting that you postpone the decision to approve a conditional use authorization for 22773 two third avenue until appropriate city departments weigh in on Residential Care facility trends in the city and a letter transmitted to the commission on september 6th. I urge careful deliberation from the commission and Department Staff on the trend of Residential Care facilities. Convert to Single Family homes. Current law requires consideration of several factors when considering these types of conditional use authorization in including data on available beds at licensed Residential Care facilities within a one mile radius of the site. And whether these beds are sufficient to serve the need for Residential Care beds in the neighborhood and whether any other licensed operator has been contacted by the applicant has expressed interest in continuing to operate the facility. The proposal for a2277 33rd avenue would convert a nine bedroom, 3. 5 Bathroom Home into a four bedroom four bath. This conversion from a Residential Care facility to a Single Family home not only means the loss of nine beds for seniors, but also a lost opportunity when we must meet an increased need for state mandate, for housing, for either. It is my understanding that contrary to the staff report, another license operator had expressed interest in continuing to operate this facility. Therefore, i urge you to postpone the decision to approve the coa. I have attached the letter of inquiry. My office submitted on tuesday, september 26th, to the Planning Department and department on disability and aging services. Request Additional Information on this troubling conversion trend. Responses are due from departments on october 23rd, 2023, and i hope you can postpone for a date after that. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioner. My name is annie chong and im the president and ceo of a Nonprofit Group called self help for the elderly. So we are the licensed operator that actually inquired to take over the 2277 33rd Avenue Property last year. We are right now operating a 15 bed Residential Care facility in the west. In addition neighborhood for 15 very frail elderly with dementia and alzheimer outrage that we charge between. 2000 504,500 kept below market, which is right now going for anywhere from 8000 to 12,000 a month for Residential Care facility. Ill share with you some statistics which are very alarming in in 2012, there were about 144 licensed facilities in San Francisco in 2018, it went down to 101, a loss of 43 facilities in 2023, with our count right now, we have maybe 53. Facility is left in the city and if this rate should continue and if there are no protection for the remainder facilities, im wondering. That in 4 or 5 years with all of our seniors have to move out of San Francisco to find an affordable, livable, safe and someone that cares for them right here in their familiar community. So i urge you to postpone as supervisor connie chan has asked, this approval of this condition. No use. Last year we approached the owners to want to buy the property from them, even though all the rooms, all the nine bedrooms had already been demolished. But we were still willing, you know, to raise money to buy the property, but also to run it as a facility for our frail elderly. As hkfa, which is so much needed, particularly with selfhelp. We purposely kept the rates low so that a lot of families can afford to have their loved ones live in a really beautiful home. So the location is really perfect, but the negotiation failed because we understood that the owners really want to renovate the Residential Care facility back into a Single Family luxury home and then sell it at a much higher price than we could afford. So i urge you that i know my time is up, but as a provider of Senior Services , we always, every day have people calling us to get on our waiting list to live in our facility. And every day my other social workers have to look for places like ours. But these are very far away in antioch, south city. Daly city, which makes family visits sometimes impossible. And its very, very difficult for our seniors. So i urge you to grant us a postponement. Thank you. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing none. Public comment is closed and this item is now before you commissioners. Commissioner lewis, do we need to ask if theres anybody on the phone who wants to call in who or who needs to raise their hand rather well, if youd like to speak to this matter, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. But i still dont see anyone raising their hand. Okay, great. Commissioner reese. Yeah. Thank you. And thank you for the comments. I think that its super insightful to hear the statistics so we truly understand the depth of the problem. Um, and the real need for spaces for our seniors to age in place. I think its interesting because in this particular instance it seems that the space is vacant and we previously saw a similar project converting to a Single Family home where the owner seemed to have already been residing. So i just wonder if the department, the department can explain what is in compliance and is it an acceptable for the owner to be be in the home, home before they receive the approval of the Residential Care facility, before it converts to Single Family home. I mean, the answer is no, right . Because you would need a icu to convert this to residential from from a care facility. Its a relatively new rule. So i think in some cases were seeing theyve been converted, theyre coming back. Retro actively to apply for the for the icu. I mean, its not new that you would need a permit, but that you would need conditional use to convert. And so in this particular instance, where it sounds like theres already been a demolishing of the nine bedrooms to convert to the four bedrooms, the project sponsor is not in compliance then because weve not they might have they might have permits, but im not sure if those permits call this out as a Single Family home or still its calling it out as a Residential Care facility. Right and i think the important distinction is you can be permitted as a Residential Care facility and get a permit to do interior tenant improvements. And thats allowed. You can choose to have it sit vacant and not convert it as a Single Family home. I think were the difference is if you actually sought a permit that went from Residential Care facility to a Single Family home or were using it as a Single Family home prior to this approval