Lines for those persons calling in to submit their testimony. You need to call area code. 415 a6550001 and enter access code. 26627653631 and press pound twice. You should wait for the item youre interested in speaking to and for Public Comment to be announced for that item. To comment you need to enter star three to raise your hand and once youve raised your hand you will hear the prompt that you have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to call or excuse me, 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 joining via webex, please log in via the link found on todays agenda and enter password cpc 2023 and youll need to raise use the raised hand icon to ask a question. Best practices are to call from a quiet location on and please mute the volume on your television or computer for those persons attending in city hall. We request that you come forward and line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Finally ill ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. At this time, ill call Roll Commission chair moore here, commissioner braun here, commissioner imperial here, commissioner copple here, and commissioner ruiz here. We expect commissioners tanner and dimond to be absent today. First, on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2023 hyphen 007676. Pca exceptions from limits on conversion of production distribution and repair, Institutional Community and arts activity uses in eastern neighborhood plan area Code Amendment items two a and b for case numbers 2019 hyphen 015792 and var for the property at 355 lombard street discretionary review and variance are proposed for continuance to november 2nd, 2023. Item three case number 2020 hyphen 00967083 42 moultrie street a conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to november 9th, 2023. Items four a and b for case numbers 2022 hyphen 007060d and vr for ten seacliff avenue for discretionary review and variance are proposed for continuance to november 30th, 2023. Item five case number 2022 hyphen 0050848 67 potomac street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to december 7th, 2023. Item six case number 2020 hyphen 010990. Drp at 2536 california street discretionary review is proposed for continuance to january 25th, 2024. Further commissioners under your regular calendar, the. Item 22 case number 2023 hyphen 008250. Pca and map for the nonprofit Arts Education special use district planning code and zoning map amendments. We are requesting a continuance. November 2nd, 2023. The Historic Preservation commission lost its quorum due to recusals and could not consider the matter yesterday and hopefully will be able to take up the matter on november first to provide you with their recommendation on before you pass along your recommendation to the full board. So we are requesting a continuance to november 2nd, 2023 and item 25, case number 2022 hyphen 00514681 29 laidley street the project sponsor here, is requesting a continuance to november 30th to allow more discussion with neighbors. Staff is not opposed to that continuance. Request but i have no other items proposed to be continued, so we should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any and or all of the items proposed for continuance to later dates. 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 additional requests to speak, commissioners Public Comment on your continuance calendar is closed and it is now before you. Secretary i own and i see somebody in the back row standing up, but i do not know if she wants to comment. If you want to comment, please come forward and speak into the microphone. Thank you. I lost track of the numbers and i was wondering if the regular calendar number 22, is that the one thats continued . We are requesting a continuance to november 2nd. Yes okay. So that wont be heard today. If it is continued, it wont be heard today. Oh, when do you figure that out . Momentarily. Okay. Thanks. Okay commissioners, your continuance calendar is now before you. Commissioner imperial, move all items as proposed to continue. Second, thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commissioner braun, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner imperial a commissioner coppell a and Commission Chair more so moved commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 commissioners that will place us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the commission and may be acted upon by a single roll roll call vote. 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 seven case number 2023 hyphen 002804 seaway at 450 sutter street, suite 1336 conditional use authorization item eight case number 2022 hyphen 0057578 20 208. Mission street number 404 conditional use authorization item nine case number 2022 hyphen 010980 at 38 mars street discretion review item ten case number 2023 hyphen 001469q8 1539 slope boulevard conditional use authorizing action item 11 case number 2023 hyphen 005939q8 1515 waller street conditional use authorization item 12 case number 2022 hyphen 005662q at 930 pine street unit 114 conditional use authorization item 13 case number 2022 hyphen 008574q at 930 pine street unit 214 conditional use authorization item 14 case number 2023 hyphen 003224q at 3911 alamein boulevard conditional use authorization item 15 case number 2021 hyphen 006064c08 3430 1 19 street conditional use authorizing motion and item 16 case number 2023 hyphen 005840q86 37 irving street conditional use authorization. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to request that any of these matters be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today. Item nine for 38 mars Street Commission shares requesting that that be pulled off and be considered at the beginning of the regular calendar. So members of the public again, if you wish to have any of these matters pulled off of consent, this is the time to do so. You need to come forward. If youre in the chambers, if youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak commissioners, the consent calendar is now before you with exception to item. Nine commissioner brown. I move to approve all items on consent calendar except for item nine. Second, thank you commissioners on that motion to approve your consent calendar. Commissioner braun high commissioner ruiz high commissioner imperial high. Commissioner coppell high and Commission Chair moore high. So moved commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, with exception to item nine commission matters. Item 17 the land acknowledgment commissioner woods will read the land acknowledgment today. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral home land of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone 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. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Thank you. Item 18 consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for your september 28th, 2023 hearing members of the public, if you wish to address the commission related to their minutes from september 28th, please come forward or raise your hand via webex or press star three. Seeing no request to speak Public Comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners. Commissioner budget move to adopt the minutes. Second. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner braun high commissioner ruiz high commissioner imperial high commissioner coppell high Commission Chair more i move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 item 19 commission comments and questions. Id like to lead off with some positive comments. We had a Beautiful Day last wednesday where we gathered at the groundbreaking for the mass Sophie Maxwell house at dogpatch plant power plant and it was a remarkable day, not only because of the weather, the sights, the energy of people gathering for some positive event. It is 108 years knit, building Affordable Housing that, despite all the doomsday talk we hear indeed is materializing itself. And now actually under directors comments, ill ask director hillis to give us a little bit more detail on the incredible, innovative financing mechanisms that have been used on this project for those of you who havent been there, we should all be happy and proud that its nothing. It is not always. It doesnt happen. Things do happen. And this one is a remarkable project to acknowledge the. Second point that i like to ask is. Theres lots of strange news out there. And last thursday and the standard there was a letter published that mayor breed sent to all Department Heads and that letter implies that there are additional budget cuts, midyear budget cuts expected despite the fact that the overall budget was a lot of pain, was approved and that she, for reasons probably looking ahead, is asking for additional cuts. That is not only disturbing because we ourselves as a commission worked very hard to support the budget, but knowing how difficult it has been for the department to really comply and i will be asking director hillis to speak more to whats ahead for the department, but also how he can inform the commission and work with the commission for a reasonable outcome. Because this is very, very difficult to take at this particular juncture that was not so positive. But hopefully we can find a positive outcome to this and the last thing is i was originally attempted to pull one item of consent, and that is with an approval of a cannabis facility on mission street. And while it is not the facility itself that made me wonder, it is my concern that we need to find new parameters to look at Cannabis Retail. Because if indeed Everything Else were reading about the financial strain and lack of success that Cannabis Retail has for small entrepreneurial businesses, i feel very hard pressed to continue to approve something which i believe does not have a very positive future. I want to put this out just as a reminder ask the director, the department , including the commission, to have a conversation about about how we are potentially creating long term vacancies by allowing users which at this moment are not filling any vacancies. I leave it with that and ill be looking for commissioner imperial. Um, do you want director hillis to respond in some of your. Either way, just on the, on the financing of the 100 affordable prop project, i believe it was our first project where were using recycled bonds. Its not exactly a term im totally familiar with, but i think its using past allocations where bonds are paid off in kind of reissuing Affordable Housing bonds. And its also a part, you know, this was 100 affordable project required under the da, but you know, amazing that they started with that project as their first project to break ground. So i agree with you, commissioner, more. Its great to see this project moving forward when were hearing elsewhere that a lot of projects are infeasible. Ms. Topia actually volunteered to give us a presentation on on the details. It may inspire other people. Sure, she deserves the credit. Together with director shaw and most likely miss dennis phillips. Yeah, and well talk about, you know, were going to come talk to you, i believe in the new year about the findings that that are Affordable Housing Leadership Council is making and the recommendations theyre going to make on how we get to the 46,000 units of Affordable Housing were being asked to build under our Housing Element. And that certainly will be a strategy we talk about so we can we can incorporate it in that discussion as well. Um, budget wise, its a tough year for the city and the and the Department Fees are down significantly, even from, from the levels that we cut them because we did take cuts to our fees or we anticipated less revenue this year than we were. We were budgeting in prior years. But were not hitting those targets. You know, and i think weve been lagging about 1 million to 1 million and a half in fee revenue from what were budgeted. So if that continues, you know, thats a significant 10 million hole in our budget. The Mayors Office did give us a target of about 350,000. Were meeting that by cutting two vacant positions. Theyre funded but vacant. I mean, we think thats not going to be a big problem. But next year, as we look to the budget, you know, we do foresee some a tough budget year, both because of the general fund is not meeting their revenue targets and nor are we with our fee revenues. So definitely a lot more to come on that. So you feel comfortable that you have reached a general understanding that will not impair our current programs or the emphasis on particular aspects of