action got it. Would the project sponsor be able to speak to what they have been doing so far . And what their process has been in terms of your conversion on. Thank you for the question. Um, so the conversion started in 2021. As i had mentioned. And after the walls were demolished this requirement came out and once they became aware of that construction just completely stopped. So the building has just been vacant since 2021 for a little over two years now. And um, the comment regarding selfhelp for the elderly reaching out to take over as a Residential Care facility can you speak to that . Yeah so after construction halted, my clients enlisted the help of a broker called asia pacific group, which is well established in the sunset. And i believe that brokerage put them in contact with selfhelp for the elderly. I believe there was negotiations to the point where they were signing the commission agreement, the Real Estate Commission agreement, that should the deal go through, that asia pacific would get that commission for bringing them together. And then i think my client could speak to what that negotiation and why that fell through. Hi. So it started probably just about a year ago when we were in negotiation session with them and we waited to even process the q, but after talking to them and understanding that they need some kind of funding, that they dont really have a timeline on, we decided we wanted to move forward with the q and so once we started moving forward with the q, we still went back to them to ask them, hey, were moving forward with it. Its not really moving along. So let us know how funding is like our understanding is when we move forward and ask them about it. Sometime in the beginning of this year, 2023, there was still no funding available and we were talking to their agent at that time. And as you can see now, were a year later and i dont think that they have funding yet and weve been waiting. Its okay if they want to purchase it, but its not like it fell through. Its more like weve been waiting this entire time and nothing has happened. Nothing solid came through. So and its not like its a decision i can make. Even if they wanted to purchase it at a demolished state. So i. I just want to make that clear. Thank you. I mean, i can see both sides here. And i think the greater problem is that we have limited Affordable Housing for our senior population. And so when we lose a Residential Care facility, its a incredibly detrimental. But i believe that the questions posed by the supervisor is important. And i do think that we as a department should look into it. And so i would be supportive of halting on a decision until we get more information. But i would love to hear from other commissioners. Thank you, commissioner. More i would be curious. Excuse me. I would be curious. Just to ask mrs. Chung to comment on that last thing. Sometimes communication gets lost in translation, particularly when third parties speak for others. So if you could clarify what the. Yes, thank you, commissioner. Vice president. More so. Just for the record, selfhelp for the elderly. I did apply for the equity funds from hcd and were in the process of final closing on the property fauci for an rcf specifically, but it was a property that cost almost twice as much and we would have we really were in earnest to work with the properties to pick up 20 to 77 and it would have been the same process of negotiation. But we fell apart because the price that the Property Owners wanted was way too high for a property that was illegally demolished. Theres no rooms there anymore. And even if we picked it up and run it as a facility, we would have to spend. I dont know, 2 million to renovate it. So but we were willing to do it. Were really in earnest. But as you know, nonprofit hit getting city funding might take a while, but just for the record, we have finalized that process and were in the stage of buying the property with hcd funding to run a 15 bed affordable rcf. So the money is there and can i ask so im a little confused. You have the funding to buy this property or you are closing on a separate property with funding from hcd, not this property anymore. Youre not closing up . Yeah. You have another property by another property because that process requires hired a Site Specific. Okay. So you have funding to buy a different property. But had the had the property been available and really run it as a rcf, then that would have been our proposed site going in. Okay. I see. When you applied for the grants. Okay. And i thought that we explained that it will take a little bit, you know, with the city funding and i guess the Property Owners want to move and proceed right to renovate it back into a Single Family home, which i totally understand. But my Bigger Picture for the commissioners and director hales to consider is how to protect these last remaining 53 facilities. If every one of them wants to convert back into a Single Family home. Yes, certainly a good question for us. Thank you very much. Sorry, commissioner moore, i just wanted to make sure i was getting clear clarity on that point. I i am, uh, trending towards supporting what commissioner royce said to give this project just a few more weeks for the parties who are asking important questions together with a misunder standing or misinterpreted what was happening here. That that got clarified. So im making a motion to continue this project. For x number of weeks for additional communication to occur with the relevant departments to talk with planning and take this even as a theoretical idea further. So that we have a closing on what the basis on which youre making this decision. Second, what is x . How many weeks it could be . Could some guidance here . Id say a month. I mean, some of the isnt there some date, october 23rd was when there was going to be some information. I believe that the supervisor is requesting. Is that correct . I dont know where that puts Us Commission wise, but an october 19th is available. But but two commissioners are absent on that date. Yeah, maybe. Maybe the meeting after and then we can work 26th with other departments to get that information to the supervisors, request that information. And so its supposed to be submitted by the 23rd, i believe was the maybe the request that had been made. Thank you so much. Correct . Yes. The information is due october 23rd from the departments, maybe november 2nd to allow lets do november 2nd, particularly there is some background based on supervisor yee and supervisor moore already working on this issue somewhat in the past that has to be brought forward in order to really establish where we are in this conversation, that this finally gets resolved. We are struggling with this, talking to commissioner koppell for years and years and years when we were doing the Institutional Health care plan citywide, we never really got that particular chapter properly integrated into that. Great, thank you, commissioner diamond. So i think we are all acutely aware that theres a shortage of these facilities in the city, but the solution that the board came up with, which is to require a conditional use permit before theyre allowed to convert to another use, doesnt get to the heart of the problem, which is that these businesses are going out of business because because they are not financially viable. I mean, the population of this particular house was down to 25. Three people in the house. And that it feels like we should be focused on what are the Viable Solutions to this problem. This came up two weeks ago as well, too. And that continuing to require cuts and put the burden on the operator of or the owner of property that has ever been used as an rcf is not really the right approach, in my opinion, to solving this problem, because were asking this particular Property Owner to bear the burden by lowering their price substantially in order to make this work for selfhelp for the elderly. What that does is create a terrible disincentive for anyone in the future wanting to go into the business because who would want to go into the business if you know that you really cant ever go out of the business, even if your population is way down without coming to the commission for a icu and who knows what we might do at that particular point in time. Its the same issue that i have with the laundromats where the solution to the diminishing number of vitally needed laundromats is to get a queue before you convert the use to something else, which doesnt address the basic economics of whether or not laundromats are financially viable in this market. Its way worse with r. S. F because were dealing with people who desperately need housing. Selfhelp is doing an incredible job. There are many providers of Senior Care Services that are struggling, whether theyre in or much larger institutions. Laguna honda, San Francisco campus for jewish living where the reimburse rate doesnt really match what the true cost of the provision of services is and our labor markets this is a really big problem for San Francisco, which really needs a comprehensive solution. We have a Health Care Master plan. Im not sure its gotten to the heart of this particular issue by any stretch of the imagination. And i feel like thats the solution we need. And so i am it feels like a bandaid to me to put all of the burden on the remaining 53 owners of rcf facilities, because thats really not going to address the problem. So while i understand the desire for a continuance, you know, four weeks from now, there still isnt going to be, you know, a real solution to this problem. And i guess i feel like i dont think that its that we should be putting the burden on the current operators. Now, if they were converting this into some massive Single Family house, to me, the picture look like in the floorplans look like almost every standard house in the sunset in the richmond. This is not a massive mega mansion. This is just your standard house on a side street out in the sunset. So i would be inclined to want to vote on this today. I will say im disturbed by the fact that they took down the walls without a permit. Thats a bad fact. They shouldnt have done it. But i also feel like the Additional Information that was presented about trying to find another operator and whether or not this would work, tied in with the fact that the current operator chose to go out of business because their population was down to 25, really speaks to me about what the heart of the problem is, which is these just may not be financially viable. And i dont expect the 53 Property Owners who currently have the property to solve our problem by lowering their property costs. So i would not support a continuance. Thank you, commissioner imperial. Thank you for all the deliberation so far. I do have a question to ms. Chang about the role of cdd in this in this in your venture as a hiring for acquiring to a Residential Care facility. So as of now, again, just clarity in this negotiation, mostly they will be part of this, correct. And what will be the role of the Mayors Office came out with a nova and i think over 10 or 12 submittals from nonprofit organizations and its asian equity either either you apply the funding for acquisition or for renovation, and you could apply it for various uses. But it was very clear that former supervisor gordon ma, as well as former president norman yee, really want to save as many beds in San Francisco as possible. So they were convinced, you know, a number of us to really look into the rcf and thats what selfhelp for the elderly did submitted it to build or. Rebuild 15 beds for the community. So we were looking actively looking last year for properties and i think that we disclosed to the owners that we are using we are going to apply for city funding. Yeah. So thats, thats all we can do. And you are currently approved for. Yes, we, weve competed for the nova and we three projects got selected and we were one of them. So were now, now we will be provided the acquisition money for this site. Okay so thats, thats very clear to me that there is the, the, the money thats coming through cd and i and perhaps im not really sure in terms of the logistics of the financing. And, you know , on on what part of selfhelp is also need to whether to fundraise or what but there is the initial funding for the i would suggest that in this thank you miss miss annie for the clarity. You can sit. I dont have any more questions. I would suggest, though, that in this time of negotiation and the reason that im supporting for continuance is that there is that confidence that at least its being funded and facilitated. And i would suggest that for ocd to be part of this this conversation or negotiations too, so that the so that the owner has actually has an idea of the timeline as well. And again, for supervisor chans office, i think, again, were Planning Department were not mayor office of Housing Community development. But i would just suggest that in the power of the