what were doing for this year . But i think we may have to make some tough choices next year. Thank you very much. Yeah is there anybody else who would like to make a comment . Um, ill yeah, i covid im sorry. Um, thank you for that. So i also have one to bring out. I was informed or by one of the Committee Members about that right now the, the plan i understand that the Planning Department is doing can be engaged about the planning code audits. Id like to hear to give us updates on whats going on in that. And also there were some conversations from the Community Members about how the conversation can go in the planning code, audits on when its being tried to based on the racial social equity lens. So perhaps thats something also we need to look into and perhaps if the you know, if the Community Engagement team can provide us an information as to how those conversations, actions are going. Um, and so, so that at least the commissioners, we, we are knowledgeable as to what are the feedbacks from the Community Members themselves and how, how, you know, the, our team is also focusing on the racial social equity. So thats something that hopefully we can you know, have a discussion with. And i guess my question on that, on the planning code audits, one is what is the timeline for that. Hi, liz. Director of current planning. We are in terms of the planning code audit, just a couple points i can give you. I cant go super deep into the weeds, but we are wrapping up our contract with gensler. We had a consultant who is helping us sort of structure this approach and figure out sort of what our game plan was for how we were going to approach this issue in general. So were wrapping up our contract with them and their final deliverables with us. Our effort is 100 based in racial and social equity. So that is the exclusive lens that were using for this effort. Theres sort of no other aspect to this effort. So its entirely an effort. I know our community, our core team that we have working on it, where we have representation from our Community Equity division as well as from current planning, have had a series of Community Meetings with a lot of different groups of folks. I dont know everyone whos been involved yet, but weve done a fair amount of Community Outreach on that and were going to be pulling forward shortly, i would say, in the next several months, sort of our first round of recommendations. And so we will for sure be bringing that to the commission in both with an overview of how were kind of approaching this. Again, its a new thing for us, but how were approaching it and sort of that framework and tool kit that were developing our first set of recommendations. But we do and were planning youll see this in particularly in the current planning budget moving forward for next year, that were intending this to be an ongoing effort. But where in the same way that we make planning code cleanup efforts over the years and we kind of always have a package that we bring to you, well similarly be bringing sort of recurring suggestions for amendments to the planning code through an audit lens so that were doing our first batch to kind of more establish the framework and give you kind of a taste of here are some of the suggestions that well have. But we see this as being a really almost never ending effort to some degree. So hopefully that gives you sort of a little 10,000ft. But i would say certainly before the end of the fiscal year. But likely i would anticipate probably quarter one will have some sort of updates that were able to bring to the commission. Thank you very much for that update. And also, one thing that i actually also dont want to pull out from the consent calendar from the consent calendar, but i feel like its, you know, looking into it with justified. However its about the laundromat. And my only i think thats item which item was that . 1515 waller i believe yeah. So while i was reading the, the packet in itself, you know, and i think its because the way we try to gather data in terms of the Laundromat Services around the neighborhood and we base it on the services or business cases that still intact with that neighborhood from the last discussion that we had or the last. You know, there are trends where Old Buildings are incorporating Laundry Services as well. Im wondering if we can add that, you know, in the packet in itself in terms of rental Old Buildings or actually incorporate incorporating Laundry Services. The idea for the idea is that we need to be proactive or i feel like the Planning Department needs to be active in terms of gathering data for services that still considered, you know, useful in the neighborhood. Because when i look into the of course the packet inform how many lawns, Tree Services businesses that are around the area, but its a good for us to have an assessment of how are these business or how are these services are are are trending at this point. And what i would just say on that, we really look at this, some of the data is easy enough to provide you. Some of its a little more difficult. So for new construction projects, for example, youll notice that a standard condition of approval on housing projects is that we are making mandating on site laundry facilities precisely for this very issue, right . We want to make sure that the new projects that were approving moving forward have on site laundry, knowing that standalone laundry facilities continue to be economically challenged, where we dont have great access to information is for existing buildings where they just are adding laundry facilities. Oftentimes those might just require a plumbing permit. Those things dont always come to the Planning Department. Its not a data point that we always have clearly identified as we are adding x number of Laundry Services or Laundry Services as a whole. So its going to be a little trickier for us to be able to identify what Old Buildings are just adapting to add those facilities. But certainly for new construction, thats something that we do see and we are mandating moving forward, i guess. Yeah, probably a separate conversation with team, but yeah, thank you for adding that. Yeah absolutely. Those are my questions and comments. Yeah there are no other questions and comments. Commissioners if you would indulge me for one moment, i wanted to advise you that ive received word from Building Management here in city hall that the apec Conference Start on november 11th and lasting that week will likely impact hearings in city hall. And so i am hoping that we dont need to cancel our november 16th hearing. I know the recommendation is for commissions to cancel their hearings that week due to limited access to city hall, but there is a there appears to be an opportunity to start our november 16th hearing earlier at 10 a. M. And maybe leave before the building is closed to members of the public and im still investigating that. If we can have a hard stop, possibly at 3 00 or 330 and vacate the building. So just be advised and hopefully, if you could take a look at your calendars now and see if 10 a. M. Would work for you on november 16th. Also i dont want to steal mr. Starrs thunder, but the board of supervisors, interestingly enough, voted to cease their remote Public Participation in, for the time being anyway, with exception to for those persons requesting advance reasonable accommodation that does not affect us or any other commission for that matter. We can continue remote Public Comment until such time you all decide that you no longer want to participate or provide that form of participation to members of the public sector. And would it be appropriate for you to give a little bit more background of why the supervisors decided that . I happen to hear to the meeting . Well, i mean, yes, they bit of a knee jerk reaction to one hearing where they they received inappropriate Public Comment, antisemitic and profanity laced comments. It was one hearing, again, knock on wood, i think weve been extremely fortunate here at the Planning Commission where we havent had issues like that. But if they were to arise, i would simply mute them and move on profanity is not completely absent from many other meetings at and we have been lucky not to have that. And i know that you would call it sometimes very difficult to listen to when people in Public Service being bombarded with insults, which by choice of word, are completely inappropriate. So there can be disillusioned and they can express it, but they do not have to do it in the form that they do have grown quite accustomed to insults. Commissioner moore, unfortunately, if theres nothing further, Commissioners Department matters item 20 directors announcements. Yeah, nothing further from me. Item 21 review of past events at the board of supervisors. I have no report from the board of appeals , but the Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday. I feel like i have no thunder. So this week the Land Use Committee considered supervisor mandelsons ordinance that would permit nighttime entertainment uses on the second floor with conditional use authorization in the castro street neighborhood. Commercial district. This ordinance was part of a package of considerations related to the castro theater project. This item was continued from october second land use hearing because the amendments to allow the exemptions to the use size limits for Historic Buildings in the castro and cd were not ready. This week. Those amendments, which were part of the Planning Commissions recommended modifications, were introduced by supervisor mandelman and accepted by the committee during Public Comment. There were a few public speakers, about half in favor and half against all related to the castro theater. Change of use, primarily the committee then continued the item for one week as required because the amendments were substantive. We do expect that next week it will pass out of committee. Then the committee considered the mayors constraints reduction ordinance. This item was also continued from october 2nd at the beginning of the hearing, supervisor melgar indicated her intent to continue the item to allow her and the Mayors Office to work on amendments to the ordinance. Supervisor mandelman also indicated that he had amendments related to the Corona Heights ud and central neighborhoods large home said that he would be introducing at the next hearing. The item did have Public Comment, although this week it was significantly shorter than the last, but with no less passion from the speakers supervisor peskin and preston both expressed their dissatisfaction with the way the ordinance had been handled by the Mayors Office, and preston in particular expressed his concerns about the potential loss of rent controlled housing. The committee did eventually vote to continue the item to october 30th. I dont believe it will pass out of committee at that point, and based on my understanding of supervisor mandelsons proposed amendments, the ordinance will have to come back to the commission for your further consideration and thats all i have for you. Thank you. I do have. I have a question, just clarification. So the negotiation between supervisor melgar and the mayor, um, is that also returning or on top of the amendments that. No, i think its so the mayors was very broad. And i think whats going to happen is some of that broadness will be narrowed. So that doesnt need to come back to you for consideration because was this and thats going to be that. But mandelman touches on topics that you had have no connection to what you heard prior. Okay. Thank you. The Historic Preservation commission met yesterday. They continued the clay theater, the interior and exterior alteration certificate of appropriateness indefinitely. So i dont im not sure whats going to happen with that. But they adopted recommendations for approval for legacy business registry applications for the property at 599. Castro street, the tie house, and then also a property at 916 kearny street for earwax productions. They also adopted a Citywide Historic context statement on Architecture Planning and preservation professionals. A collection of biographies and heard an informational presentation on on housing projects and state density bonus law and as previously noted, they were forced to continue the nonprofit Arts Education, special use district planning code and zoning map amendments because they lost a quorum and so they could not actually have a hearing due to conflicts. But were hoping that amy campbell, who just got through rules, will be able to sit on the Historic Preservation commission on november first and so they can take up that matter then. On hans baldauf, who has gone through the full board, is abroad and will be joining the Historic Preservation commission after for the thanksgiving holiday. So maybe in december the Historic Preservation commission will be full with Seven Members again, if there are no questions or comments, 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 on 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 minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Hi, good afternoon. Says two minutes, but thats okay because i have to go anyway. I hope you got my email that i sent at 1030 last night with. The three mlcalc matrices and i sent that for a reason. And i cant talk about it because its going to be its was taken off consent. But thats okay. Ill talk about it next week. But anyway, my point is to raise the issue of demolition, because thats been talked about a lot lately at the board. And here. And i want to just pose this question, whats a demolition . And i think what it is, is that it means the loss of existing sound, livable housing that it rationally and logically is considered more affordable than the housing that may follow. And so much housing has been lost because the demographics have never been adjusted. And so and most of them are spec projects. The projects that ive talked about for the last 8 or 9 years are spec projects. Birx so i just hope that youll think about that and that the calcs really just historically have either been non existent or they dont match the scope of the project or now sometimes theyre very close to the thresholds. And i think is still a valid point to adjust them with whatever happens with coming out of the board and the Mayors Office. So i hope you look at that email and the how, how they could have been adjusted if they had been adjusted. What the value would be, whats allowed to be retained, whats allowed to be removed. I think thats important. And the other thing ill talk about real quick is, is theres also been a lot of discussion about discretionary review and i saw that in all your packets. You put in those little maps talking about docker and there really hasnt, you know, that maps really interesting but doesnt have a lot of detail. Itd be nice to have more detail on that. When i counted the dots, i figured there was like 60 a year for the last two years and given the number of permits that you have, that doesnt seem outrageous. And in fact, back in 2017 and i didnt bring it today, but i think ive sent it before, i had an email from a former director, a director of current planning, mr. Joslin, and he said there were like 40 in a year from 2016 to 2017. So and that was kind of like the boom years of development. And so thats just throwing that out there. Thanks a lot. Have a great day. The pdf presentation that we have brought. So if you could please allow me to load that before you give mr. Adler her three minutes of Public Comment. I would really appreciate it. Okay were ready. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is sandra dratler. Im here today speaking on behalf of faith in action at saint james and the San Francisco land use coalition. My intent is to provide you with data that exposes the fallacy of the narrative that the Community Process is responsible for blocking housing by showing you Planning Departments own data overhead. Please we ask the Planning Department for all the permits and their associated hearings in previous years. As you can see on this slide, permits that require siu or hearings on the average make up only 18 of all permits. Keep in mind that a large portion of the conditional use authorizations involve change of use for ground floor retail or legalizing illegal activity, things such as unpermitted demolitions or the unsafe construction found on san bruno avenue. Next slide this is a far different narrative than what were hearing in fact, in the three year period from 2018 to 2020, well over 82 of projects moved through with no siu or doctor. And when you exclude those cues for ground floor retail seeking change of use, the number goes even higher. Next slide a deeper dive into the three year period starts from 2018 revealed that the vast majority of ccas were for business change of use when it comes to doctors, the majority involve Single Family homes. The numbers, of course, changed dramatically when we hit the pandemic in 2020 and development slowed down. Next slide looking closely at doctors filled filed in 2018 against projects with Single Family homes revealed that over three quarters of them were for expansions of such homes and no added unit as the green section of the pie chart shows, less than 1 in 5 of the doctor projects were proposals to add one or more units, while all the rest shown in orange gray and yellow were for expand options with no added unit alterations or legalizing unpermitted work, it is purported that doctors stifle our new Housing Production in this data shows such is not the case. If anything, this data does prove the majority of doctors are filed against the expansions that result in monster homes. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ozzie rome with San Francisco land use coalition. So im going to continue to what the presentation that ms. Bartlett brought to you with with the data. Of december 2018 on an and as you can see, the same pattern emerges for the bulk of these projects, 57 for multi unit buildings are nothing but expansion as expansions and alterations. But unit creations not much change. Next slide please. Now lets move on to discuss of existing Single Family homes as as the green section of the pie chart shows, there were more proposals for adding units at. And of course thats encouraging. But these are exactly the types of projects birx that are already addressed first by supervisor melgars Family Housing legislation that eliminated queues for Single Family homes. So we dont have of this issue today anymore for where Single Family homes are having queues and you know, its basically eliminated. But what is disturbing is the fact that a sizable slice or 18 of these queues were for that year were were basically removal of units or mergers. So we i mean, were not doing too well. Next slide, please. So lets look at the queues of existing multiunit buildings. So as you can see in the breakdown down, even though. 56 of the queues involve build adding units, a full 19 involved unit removals similar to the Single Family home queue data. I should add that a great deal of these unit additions involve just adding 1 or 2 adus at the multi unit buildings, which were nothing but converting their garages. So to sum up what is all this constraint reduction solving for . Its clearly not evidence based and planning own permit data doesnt even support it. The evidence before you clearly shows that eliminating, eliminating the socalled constraints do not actually produce more housing. It just fits the narrative of big real estate and architects who did test rent control and only care about speedy profits for lucrative projects. So speaking of rent control, i hope you know that the new Housing Element that is being used as the impetus for new legislation so strictly has hands off on rental and tenant occupied housing. Theres nowhere in the Housing Element that says its okay to demolish tenant occupied and rent controlled housing and specific. Basically, they say that should not happen. So. Thank you. Time is up. Okay. Last call for general Public Comment 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 people in the chambers coming forward. Lets go to our remote caller. Uh uh, this is sue hester. First of all, i would say amen to georges comments, sandra lees comments and Audrey Williams comments. There really on target about housing issues. What i am calling for specifically is, is because the end of the year for the office calculations of october 17th, on october 18th, which was yesterday, de Zoning Administrator and staff set out a new Office Development annual limit program chart showing the status of office approvals. And there was a rolling amount of housing pardon me, of office space that was approved and got an allocation formally by the Planning Commission that is not being built that that is consistent with what everyone is saying is the state of Office Development in the city and particularly the Planning Commission has been arguing that conversion should happen of office space to housing. I would ask the Planning Commission to please have have a present station to the Planning Commission of thatrillioneport by corey teague and anyone else who is knowledgeable about that. That status. We have had. Ive been dealing with Office Projects since probably prop n created the annual development limit and the annual development limitation that happened in 1986 when we had a very different situation of everyone wanted to build Office Buildings because there were great moneymaker. We now have a situation right now thats temporary. I think that there is a lot of office vacancies, but i think you need to have an formed information and the office chart is maintained by the Planning Department just because its a requirement of the code and the code was amended by the people on the ballot. And i would ask you to please schedule a hearing with mr. Gig as soon as possible because. Because we need the information in part to know what is going on with conversions of office space to housing. Thank you very much. Okay. Final last call for general Public Comment. Seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners general Public Comment is closed. I have commissioner imperial wanting probably to ask a question regarding one of the public speakers here. Yeah. Thank you. I just want to follow up on that because i do and thanks for the presenter doing that and i dont want this to be part of conversation right now, but i think we need to do a follow up in terms of the data that were that were seeing as well. I know from the last you know, from the last, there was actually a map where the doctors are coming from. And i and i think its also good for us to understand, too, in terms of the cours, what are the cours are actually because right now as we see the calendar a lot of cars are in the consent. So i think for me as a commissioner also, you know, thats a big you know, its a big trend that im seeing that i think the public is also seeing. Why are these a lot of cars are also now in the consent. So perhaps if the department can provide us information as to how is the department cataloged the cars as should be part of the consent or should be part of consent. And i think this might be a part of the conversation is whats going on in the planning code audits. But yeah, i just want to i dont want to have a conversation on this right now, but just want to follow up on that next time. Yeah i actually did not press the button prior to a miss imperial, but i would fully agree with her that an ongoing conversation on this is really important. I actually would encourage that this presentation becomes a dialog between planning who has provided the data and our Coalition Representatives to speak about how to visualize data if theyre visualized. Its quite impressive, quite depressing, actually, is a better word because quantitatively, to see what we have really done is very hard. I have gotten used to the fact that the Planning Commission is a great hindrance to almost any housing being built, but that is comes par for the course. However when you see these data, i would like a dialog between these two groups really elevate the reality of what is going on in order to basically dispel the myth that none of us is performing one way or the other. You get slammed, we get slammed. Everybody else gets slammed and we reality have Something Else going on. And i would like that clarity to be out here as an additional piece of transparency. So i encourage the department, together with our land use coalition, to find a way to talk about the data, how theyre being used, how theyre being interpreted, and then come back also to keep the rest of the commission in the absence of commissioners. Tanner and diamond informed, i would greatly appreciate that. Thanks okay, commissioners, if theres nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar for item nine, which was pulled off of consent for case number 2022 hyphen 010980 for the property at 38 mars street discretionary review. So im going to try and keep the abbreviated presentation even more abbreviated. I believe. This item was on consent for the reason that the requester was content with the proposed modification by the project sponsor to pull back the front deck. Five feet from his side lot line, thereby addressing the issues that he was concerned with regarding privacy. I was requested to confirm that from the requester and have not received confirmation. But that is the reality of the project. The project sponsor is seeking to memorialize that change through the process of this hearing, through. Thank you for making that brief presentation. I think we looked at all the drawings without the letter or an acknowledgment between both parties not present. Its very difficult for this commission to put a project on consent and say, yes, we had to. Basically, we are to be the gatekeepers of approvals and i think it helps the department and us to have a clear record of whats happening. I see a person near the door raising her hand. Are you the requester or the project sponsor . Sorry, the meeting was listed at 1 p. M. And thats why i cannot hear you at all. If you wouldnt mind, im very sorry. The meeting was listed at 1 p. M. And got moved to noon and got moved to from two weeks. So im coming for the hearing at one and im really extremely so sorry. Are you the requester or the project sponsor . The project sponsor. And this is the requester. Okay, well, the request. Im sorry. No im not the requester. Im the project sponsor. I apologize. Understood. So the requester should present first. Im sorry. I just wanted to say that i apologize. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Youre the sponsor. Okay. Oh, i thought. I thought it was the requester. No. Oh, she got it confused, so im so sorry. Okay so is the requester present . If not, project sponsor . Go ahead. Okay. Since the requester is not present, project sponsor, you have a five minute presentation. If you care to use it. Can i have the is the overhead on as you put something on it . Okay. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is lucas eastwood. Im a local San Francisco builder and developer. Im here today as the project sponsor for 38 mars. This Planning Department approved project consists of a vertical and horizontal addition to an existing Single Family home. This is a modest project that fits well within the standards of the large home ordinance and the residential Design Guidelines. The project, the proposed project is short of the maximum height limit by four feet at the front and 19ft at the back. The building envelope is also short of the 45 rear yard setback by five feet and short of the permitted encroachments, the 12 foot pop out by six feet. So we stayed well within the allowable buildable envelope because were not creating much more than 2500 square foot home. We also went to Great Lengths to generate a thoughtful plan that preserves Natural Light to the requesters rear Property Line operable windows, which you can see in the slide and during the 311 neighborhood notification notification period, we had several conversations and on site meetings with the neighbors to the south regarding their privacy concerns. As a result of these these discussions owns a five foot side yard setback with a non occupiable green roof was proposed and verbally accepted by both parties. We then commenced the modify the architectural drawings with the five foot side setback. We presented the modify documents to the requester and to our surprise they rejected it and it was filed during the meeting convened by David Winslow, the was once again seemed to confirm the setback was an acceptable solution in and it is our understanding that the doctor was not withdrawn because the doctor requesters want to finalize a Construction Agreement before for withdrawing their doctor. Weve been very communicative and eager to finalize this agreement. However, the doctor requesters have been extremely busy and slower to respond. We understand life is busy, but we dont want to delay our permit approval timeline any longer. We understand their desire for a Property Line Construction Agreement and are willing to work towards that with or without a hearing. Furthermore, we do not believe this is a Planning Department issue. The Construction Agreement. It should not be subject to a doctor discussion. Therefore we ask the commission to approve the project as modified. Thank you. Okay again, ill ask if the requester is present and wants to make a presentation. If not, well open up Public Comment. Members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review. 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 if you care to project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. Although hard to rebut, no presentation, but its yours if you need it. Thank you. With that, Public Comment is closed and the public hearing portion of the item is also over here. And before you now, commissioners, i would like to ask the City Attorney to help us with this. If in several meetings, the requester agreed to accept what was proposed, however, did not withdraw the r, nor did render a letter explaining that he she gives it leaves us basically with an open d r and a necessary discussion in front of this commission to make an educated decision. Could you please weigh in on that. I could help weigh in on that, if you dont mind. Mr. Winslow yeah , thank you. When an agreement like this is reached, the reason we leave it on the calendar, as opposed to having it withdrawn is simply to memorialize the change age. The change being of a non occupiable portion of the roof to be identified for the future. Because a roof deck can be applied for as an overthecounter permit without the purview of anybody who is involved in in the dispute between the parties. So thats all were asking is to take the to memorialize this proposed change is that help clarify things. I, i would have to defer to the City Attorney because normally we do have a letter of agreement. And if both parties have tried to agree with each other, it is not formalized particularly in one point i kept asking that it wasnt enough. So i think im incapable of putting this on consent or approving it with a limited information or limited position that the request is taking. Maybe. Commissioner moore if i can just jump in, just to give a little context, its pretty common that the magic we say that David Winslow provides in these negotiations is he will often sit down with both parties in person or over teams to negotiate. And a lot of the dollars that are withdrawn or the dollars that you guys see through the consent items. There are many instances where we dont receive formalized letters. Its conversations that are happening in these inperson meetings that theyre having where theres consensus being built and we act on it. So i understand your question of do we have something in writing that says that they agree but that isnt something that we often get. Its usually a face to face conversation that mr. Winslow is facilitating. So its not atypical here to have a doctor thats effectively resolved between parties through sort of an inperson communication. However if mr. Winslow contacted the applicant not twice and the doctor requested twice, and its basically not its not being responded to, i find that in there is missing information here not being here and basically not responding to mr. Winslows request. Please me wondering. I am i am not an attorney. Im not trying to hold us off. I find the agreement or the basis for an agreement reasonable and correct. However, i would like to personally not be stuck that this person could ultimately come up with Something Else, particularly there seem to be a breakdown in communication, but the items before you, you have you can take the agreement that mr. Winslow said the project sponsor offered. You cannot take it if you dont want to. You can just approve the project as proposed and thats code compliant. Or you can do something different. But the request is not here to come and state their case. Theres been problems. It seems like communicating with the doctor request or we dont want to leave this project kind of open as a result of that. So i think its up to you. You know, again, you can approve the project as is. You can approve it as were recommending, or you can do something different. Well, if thats the case, if thats what we can get away with and i would approve it as recommended with the green roof. And thats basically whats left over. Okay. Is there a motion . Chimed in. I was going to make a motion. Im sorry, mr. Koppel. I did not Pay Attention to this. Yeah. So were actually having the hearing right now. And the requester is not present. The requester did not try and take this off consent. And the project sponsor is here. So im going to move to take doctor and approve with the modified conditions. Second, thanks. Theres no further. Deliberation. Commissioners. Theres a motion that has been seconded to take daca and approve with modifications on that motion. Commissioner brown by commissioner ruiz, a commissioner imperial high commissioner, couple a and commissioner moore. So move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0 and id we can now continue on with your regularly scheduled regular calendar. Item 22 has been continued and placing us on item 23 for case number 2023 hyphen 008443 crv for the yosemite slew grant application. Commissioners. Just i want to introduce katie lee who this is our first time before the commission. She joined us a couple of months ago as our budget and grants analyst. So kind of per our discussion we had during the directors report, our commissioners comments, you will likely see katie back here as we as we start to work on the budget and hopefully getting additional grants to help us balance our budget. She comes to us from dpi where she worked on lean process improvements in most recently. Shes a graduate of Tufts University with a masters in public health. So welcome, katie. Hello my name is katie and i am the budget and grants analyst at the Planning Department. So i am joined today by my colleagues in admin and citywide and earlier this year, the Planning Department applied and submitted a grant to the California Office of planning and research to fund the yosemite slew Adaptation Plan and we were awarded this grant to work on Community Capacity building to address climate risk, develop equitable adaptation strategies and position a Community Based Adaptation Plan to address Climate Change in the bay view. And. Whereas, most grants do not require Planning Commission approval, all the details of this specific grant do. And so we are here today the Planning Department would like to request Planning Commission approval for final approval to accept the grant from the office of planning, planning and research and if you have any questions, our team is available to respond. Ed, thank you. Welcome to the gang. 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 item. Again, if youre in the chambers, please come forward. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Seeing no requests to speak commissioners Public Comment is closed. This matter is now before you. There are several ways to look at it. Most most and foremost, i think, is what director hillis touched on. If grants are the way to keep us productively and creatively moving forward, this is a time to go for them. And i think ms. Lee made a very convincing presentation to have the energy to exactly do that for us. I find it very encouraging that we are able to frame a project of this kind. Its location and importance in the city with having a grant, and i couldnt be more delighted to fully support it. So thank you. Uh, commissioner brown . Yes its, you know, its actually very interesting to hear about a grant that the department is receiving and to learn more about it as this process is happening, knowing that usually this wouldnt need to come before us. I saw there was just a little bit of uncertainty about an administrative code change. That is the reason it seems like that is coming to this commission is that right . Yeah. So the details of this grant require Planning Commission approval, and most of them usually dont. And so thats why were bringing it before you all today. Yes, indeed. And so i moved to approve acceptance of the grant award. Second seeing no further requests to speak, commissioners , there is a motion that has been seconded to approve acceptance of the grant. On that motion. Commissioner brown, a commissioner ruiz, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner coppell a and Commission Chair moore i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously. Seven excuse me, 5 to 0 and places us on the final item on your agenda today. Numbers 24 a and b for case numbers 2019 hyphen 021884 and gpa for the potrero yard Modernization Project informational presentation and general plan amendments. Oh. So could we get the projector . Yeah. Thanks. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im matt snyder of department staff. Im joined by my colleagues, gaby pinto and David Winslow, also with the Planning Department. We are also joined by sfmta staff, vonnie jean von krogh and chris hagy of the potrero neighborhood collective. Mtas joint Development Partner. Before you today is the potrero Modernization Project and initiation of general plan amendments associated with that project. Before we ask you to take action on this initiation, we wanted to provide you with a fuller informational item on the entirety of the project. For todays presentation, im going to provide with a quick introduction and reminder of where we are with this project. Give a broad overview of the project program and what will be before the Planning Commission in terms of approvals. And then im going to hand it over to mta and their joint Development Partner to provide you with a more indepth review of the project. Next slide. We were here before you in may 2021. Also, as an informational presentation prior to the project beginning its Environmental Review and the publication of the Environmental Impact report. At that hearing, we described a process led by sfmta, but in partnership with us planning and other agencies and of course with the community to come up with a project description and a set of programing and design parameters for the project so that it could begin its Environmental Review and begin a competitive rfp process to select a lead joint developer. The design parameters were provided in the Design Guidelines document that set out general building envelope along with other qualitative and quantitative design requirements. S so as a reminder, the overall massing parameters generally described as 75 foot podium for the for the bus facility for full lot coverage with an additional building envelope reaching up to, in some cases 150ft with setbacks, particularly along 17th street and a general kind of intention to taper the massing down towards 17th street to reduce shadows on Franklin Franklin square park, among other objectives. Next slide, the project entails the complete rebuilding of the potrero yard so that it can meet sfmtas demands for serving the Transportation Needs of San Francisco and providing a greatly improved Work Environment for its employees. At the same time as a public site. A Main Objective as a public site is to take advantage of it and provide as much housing as possible, particularly Affordable Housing as currently proposed. The project includes the demolition of the existing facility and the construction of this three story plus basement for the bus facility. It would include parking for up to 223 busses. This is up from the existing 153 busses for a total of 698,000ft s. The project would also include several housing component that together would total about 510 units in three housing components. Of our total for a total of 381,000 gross square feet. Sfmta is also looking to entitle a variance that instead of including rooftop housing in case that proved to be infeasible, would enable the rooftop to be used for additional mta bus parking or vehicle parking in operation and specifically around paratransit so that they can have the facility within a mta owned facility. In this scenario, the additional 148,000ft s of rooftop space would be used for paratransit parking and operations. The housing component would then be would be just along bryant street and it would be reduced to about 103 units. Next slide. As a site within the public land use zoning district, a p district and a 65 height in both district, the project will require the site to be rezoned. Staff is recommending that the underlying p or public zoning be maintained to confirm its ongoing Public Ownership and public nature. We would create a special use district as an overlay to permit the housing and other uses not otherwise allowed in the p zoning, and then also to provide the parameters of the building envelope and to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. Of course, the height would also need to be rezoned. Its currently at a 65ft height designation on the we would expect to have the actual project before you as a planned Unit Development authorization and other approvals that would actually not be before you would be a project agreement. A da like agreement would be before the sfmta board and the board of supervisors that would likely occur after you, you, you entitle and recommend zoning changes. And again, just to enable the proposed project, we also need to amend two maps of the of the urban design elements, maps number four and five which which address height and bulk respectively project team anticipates the board of supervisors initiating the zoning related needed amendments that i just described as, you know, general plan amendments can only be initiated by by you, the Planning Commission. Thats why this is before you here today. So were targeting to have the project before you in january of this year for the rezoning and the approvals that i described. But between that time, Environmental Planning anticipates its public publishing the response to comments, documents in december, also in december. We will need to take this to the rec and Park Commission because there are shadow impacts on Franklin Square park. After the hearing, we would hope to have this before the board of supervisors a month or two afterwards and then again mta would be looking to have the project agreement and other transactional agreements before their board and the supervisors later that spring with construction beginning in the fall. So, commissioners, this concludes my portion of the presentation. Im going to now hand it over to bonnie jean of sfmta to take it from here. Id be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Yes hello, commissioners. My name is bonnie jean von crow. Im the Public Affairs manager for the sfmtas Building Progress Program and thanks so much for having us today. Were glad to be back. Before you with an update about the potrero yard Modernization Project site, next slide. So i wanted to situate this project in the overall Building Progress Program of the sfmta, the potrero yard is not a standalone project, so its part of a two plus billion dollar Capital Program that the sfmta has to modernize as our existing facilities. Also to improve their resiliency to things like earthquakes, Climate Change and also to guide us in terms of regulation regarding our electrification of the sfmta fleet. And so those are some of the key pillars of the program, as well as is Public Engagement. So we have been in some of these communities for over 100 years and we will continue to be there for the next 100. And so as we embark on each of these projects , Community Engagement is a key aspect of and fundamental part of our planning. Next slide. So theres three key pillars for the overall Building Progress Program modernization, an electrification and then joint development and the program started. Our facilities master planning started with that Modernization Program to get our facilities into to a state of good repair. And then the program was designed to be adaptive to the changing needs of the sfmta. And one of those changes was, is when there became a goal to electrify our fleet, to have a fully electric fleet. And so part of that then the sfmta interwove electrification of our facilities into the Modernization Program. And so those two now go hand in hand. And then our third pillar is joint development and the joint development piece. We really, as we modernize the facilities on these parcels right . We thought lets be innovative in how we look at these parcels and what can we do there right now, we just, for example, at the train yard, just have a bus yard there. What can we do to you know, kind of the train yard is part of the citys overall Housing Element. Now with the 513 units planned for that yard. And we are looking at other opportunities at other both bus yards and parking structures of how we can use joint development to incur revenues for the agency and something that we can direct right back into muni service. So those are the key pillars of the program. You can see a number of projects that are in the program. The potrero yard is just the first of many and i do want to just highlight that the sequencing of these projects, as we do both modernization and electrification, we are working together with our transit side of the house on their fleet procurement planning. And so really we want to make sure that as transit procures new busses, new battery electric busses, that we have a place for them to go and that we have the capability to charge them. So thats the overall goals of the program. Next slide, just to highlight a couple of the key projects and the sequence. As i mentioned, potrero yard is first out of the gate. Itll be in essence, the first domino to fall and then it hits all the other dominoes. So our kirkland yard will follow closely on potrero heels. It will actually overlap with it and that is a Electrification Program for our kirkland yard. So that can be 100 battery electric facility. Our potrero facility will continue to remain our trolley bus hub and it allows for our trolley busses to move to potrero with expanded capacity. There and then free up our other yards to switch to battery electric yards. The presidio yard will be a battery electric yard and will also be our next major Modernization Project. So this is just first in a sequence and then finally, we are looking to expand our muni metro east rail facility for additional capacity for rail vehicles as well as you see there, that its also a swing facility. So we can use it as a place to store some of the potrero busses as we modernize that yard and it goes under construction. On next slide, please. In terms of the potrero project, specifically, you know, for the mta, our priority is to get a new bus yard at the potrero yard. So right now its at over 100 year old yard. The new yard will give us 50, over 50 more capacity for additional busses, which is critical in our fleet planning process. And then also critical, as matt mentioned, is to improve our facility for our frontline workers who are literally working in 100 year old yard. Finally, as i mentioned, the 513 units proposed as part of this project are part of the citys Housing Element, and we are happy to be a part of that and make that a key part of this innovative project. Next slide. As i mentioned, outreach is critical as part of all of these projects and we have been going right when the mta started its planning process on the potrero yard back in 2017, 2018, we started engaging with the community and those are those talks helped us to develop those Design Guidelines that really are the foundation of this project. So when we went out and procured the developer team, potrero neighborhood collective to join us, we already had that fundamental Community Engagement as a key part of the project. And so the bullets that you see on this slide are really the engagement projects since the pnc team has come on board. And so that includes multiple open houses, the preapplication meeting and then monthly meetings with our neighborhood working group. Many of which have been on the project since the group was formed back in 2018. Next slide, please. To talk a little bit about schedule, i think ive already mentioned how critically important keeping to the schedule is for this project. We are on schedule. Were right there in that middle blue. The part of the process with the pdr , the predevelopment agreement, phase two is what were in now and the sequa and entitlements approvals will come at the end of that phase as matt mentioned, the project agreements will come in pdr, phase three and those will go before the sfmta board and the board of supervisors. This is very similar to a typical public Capital Project where we need to get sequa and entitled through first before procure ing the Design Build Team as those approvals will need to be in place well before the design build builder comes on board. Next slide please. Just to say weve hit all of our milestones as on target, we are now at draft 100 Schematic Design and so really looking to sequa and the entitlements approvals to close out that phase of the process and keep the project on schedule. Next slide. This is San Franciscos the city of San Franciscos First Public Private Partnership project. And so we are excited to partner with the potrero neighborhood collective team. I have chris harigai from plenary americas who will be speaking on behalf of the team. Although we have more members of the team here today. And so i will let chris go through and introduce the other organizations that are part of the overall team. Thank you and ill be available for questions as. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is chris hagy with plenary americas. I am a representative of potrero neighborhood collective. Potrero. Neighborhood collective is a consortium of a number of different firms that are like minded in looking to develop infrastructure and maximize the space for housing. Again, with plenary americas we are a Public Private Partnership Developer for specializing in infrastructure. We have headquartered in california about 50 plus projects all long term, long term operations and maintenance associated with the design build component. We specialize in working with Government Agencies and state agencies to develop infrastructure. We were partnered with three Affordable Housing developers locally based Housing Developers focused on developing the 100 affordable component that we have here, and those are meta, ycd and tabernacle as well. We have a design team with ibi group now arcadis and y studios focusing on advancing design through Schematic Design during this predevelopment phase. Lastly we also have a number of consultants supporting us in this process on construction costing on facilities maintenance, costing on Stakeholder Engagement as well as on legal and commercial issues outside. And so what i thought one wanted to introduce myself, introduce potrero neighborhood collective, and also give a little bit of logic in terms of how weve come up with this design. And also to end with where we are in the stakeholder process and the feedback that weve been receiving. Ill also mention were joined by our lead designer as well. So if there are any specific design questions that come up, happy to dive into those details. So what you see before you here is a birds eye view from 17th street and bryan street looking southeast. And so to put it in context, this site, the 4. 4 acre site currently you have a two story facility on the east side. You have an open, open space parking on the right side and then entrances on mariposa and entrances on 17th street. So what youre seeing here is the full, full spectrum of the project. It is really maximizing that site, that 4. 4 acres to modernize a bus facility, to increase that, to increase the bus storage by 54 and to maximize the space in terms of heights and in terms of Housing Units on the site. So what you see here is im sorry, next slide. Wanted to provide an aerial shot because i want to also just grasp its a large project site with four and a half acres and you can spend a lot of time going to every component. But heres an aerial view of what it looks like. And this is housing above the bus facility. I want to walk you through portions of the site starting with the southern section. Next slide on mariposa and the changes that were were making. So right now, the way in which sfmta operates their busses is busses enter in from the west side of mariposa and in a in a clockwise fashion, enter into the two story facility. Maintenance occurs and circulates back to the open space. Our design focused is on one removing the entrance and exit on 17th street. Thats intentional and having our busses enter on the east side of mariposa to do their circulation within the facility. No longer coming outside of mariposa and then building up to 70ft of two additional levels for parking. So its four levels in total. Again, this is just for the bus facility, four levels in total ground level. Most of the major maintenance occurs. Second level is for office space and mta employees and then two levels above for parking and bus wash above and adjacent to this project, to the bus facility is housing and the housing. The housing and the bus are composed in three components. You have the bus facility taking up the largest portion of the project site. You have housing adjacent, which were calling bryan Street Development and housing above the podium, which is composed of family and workforce housing. Next slide. Same also from mariposa, but wanted to show different sides, different renderings of the street. So here is on on bryan street in mariposa and you can see a little bit maybe you cant see but busses is exiting on the west side of the street there right adjacent to that housing thats adjacent to bryan street. I also mentioned that on the ground level, we have various retail components located around the site. But right, right smack in the middle, there is a retail opportunity. Thats part of the housing. Next slide now going on the other side of mariposa. This is now the entrance where busses will be entering the facility. On the right of that is another entrance, specifically for mta employees. So on the southeast most portion and the northeast, most portion of this is where 2 to 2 opening for mta employees to enter the facility. And then Housing Housing above. Next slide. I wanted to show also now the opposite side. So this is looking at it on 17th street. This is as if here at Franklin Square park. And maybe the next slide is a little bit prettier. Slide of a nightshot image. So what weve done again, the intention is to modernize, to make this facility as efficient as possible. And to add a feature thats not currently there is these ramps. The ramps are everything in our facility. Weve intentionally put positioned our ramps as a northern. The most northern we can on this project site in order to in order to make sure that were able to make the bus circulations inside the facility and to do that, we have ramps located on 17th street all the way up to the fourth level. These ramps, the material right in front of it would be glass and id glass and metal screening intentionally. We want to make sure that the community can see transparently into into all the movement thats going on in the bus facility. I mean, the facility has been the yard has been there for 107 years and everyones been able to see the parking. So we wanted to make sure that were celebrating that. And then as well, on the upper right, ill just highlight a couple of points here. On the upper right there, theres an outdoor space specifically for sfmta and thats for sfmta employees would not be accessible for residents. Residents would have access to the higher level which ill get into. And then lastly, weve working with the Arts Commission to identify possible art opportunities and weve identified some opportunities you can see a little mosaic on the east side and sorry, on the west side of the of the screen. And then as well possibly some opportunities around the glass, the glazing on in the middle where those ramps are. Next slide. I also wanted to give a sectional overview of what were talking about. So ive described four levels for the bus facility. This is looking on. This is if youre on bryan street looking east. And so you can clearly see for specific levels one ground level, most of the maintenance is occurring to sf mta employees office space admin space, and then two levels of parking above. We also do have a partial basement that will be shared between the bus yard component and the housing component located west. Most towards bryan street. Next slide. The next slide. And so now going on to the east side. So this is on mariposa facing west wanted to share a little bit more about the process that we have here. So it really is integrating housing above and adjacent to a bus facility and trying to make sure that we have that connection there. The materials that will have on the bus facility be is a mix of glass and metal metal screening that is intentional for the top two levels as those are unconditioned space with levels two and ground level having conditioned space and then above we have mentioned before on the left side of the screen, its an entrance for mta employees to enter the bus facility and then right in the middle there is a lobby entrance for housing to access the podium, housing. Just another view from the west side. So again from showed this already on the sectional images for bryan street but this is bryan street facing west of what that housing looks like on on adjacent to the bus facility on the left most side mta entrance retail opportunity his public washrooms which weve heard a lot of feedback from the community specifically on the park to have public washrooms and then a retail opportunity on the right side of the screen. Next slide to matts matt snyders earlier point on the paratransit solution as a variant to the overall project. Heres a massing model of what that looks like again, what whats whats contemplated here is that if this was to be an option thats exercised, it does not conflict with the current design of the bus facility. So specifically, see, the ramps, as i mentioned, is a very key component to our design to maximize the site. Again, for to maximize the functionality for mta use. So if there was to be a paratransit option to materialize, it would be keeping in line with the with the circulation of vehicles, keeping in line with the ramps that are located there and still trying to maximize housing for that given space. Next slide i can come back, recognize time constraints, but happy to go into the street level streetscape improvements that were thinking about. Again, ive mentioned different components for two entrances for sfmta, three retail spaces located around the site, mostly on 17th street and bryant street , and then opportunities to opportunities to put trees and shrubs and work with receive a lot of feedback from the community. The i can happy to answer more questions but i did want to highlight one specific detail on 17th street. We are including a bike lane, a protected bike lane on 17th street. Having heard a lot of feedback from the community. The next slide i think has a little bit closer image there. Well maybe you could get a little bit closer, but there is a bike lane that will be located on 17th street as well as were working on various s various tree palettes and shrub palettes that could be used again to activate the site to align with what were doing on 17th street for the ramps and all the glass that well have there to activate that street. Next slide. And then i have a few other renderings and images just to give a little bit more context. And certainly intention is to open it up for feedback. But heres looking from york street towards mariposa so you can start to see the size of this project. Its very different than what the project is now, but going possibly potentially up to 150ft in certain certain components of the site. Next slide. Heres an image looking south west on hampshire and 17th street. So theres an opportunity for retail there. On the right side is Franklin Square park. Again the glazing the perforated screen there is the bus yard component and then housing above. Next slide, another night night image as well. Next slide. This is looking at it. So i started off showing a birds eye view from 17th and hampshire, 17th in brian street. This is at street level. Shows you right where the mta entrance is, which is right at that corner. The bike lanes on 17th street, lot of trees and activation there, a public washroom and retail opportunities located there. Next slide. Next slide. Again more just closer up images of retail. This would be on bryant and so right across from kxdz building. Next slide. This is a close up of a rendering that we have for the lobby entrance on bryant street. Next slide. And again, this is this is residential on the other side on hampshire street. Thats thats we also have a few images of what the podium could look like. The podium could look like on on on the on the on the project. My out of town. I think we could come back with questions for you. Thank you, chris. So the sfmta and pnc team are available for any questions. Great if that concludes the presentation, we should open up Public Comment 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 or raise your hand via webex. Seeing no requests to speak, commissioners Public Comment is closed and this matter is now before you. This is a phenomenal, exciting project. As the imagery is very, very invoking a density which we really dont see in the city, particularly combining our high tech