supervisor supervisorial in terms of the funding for rcf and how to expand it, i think, again, we are seeing this kind of trends in the Planning Department through the in our in our hearings and the main issue here is the funding. And im not sure as to where is most priorities when it comes to these conversions. And there needs to have that. So i do supportive of the continuance in order to cater this kind of conversation ins and also for the project sponsor to be more aware of the timeline. The financing of this is really going to go. Theres a lot of pressure on ocd about releasing the money on this. And i think having ocd in there, understanding the process because theres going to be a process on this, hopefully will alleviate some clarity as well on the project sponsor. So i would so im so i support for the continuance. Okay. Thank you. Before we go on, i just want to ask ms. Chung, i just want to be clear because i want to make sure youre understanding. Commissioner brill. I believe the funding is Site Specific and so its for a different location. So they do not have funding currently for this particular acquisition because as of the negotiations, ms. Chung and selfhelp have identified a different property which will be acquired and itll be a 15 bed facility, correct . Yeah so the funding they have will not go for this project, will not go for this project. They would need additional funding to, to acquire this parcel. Thank you for that clarity. And i guess thats okay. Thank you for that clarity. Thats a big, big clarity on my end. Okay. So i guess what this is my question to the supervisor chens office. What will be your role in this negotiation . So we initially just asking for a postponement until we get a response from our letter of inquiry that we submitted to the Planning Department and department on disability and aging services to really understand, i think, what commissioner diamond was saying, that this is a bigger issue. I, i dont think well solve it here at the Planning Commission, but but we do have questions, including number of Residential Care facilities currently in operation in and what is the transition requirement for residents when Residential Care facilities cease to operate. So were hoping through the responses that we get from the departments, we can either work with supervisor mandelman, who worked on the ordinance, which requires a conditional use authorization to convert the Residential Care facilities into Single Family homes. So maybe we can add a little bit more to that legislation session. But also building off of former supervisor maher and former supervisors yees concerns as well. So weve been in discussion with supervisor mandelman about what we might potentially be able to address this issue. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you. And im hoping im supportive still of the continuance and im hoping there is some progress or a great deal of progress in this negotiation situation. And im looking forward to that to that in order for me to decide whether to move forward in the conversion. So thank you, commissioner imperial. Is that a second to commissioner morse. Yes second motion. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner braun. You know, i. I share commissioner diamonds concerns about whether or not the conditional use process that weve been going through is really the best way to address these things that are part of a larger structural financial challenge, a challenge that has to do with the efficiency of operating small, scattered site facilities like this challenge of getting the funding in order to fund these sites. And then, you know, the disincentive as as you said, of, um, making it unlikely anyone will want to go into businesses where they are locked into a single use on a property for a very long time or its extremely challenging to get out of the business case. So i do share those concerns and im hoping we can figure out. It sounds like supervisor chans office is working to try to figure out some solutions to these issues. I will say that when it comes to this specific project and the request from the Supervisors Office, i actually am a supportive of the continuance. Um, you know, that information has been requested that can help us to understand the magnitude of the issues that are being raised. I think it will be helpful information for us to have and if its continued to the proposed date, its enough time for at least me to absorb that information and understand a little bit more of the dimensions of the challenge and have that inform my thinking about this conditional use authorization and others Going Forward. The i am hoping, echoing commissioner imperials comments that the there could be progress made in exploring other options for retaining the Residential Care facility use. And im hoping that the Supervisors Office might be able to kind of be part of that conversation and we can go beyond just the request for information. But looking at what may or may not be possible with this particular project and that will also be helpful for informing the ultimate decision on on this item. So as i said, i am in favor of the continuance. Yes. Thank you, commissioner. More just shout out to commissioner brown. Thank you. Summarize it in a very balanced and very, very clear way. Thank you. Great. Thank you. If theres nothing further commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to november 2nd. And on that motion, commissioner braun, i. Commissioner ruiz. Hi, commissioner diamond. No, commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell. I commissioner moore and commissioner president tanner i so move commissioners. That motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner diamond voting against it. Can i just say director hill is i know that information is going to be coming back to the supervisor pretty quickly and then to us shortly thereafter. So please dont stress too much about digesting it. We just want to make sure we can get some information here. It doesnt need to be a 50 page staff report or something elaborate, but if we can just get the information to have a better understanding, i would just really appreciate that. And i think at the policy level, theres been work done on this that goes beyond the land use question. You know, i think there was a Long Term Care coordinating council. There was assistant assisted Care Working Group that maybe andy knows about as well that we can tap into these reports. So i think some of this