transportation facility with housing. I think the prospects for the future are exciting and i am just a little bit puzzled by why the variant, because the project two completely different futures, if i understand you correctly, is the variant just a precursor for housing to be intensified over the future because paratransit will be allocated someplace else . Or is the variant basically one way of doing it . And and the 510 or 513 Unit Housing Development is another alternative. Are they exclusive of each other . I i can i can address that. Perhaps ill turn it to bonnie jean for mta. Could you speak a little bit slower . Im sorry. Oh, sorry. I can address that. So the, the overall vision of this project is to maximize housing. Its the 513 units on on the site, the bus facility is has its own specific timeline, has its own specific Funding Source separate from from the housing component. So i think i mentioned three components of this project, the bus facility housing adjacent housing above. I think its also fair to describe that as three phases as well. The bus yard owned and operated by sfmta, the Funding Source plenary as an Infrastructure Developer would work with sfmta to raise the money to develop that project. Affordable housing has its own process for raising securing funding for various various different sources with low income tax credits, asic funding grants and different opportunities. The timeline of that differs from or can differ from the timeline to secure funding for the bus facility. So specifically, the funding for housing is not secured. However, the design we need to make design decisions today that will accommodate housing in the future. Its not as if you can just bolt on housing in the future. So the intention is to design within the bus facility a structural solution on a mechanical, electrical plumbing solution thats able to support housing above. If thats not able to be materialized, if funding for whatever, or a number of reasons that happen where funding where housing is not available. Sfmta would like to retain the ability to use that for a different site, for a different use or sorry for the same use, but specifically for sfmta. Thats the reason for considering a variant to, to the main the main project. And, and just to add to that. So our our so as as matt snyder mentioned our paratransit facility is in brisbane. We are looking at a number of locations to relocate it. We lease land in brisbane, wed like to bring it into the city at an sfmta facility. This is one of a number of locations that were looking at. So as as chris mentioned, the overall project is to do the housing maximization project. The paratransit variant allows us to help to sort of sfmta can front the funding for that superstructure needed to support either the housing above or the paratransit facility above. Pair transit being a transit use. And so that that does allow us to do that so that the housing can move on. The different timeline that we know its on. So if i understand you correctly, youre leaving it open for one or the other alternative to materialize. However if for whatever reasons we are in encountering difficulties with building housing every day, there will be a lot of extra costs and redundancy. If you pursue just the sfmta alternative with only peripheral linotype housing on bryant street. Is that correct . Well, so there would be, yes. I mean, were pursuing the mta facility just so that we can align the design and make sure that it either option works just in case the housing option doesnt fall through and that the mta can help to fund that additional superstructure need. I do like flexibility. I think it is the best way of looking forward. However, the potential cost penalties for housing in the future that is being realized or for housing that is not being realized is a significant one. I do not know. I cannot ask you of what the delta is designing the structure without the future provision of housing and that is where a little bit of my questions are. We hope to have you clarify that as you move forward because we are all supportive. Im speaking for myself of mta sfmta succeeding with this incredible facility which is not only necessary and desirable, but it is just a must for any city to move forward into a transformative Public Transportation oriented future. My concerns are that the penalties for not having housing are very severe because this group in particular is busy with trying to figure out how we build the demands of the Housing Element and the delta of not having 400 something rather units. If you pursue your variant are definitely weighing on us. The need for paratransit was not discussed early on, so it came as a surprise. However, operationally you discover that as you get into more Detailed Planning beyond the diagonal approach that we heard first about, and im in support of what youre doing, but i would like my question about the financial burden of designing a multi, multi use facility, which may not happen to be very difficult not to talk about the 530 units that 513 units that you have committed in the Housing Element. And again, its a very exciting project and i wish you luck. Thank you, commissioner brown. Thank you. I think that discussion about the paratransit option, it answered a lot of my questions about that as well. I am still unclear on one thing. So if the lets say it looks like the housing above the podium is looking unlikely to get built or get funded in the immediate future, but you have to move forward with building the main bus facility just to for my clarification, would the main bus facility still be built with the infrastructure necessary to have housing built even if its like ten years down the road . Is that the idea . Yes yes. So the bus facility. Appreciate the question, because it is it is nuanced. The bus facility and the components that make up the bus facility. So specifically speaking of structural elements of it, will be designed today as part of the bus facility, irrespective of where housing goes. But the intention being that if we were to say, lets not but lets consider and appreciate the question, lets lets consider not spending design costs towards reinforcing ing a superstructure that can support that massing and that weight. Its not as if down the road, saving the money today and then down the road saying, well, now i want to consider housing in the future because its a higher likelihood of getting it or whatever the opportunities are, it would be much more difficult and say nearly impossible to do that retrofit safely. So building a bus facility today that can accommodate, i guess first and foremost, all of sfmtas needs and building a functional modernized facility is paramount. But also having a superstructure that can support really whatever the options are in the future. Its trying to make the bus facility agnostic to whats on the future. However, the intent of the project, the intent of the chair neighborhood collective, is still to maximize housing. And what were highlighting is the challenge is the natural challenges for securing funding for housing and how the timeline for securing that differs is differs from what the timeline is for sfmta to have a modernized facility and just to add to that, Vice President , you mentioned that this wasnt before you last time, and that is because it really is a Lesson Learned for the sfmta when we went initially, we thought, well, housing would directly follow the bus facility, but as weve gotten into these discussions with the pnc team, we are seeing that housing timing is very different than infrastructure and timing. And so that is why weve added the paratransit option. It does allow the mta to kind of give that additional time for the housing to be built and have our bus structure have that superstructure to support it. So thats our goal is still to build the housing and we are entitling the full project. That is the absolute intent and this allows us to give extra time to the housing. If i may interject a quick question in the. Paratransit option, ovarian, youre showing 103 units on the bryan street. Is that the bryan street side . Yes. Yes can you put a little bit more meat into that . Discuss option . Because if the full housing alternative is being built, at least in diagrammatic form, that housing looks a little bit more exciting than what i read to be a single loaded corridor. Yes, stretched out in a linear fashion as a liner liner residential along bryan street. And i think the even if we only get 103 units, i would like to have a little bit more meat on the discussion even for today, to know that that housing is appropriate to the circumstance. And its not just Affordable Housing in i want to not use a country to do demean this housing, but its a little bit simplistic. The right. So again, the intention is to have the full 513 units on the site. The youre exactly right. Its a single loaded corridor that we could afford to be able to, from a design standpoint, afford to include as part of that adjacent housing where we got to 103 units is maximizing whats within the outer envelope thats thats compliant with our Environmental Review process. And still allows for. I think the key there is allowing for that pair transit use to also be functional for sfmta and as part of that paratransit solution, its bringing 160, 160 paratransit vans and busses onto what would be a fifth level. Its having a number of maintenance bays, chassis wash area is additional staff and an operational admin iterative building there, as well as bringing the ramps up a level. So its really i take the point its, its a its a different Housing Solution or design compared to the housing maximization plan that were going for. But still the intention i think the objectives for both of those scenarios are the same is to maximize as much as we can housing on the site regardless of the outcome of housing on the podium to, to, to restate my point, single single loaded residential is far more expensive. You also need to in in various specific distances have stairs and elevators. So this particular housing just by the nature of single loaded and the distance requirements will be automatically significantly more expensive than any other housing at this corner. And im kind of wondering if there is any kind of public use housing claim to be made on the site. And im not trying to say that theres any kind of legal rights. I would like to see a little bit more thought of how the transit option, even in the reduced, varied for housing, can work more to the advantage of Affordable Housing of what its supposed to be. You cannot build expensive housing, super expensive housing and say were going to be putting this on the market as affordable because this particular single loaded version is not quite doing it. So im just throwing that out. And you could say, given the facility requirements for the bus busses, we cannot do that. But id like to have that on the table so that everybody is open eyes sees of where this can and cannot go. So yes, thank you. Thats a good comment. I have commissioner imperial just a few more points. So. Yeah, i just want to i just want to put my put forward. I certainly hope that the housing can be built and that it does not end up being used as a paratransit facility. It sounds like right now its not from the response that the current paratransit Storage Facility is in brisbane and theres not a clear path for where its going. That certainly has me a little concerned. And so hopefully this does not end up being that site. But yeah, its part of our planning process. So paratransit is part of the overall electrification. We are looking at electrifying our paratransit fleet, which is right now at the leased facility. We have. It is not not feasible to put in chargers and all of the equipment needed to do that, but there are a number of places that we are looking at paratransit. Originally we were looking at the woods yard and were also looking at our presidio yard as a paratransit possibility. And so kind of seeing how the sequencing goes out, its part of the planning process right now that were doing. Okay, great. Yeah. Ill be curious to see how that evolves. Two other quick points. One, i really appreciate the removing the entrance off of 17th street, that east west bikeway is a pretty significant one in the city. And so its exciting to see the plan to have a protected bikeway through that that area. Also, i think my only other point would be, well, actually, i also want to say just in general, this is a great use of a public site. You know, we really should be looking at projects that