information is already out there. Our our fellow agencies have been working on some of these policy issues. So we wont reinvent the wheel either. Well bring you kind of the info thats out there and supplement. I appreciate that. And if anybody is listening who would like to buy this facility and keep it as a rental care facility, i think we have some operators who could do it. So see annie at selfhelp for the elderly. If youre interested in helping them with that. I think were ready for our last case of the day. Very good commissioners item number 22, under your discretionary review calendar for case number 2022 hyphen 007482 hyphen. Zero two for the property at 3748 22nd street, a discretion review, although i do believe one of the doctors has been withdrawn on. Withdrawn. I think. Okay, good. Good afternoon, commissioners. David. David winslow, staff architect. Okay um, before i begin, id like to highlight a new part of our exhibits Going Forward that centers our work on racial and social equity. And thats simply a map that were including that shows the doctors filed within the last two years overlaid on our racial and social equity or priority equity geographies and id contrasting with our high resource neighborhoods, apologies as the first iteration didnt have a legend. So the priority equity geographies. Mr. Winslow, could you speak into the microphone and keep it there, speak at the same time priority equity geographies are shown in pink and our high resource neighborhoods are shown in the light blue. The. Clown car kind of thing. Today here, huh . Yeah and before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of Building Permit number 2022 07018 8994 to renovate an existing three storey over basement Single Family residence with a horizontal rear addition. The project includes the addition of an adu with interior alterations. The existing building is a category a Historic Resource built in 1915, there are two. There were two requesters. The project sponsor and the neighbors on the east side at 3842 to 38, 44, 22nd street reached an agreement and have withdrawn their r, which leaves kim and Paul Albright of 3756 22nd street. The adjacent neighbors to the west. Were concerned that the proposed project does not meet the residential Design Guidelines and will impact light and privacy and contribute to boxing them in from access to the midblock open space. There are proposed alternatives are to one, reduce the expansion of the pop out at the rear by five feet, pulling it back five feet to incorporate privacy glazing on property facing windows and to incorporate privacy or landscape screening. To date, the department has not received any letters in support or in opposition to the project. Staffs review of this deems that the project complies with both the residential Design Guidelines and the planning code. The steepness of the up sloping lot renders the two storey building at the rear basically one and a half stories above natural grade and the rear most portion is set back five feet from both side Property Lines. The side setbacks in conjunction with the height and depth in the rear extension provide a scale compatible with the goals of the residential Design Guidelines intended to maintain access to the midblock open space of the adjacent neighbors. Since the original notification of this project, the plan has been modified to one reduce the extent of the rear pop out by three feet with a step out deck on the roof of the floor below to add new building volume in exchange for that reduction adjacent to the neighbors to the west at the Property Line that extends no more than five feet from their rear wall. And to remove a west side facing window from that pop out. Therefore, staff deems that with these modifications, the proposed addition complies with the residential Design Guidelines related to scale at the rear. But because the modifications do involve a significant change of massing from that which was noticed, staff recommends taking discretion, tree review and approving as modified. Thank you. Do you all requester . You have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am Robert Martin presenting on behalf of the applicants. Kim and Paul Albright. They are both here today and they appreciate the commissions considering ation. If i may have the overhead, please. The mid block, the midblock open space which is threatened by the proposed project, is here. As noted in the staff report, the open space is still generally intact and consistent, albeit with one exception. That exception is this property 37, 60, 22nd street, which is just to the west of 37, 56, 22nd street. The albrights property. This is a close up of 37, 60, 22nd street, which is immediately to the west of the albrights home. The albrights home is entirely boxed in from the west because of this existing structure, the albrights have a ground floor deck and rear yard, which you can see on the image which comprises almost all of the outdoor space that they have with all of that is boxed in to the west to the immediate east, is the proposed project, which would build a multi story addition within this open area, further compromising the midblock open space and entirely boxing in the albrights to the east. The albrights would then be boxed in on both sides and their home would be unique among the neighborhood. To be the only property boxed in on both sides from the midblock open space, the residential Design Guidelines state it may be inappropriate for an expansion zone to box in adjacent properties and cut them off from the midblock open space. Quote, building expansions into the rear yard may not be appropriate depending on the context of the other buildings that define the midblock open space. And thats on page 26 of the guidelines. If that guideline is to have any meaning, if it is to have any clout at all, then it must apply here. The albrights being boxed in is not a matter of degree. It is a near absolute. They are boxed into the west already and they will now be boxed into the east and they will be the only property on the block to be boxed in on both sides. And for those reasons, there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances allowing this commissions discretionary review to. But rather than seeking to block a significant portion of the project, the albrights requested revision here is modest. Rather than the three foot step back here. Here, as set out in the existing revised plans, the albrights request a five foot setback which would reasonably mitigate the boxed in effect result from the project. While only minimally affecting the project Square Footage. In addition, the albrights also request the commissions discretionary review over the intruding closet depicted here exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist as to that closet for two reasons. First, its addition to the project appears to be out of spite to the albrights. The project developer added the closet after the albrights requested a step back of the bedroom, the closet was not in the pre notification plans. The closet sits immediately upon the Property Line and except for a two foot step back almost completely, boxes in the albrights adjacent second story deck, that deck has an unimpeded view to the northeast. But with the addition of the closet, the view would now be of a looming building wall. Immediately upon the Property Line. Second, the closet constitutes new massing, which was not included in the pre application plans. The feature has not been subject to neighborhood notification under planning code section 311 a thus the addition of the closet does not comply with the planning code and it should be stricken entirely further exceptional and extraordinary circumstances exist here for both requested revisions based upon the project developers conduct during the notification process. Sf planning emphasize that the neighborhood notification process should be a proactive include active and Transparent Community engagement process. But here in negotiating with the albrights, the project developer insisted on unreasonable deadlines, retaliated against the albrights by withdrawing agreement on minor points and recently implied that he could file a Code Enforcement complaint against the albrights for opposing his project. The commission should keep that conduct in mind and evaluating the albrights requested relief here. Thank you for your consideration and i am available for your questions. Thank you. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Is this your phone. Sure hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is lucas eastwood. Im a local San Francisco builder and developer. Were here today is the project sponsor for 3748 22nd street. As youve heard, the project includes a horizontal addition to a modest size existing arated Single Family home to convert the use to a similar sized Single Family home, plus the addition of a one bedroom adu. Were utilizing the 45 rear yard setback for the main massing and were well within the standards of a large home ordinance and the residential Design Guidelines. In july 2022, we conducted a preop meeting with the requesters to the west and these initial conversations, the concerns expressed were about construction noise and the Property Line fence. In may 2023, during 311 notification, weve held a follow up meeting on site with the requesters and the neighbors directly to the east. At this point we received a new list of concerns from both neighbors. We agreed to the majority of the requests and compromises, but were unwilling or unable to satisfy all requests, and two orders were filed and august 2023, with the help of david winslow, we were able to satisfactorily address the concern of the eastern neighbor and they turn in turn agreed to withdraw their doctor. Unfortunately we were less successful with the doctor request here today. We offered multiple concessions and discussed modifications at length. Our understanding is that their largest concern was the massing of the second story pop out and in attempt to alleviate their concern, we reduced the top floor pop out by three feet and infilled a section of the side yard adjacent to their second story deck. We offered this voluntarily and gave them the option of this modification versus the improved massing. The second story pop out is one and a half stories above grade and possesses a five foot side yard setback. Weve taken measures to mitigate it. Im asking the commission. Pause. You just. Just for a second. Sfcv can we go to the overhead, please . I paused your time, but you can go ahead now. Um um. Yeah. So today im asking the commission to approve one of the two following Building Designs as the first would be the massing that was originally approved by planning with a full 12 foot deep two story pop out on two stories. The second would be the modified design, which includes a three foot massing reduction and roof roof deck at the second story of the pop out as well as a side yard infill on the west side within the 45 allowed setback. The section option has been redesigned and approved by staff. Again, this modification was created in response to the requesters primary concern in this daca does not rise to the level of exceptional or extraordinary. Its a modest project that the neighbors just dont like. Our roofline is lower than both adjacent neighbors, both of our homes are south, facing the majority of the light loss is created by the shadow cast by our own buildings. We ask that the commission approve the project as modified so we can put this behind us and start construction. We have been thoughtful and engaging from the start and will continue to act in good faith throughout the good faith, throughout the duration of the project. With a modest horizontal addition and rear yard pop out, we can renovate an existing, deteriorating home and add a much needed second unit. Im available for questions. Thank you for your time. Okay, that concludes the project sponsors presentation. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review. Each member of the public has two minutes. Im good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mark spencer. I i and my wife own and occupy a 3742 22nd street which is on the eastern side of this property. So the property is between us and kim and paul here. And im here just to support them and their request for modifications to the proposal as as outlined, we submitted a doctor at the same time they did based on our concerns for our property, which were not as extreme as their property, but we had concerns nonetheless. We withdrew to that request. But based on our concern that the modifications that were offered to us, we were told, were going to be off the table if we didnt withdraw. So we withdrew it and agreed to withdraw it in writing in order that the modifications they offered us would remain because we felt that they were significant and we didnt think we would get any more from moving forward with the doctor. After having a preliminary meeting with there was a gentleman we had a meeting with to try to sort everything out before this meeting here. Yes, i thought it was you. Yeah, thats it. Thank you. Last call for Public Comment. If youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Lets go to our remote caller. Eileen bogan will speak on my own behalf. I would like to thank staff for the map included in the packet of doctors filed in the last two years in high resource neighborhoods and priority equity geographics Going Forward, i would also urge staff to include maps of doctors that have actually come before the commission. Ive been president since 2018, during my presidency, i filed only one doctor that doctor was withdrawn prior to it coming before the commission. I have not seen doctors abused by other neighborhood organizations either. As along with voting, i see the ability to file a doctor as part of local democracy and part of community participation. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing no requests to speak, Public Comment is closed. Each of the parties have a two minute rebuttal. Sefcovic can we go to the overhead, please . And thank you, commissioner, for the rebuttal time. One point made by the project developer is that he is requesting approval of two separate plans. One, the original plans or the september 6th revised plans. I point out that the september sixth revised plans are the ones were speaking about. Those are the ones that were presented to mr. Winslow. Those are the ones that his staff report addresses. So the original plans is at least i would suggest that the commission do not consider those at this point. He also mentions that he made concessions to the albright in terms of offering this three foot setback at the top of the page for the roof deck when he offered that, he then included the intruding closet at the middle of the page noted by the bottom arrow that that concession was no concession at all. Essentially what it added was another objectionable feature in return for a slightly less objectionable feature. So what we are requesting here at the top up for the roof deck is a five foot step back of the bedroom of the north bedroom wall rather than the three feet as depicted in the plans and then a removal or a substantial reduction of the intruding closet, which again is new massing has not been subject to neighbor notification under section 311. And our position is because of that, it should be removed entirely. We thank you. Project sponsor. You have a two minute rebuttal. Yeah, were just putting a thing up on the overhead right now that shows the side elevation of the rear yard pop out and add most of what theyre saying is right. We did offer to cut back three feet out of the rear yard massing. Um, and it wasnt done out of spite, but we were, we were having the meeting with mr. Winslow and i said, hey, heres an idea. I dont think this pop out is that actually high and that intrusive, but ill cut some massing out of it and put it back where this, the side yard is because we sort of proactively done like a five foot side yard setback back starting quite a ways back. And so it was taking that chunk of massing and really just putting it on the side because of the boxed in nature did seem to be the primary concern. Thank you. With that commissioners, this concludes the public hearing portion and the discretionary review is now before you great. And just want to clarify, mr. Winslow, your comment around. There are two sets of plans which youve heard of both of which are in our packet. The second set is the plan that include the modification plans that were agreed with with one neighbor, and then that we should kind of be considering if the commission does want to approve those, we actually would need to take dr. And then approve the project with the modification of the i believe its a september 6th dated plans. Thats correct. Great. Thank you. Any comments . Questions from commissioners motions . Commissioner coppell. Ill move to take and approve as modified. Second theres no deliberation. Commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to take on approve as modified on that motion. Commissioner braun i. Commissioner ruiz, i commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial i. Commissioner coppell high. Commissioner moore and commissioner, president tanner i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your hearing today. Thank you, commissioners. We are adjourned. Sf govtv San Francisco government t t t t t t t t t t you are watching San Francisco rising with chris manner. Todays special guest is carla short. Hi, im chris manner and you are watching San Francisco rising the show about restarting rebuilding and reimagining the city. Our guest is carla short the intric director of public works and here to talk about the storms we had and much more. Welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. Great to have you. Lets start by talking about the storms that started beginning of the year. There fsh a lot of clean up recovery and remediation. Can you talk about what your team did . Sure. The 17 inches of rain we got starting on new years eve through the first 2 and a half weeks of january made it one of the wettest periods in recorded history for San Francisco, so as you imagine we had a lot of work to do. We gave out more then 31 thousand sand bags, we were operating all most non stop from new years eve to San Francisco residents and businesses out of our operation yard and frequently working thin rain so it was a beautiful dance to watch. We had a corio graphed where people drive in the stop and load with san dags and get on it way so thats was the most visible thij weez had to do. Responded to all most a thousand calls for localized flooding for the corner of the street with catch basin. Our team trying to address that. We clear and pick up anything to block and it hopefully get the flooding to go down. If we are able to respond we call in the San Francisco pub utility system and are responsible for the sewer system under so they bring ing vack trucks that vacuum out debris inside the catch basin. We also dealt with lots and lots of calls about trees and tree limbs down. I think we actually faired better then some other places in terms of loss of full trees. We did have whole tree failures and that is not that uncumin with super satch waited soil conditions. We had over 950 calls about trees or tree limbs down. A lot of calls were about loss of a limb and we could save the