will give us more more benefits than just a single use. And so i really appreciate all the work thats going into making that happen at this site. This is the first time ive heard this project in the commission since i joined my last point would just be, you know, i like i appreciate seeing the renderings of the ground Level Experience and trying to line at least bryant street, the eastern and western sides of the project with housing and trying to create a better pedestrian Level Experience with the project and just want to throw my support behind continuing to work on on ensuring a really positive pedestrian streetscape, because certainly a facility like this could easily wind up repeating a mistake of Something Like some of the ground Level Experiences at embarcadero center, which, you know, portions of which were built above a podium with basically a very dead street wall. So yeah, those are my points. And thank you so much for coming and presenting this today. Commissioner murillo yeah, thank you for the presentation and yeah, i think the last time i visited the this site, there was a great need for the modernization of the of this building. So i do recognize in terms of the modernized vision that the mta needs to have. At the same time, this is something that also came out of the public, you know, Public Engagement that they want to have housing or Affordable Housing on top of it. I my question is and i think i want to echo what commissioner president or commissioner moore is saying in terms of the Affordable Housing and the partnership that youre going to have with Affordable Housing developers and also the cost in terms of trying to plan it that, you know, with theres a transit, you know, Transit Service at the bottom and then Affordable Housing on top. How are the conversation with Affordable Housing developers in terms of the architectural support that they would need to have on this . And also, you know, just the design alone, you know, has there been kind of conversation on that, on how how its going to be funded and whats kind of like the, you know, the cost that will, you know, will be added on for this development . Yeah so potrero neighborhood collective already has three Affordable Housing developers that have been part of the process since the conceptual design during the rfp which concluded last july. And now were about 12 months into this predevelopment phase with the Affordable Housing partners, those three partners throughout the entire phase. Ill also say the design team that i mentioned. So thats ibi Arcadis Group and y studios are, are is the design team across the bus facility and the and the housing as well as a number of sub consultants that are working for arcadis and, and, and a and thats the reason i highlight that is because as weve been saying, the structural solution for this, the superstructure is very important. It would be challenging to have silos of one structural solution for housing, one structure solution for the bus yard, and thats really why its even amplified more with this paratransit solution that it adds additional flexibility thats needed. So want to want to state from a from a communication standpoint, the meta and tabernacle team have been part of the pnc team since since the beginning. You raise also a number of questions in terms of what is the financing plan for all of these housing components, what is the Funding Source, what is the process for construction costs. I didnt i didnt iterate this, but the team that i described for pnc does not have a general contractor for the bus component or general contractor for the housing components through this process, we are we will be procuring a design builder for the infrastructure facility and our Housing Partners will be procuring a general contractor for bryant street and for housing above again, another interface where contractors, developers, Infrastructure Developers, Housing Developers have to work together. But its that mindset to maximize, i guess, a Common Objective of maximizing maximizing housing while still ensuring sfmta has a functional and modernized bus facility. So its something that were continuing to work on. Ill also say with the mighty team, which is meta and tabernacle working closely with hcd through their process and meeting regularly with them to which plenary is involved in and, and continued communication , ultimately there will be and i think matt was describing this project agreement that governs how the infrastructure, how the bus facility would be would work. There also would be various housing components, housing agreements that govern how those Housing Elements are going to work. And as we progress through those transaction documents for the remainder of the predevelopment phase, we will continue to assess what the costs are, what the financing plan is, when were going to apply for tax credits, when were going to apply for asic funds, as i dont have all the answers today, but i think the Main Objective here is to ensure that we have communication from the single team thats across all all those aspects. Thank you. That that gives me confidence from the earlier i think. Yeah just to add hcd, the Mayors Office of housing has pledged 35 million towards the housing on this project. So thats part of the Affordable Housing financing. Okay. Thank you so much. And again, im excited about this project. I think this is one of a very innovative projects that the city will have. Of course, the financing or the financial need financing for housing and also the transportation is greatly needed, but at least it gives me some confidence when it comes to the Affordable Housing component that there is that that is still optimized, optimizing the design for it. So thank you so much. So id like to go on with with a motion to initiate the general plan and have a hearing on january 20th, 24. Second theres nothing further. Commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate and schedule a hearing on or after january 11th, 2024. Commissioner braun high. Commissioner ruiz high commissioner. Imperial high commissioner coppell high and commissioner shermer. So move commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and concludes your hearing today. Thank you. Thank you. Got. In the bay area as a whole, thinking about environmental sustainability. We have been a leader in the country across industries in terms of what you can do and we have a learn approach. That is what allows us to be successful. Whats wonderful is you have so many people who come here and they are what i call policy innovators and whether its banning plastic bags, recycling, composting, all the Different Things that we can do to improve the environment. We really champion. We are at recycle central, a large recycle fail on San Francisco pier 96. Every day the neighborhood trucks that pick up recycling from the blue bins bring 50 o tons of bottles, cans and paper here to this facility and unload it. And inside recology, San Franciscos recycling company, they sort that into aluminum cans, glass cans, and different type of plastic. San francisco is making efforts to send Less Materials to the landfill and give more materials for recycling. Other cities are observing this and are envious of San Franciscos robust recycling program. It is good for the environment. But there is a lot of low Quality Plastics and junk plastics and candy wrappers and is difficult to recycle that. It is low quality material. In most cities that goes to landfill. Looking at the plastics industry, the oil industry is the main producer of blastics. And as we have been trying to phase out fossil fuels and the transfer stream, this is the fossil fuels and that plastic isnt recycled and goes into the waste stream and the landfill and unfortunately in the ocean. With the stairry step there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. We can recycle again and again and again. But plastic, maybe you can recycle it once, maybe. And that, even that process it downgrades into a lower quality material. It is cheaper for the oil industry to create new plastics and so they have been producing more and more plastics so with our ab793, we have a bill that really has a goal of getting our beverage bottles to be made of more Recycled Content so by the time 2030 rolls around t recycle content in a coke bottle, pepsi bottle, water bottle, will be up to 50 which is higher thatten the percentage in the European Union and the highest percentage in the world. And that way you can actually feel confident that what youre drinking will actually become recycled. Now, our recommendation is dont use to plastic bottle to begin w but if you do, they are committing to 50 Recycled Content. The test thing we can do is vote with our consumer dollars when were shopping. If you can die something with no packaging and find loose fruits and vegetables, that is the best. Find in packaging and glass, metal and pap rer all easily recycled. We dont want plastic. We want less plastic. Awe what you we do locally is we have the program to think disposable and work one on one to provide Technical Assistance to swap out the disposable food service to reusables and we have funding available to support businesses to do that so that is a way to get them off there. And i believe now is the time we will see a lot of the Solutions Come on the market and come on the scene. And is really Logistics Company and what we offer to restaurants is reasonable containers that they can order just like they would so we came from about a pain point that a lot of customers feel which wills a lot of waste with takeout and deliver, even transitioning from styrofoam to plastic, it is still wasteful. And to dream about reusing this one to be reimplemented and cost delivery and food takeout. We didnt have throwaway culture always. Most people used to get delivered to peoples homes and then the empty milk containers were put back out when fresh milk came. Customers are so excited that we have this available in our restaurant and came back and asked and were so excited about it and rolled it out as customers gain awareness understanding what it is and how it works and how they can integrate it into their life. And they have always done it and usually that is a way of being sustainable and longterm change to what makes good Financial Sense especially as there are shipping issues and material issues and we see that will potentially be a way that we can save money as well. And so i think making that case to other restaurateurs will really help people adopt this. One restaurant we converted 2,000 packages and the impact and impact they have in the community with one switch. And we have been really encouraged to see more and more restaurants cooperate this. We are big fans of what reecology does in terms of adopting new systems and understanding why the Current System is broken. When people come to the facility, they are shocked by how much waste they see and the volume of the operations and how Much Technology we have dedicated to sort correctly and we led 25 tours and for students to reach about 1100 students. And they wanted to make change and this is sorting in the waste stream they do every single day and they can take ownership of and make a difference with. An i feel very, very fortunate that i get to represent San Francisco in the legislature and allows me to push the envelope and it is because of the people the city attracts and is because of the eco system of policy thinking that goes on in San Francisco that we are constantly seeing San Francisco leading the way. Kids know theres a lot of Environmental Issues that they are facing. And that they will be impacted by the impact of Climate Change. They will have the opportunity to be in charge and make change and make the decisions in the future. We are reinventing the way the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. This is so many wonderful things happening in San Francisco. I feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place. 23 Treasure Island Development Authority board meeting. The title board and its committees are convening hybrid meetings that will allow inperson attendance and Public Comment while still providing Remote Access and Public Comment by telephone. Public comment will be taken for each item on the agenda. Those attending in person will be heard first, followed by those joining remotely by phone for remote Public Comment. The call number is. 415 a6550001. The access code. Is 26625535003. Then press pound and press pound again when your
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.