tree. We are still assessing the data to figure how many were full tree failures versus limb failure. Also had Land Movement too. The great highway comes to mind. What is your approach to managing rock mud and land slides . That is a great question. We had 28 different slides over the course of that period. It is kind of a interesting process, so the first step is we have our geotechnical or Structural Engineers take a look to see is the hillside safe, do we need to stabilize it in some way or just need to do some cleanup . Once they made their assessment they will recommend the next steps. Often times to protect Public Safety we will place k rails the giant concrete rails at the base omthe slide area to make sure that any debris doesnt get on the edroway and bring ing the heavy equipment to scoop up on the ground and move off the roadway and try to open the roadway. Some cases, we will actually inject some rocks or other stabilizing forces either into the slide area or sometimes below the roadway. Right now there is nothing thats unstable out there but be are keeping a close eye on the areas including the gray highway area. Right, right. Well, so talking about the storms in the city response, brings us to Southeast Community scepter when there is rain remediation projects going on. Can you talk about the inconstruction project kblrks that is a favorite project. A Beautiful New Community facility. We were involved in pretty much every aspect of developing that project for the public utility commission. They were a client. We Design Project management and Construction Management and the Landscape Design for that project. And one thing that we included was storm Water Management throughout the entire project site. So, that project encapturealize the rain water that lands on the roof and flows into the landscape where we have rain gardens so intent is slow the water down to and give areas to collect to percolate into the ground rather then the sewer system. When we have sewers that are overloaded, because our rain water mixes with the sewer treatment storm sewer system, we actually can end up dist charging into the bay which we dont want to do. Anything we can do to just prevent those combined sewers from overpm loaded is a good thing and in this case allows the water to collect onsite and percolate to the ground which is the best way to manage the storm water and it is beautiful and provides habitat. I encourage everybody to see it. It is special place. Thats great. There was recently news about how city indiscernible powered by steam, which is super unusual i think. I understand public works ablgtually does the maintenance on the system. Can you just talk about that a bit . Sure. That is a unusual situation. That steam loop was actually built when the city was recovering from the 1906 earthquake. It only provides to steam about 4 buildings in civic center but that is how we keep buildings like city hall warm. The steam goes into the radiators and provides the heat. It is a old system and if you see steam billowing out of the man holes or other spaces, that is indication of a leak actually. We spend a lot of time trying to fix the leaks because its a old system. It is managed by the Real Estate Department and at one point they were looking trying to replace the whole thing but think that is a massive undertaking so now they focus on making as needed repair said. We did a big repair on growth street where we spent a month and a half working on the known leaks s in the area. It is a very tight spot and have to use blow torches to seal up the leak so a intense operation and seeing more leaks on polk street so we will be out there once it warms up to fix the leaks. Excellent. Lets discuss what is the reunifiquation of public works. There fsh a proposal or plan to split off the division, called the street and sanitation. Now that has been shelved and public works is going to just retain being a single entity. Can you talk through the process . Sure. Yeah. The original proposal was a ballot measure voted on to split the department into 2. It basically create the department of sanitation and streets that was really going to incompass all our operation divisions so it was a street cleaning department but encompass everything we refer to as operations. When we worked preparing for that split with the city administrator office, we found there were actually 91 what we call touch points between the operations work and our engineering and architecture side, so we really felt like it could be very difficult to split into two departments. We have so many areas of overlap. There was a new ballot measure last november to reunit the department. Technically we split october one and did split in some ways. We did put on hold some of the behind the scenes things like rebranding all the vehicle jz giving everyone a new email address in the sanitation and streets department, but on january 1 of 2023 we came back together so we are reunited i want sing the peaches and purb song and think it is a good thing for the 91 areas of overlap. We making 2c3w50d use of the research. Preparing for the split. Looking at all the touch points and trying to strengthen the department so we are more streamlined and efficient. One of the most important component from the original ballot measure is commission oversight. We retained two commissions, the Public Works Commission which oversee the Overall Department and approve the budget and contracts. And sanitation and Street Commission and their mandate focus on policy and deliverable for street cleaning and basically the operation division. Reporting to them regularly how we are doing, we think will help make sure we are as efficient and effective as we can be as a department. That sounds great. Thank you so much for coming and talking to me today and appreciate the time you have given. Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure. That is it for this episode. You are watching San Francisco rising. Call this meeting to order. Madam secretary, call the roll. President ajami. Here Vice President maxwell. Here. Commissioner paulson excused. Commissioner revera. We have quorum. Members make up to 2 minutes of remote comment dialing upon 4156550001. Meeting id access code 2599 928 6349. Press star 3. Speakers will hear a choim had there are 3 seconds and another when 2 minutes expired. Limit your comments to the item discussed unless general Public Comment. If you dont stay on the topic the president can ask to you limit you