Transcripts For SFGTV Planning 20240704

Tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. Finally ill ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And at this time, i will take roll commission. President dimond here. Commission Vice President moore here. Commissioner braun here. Commissioner. Imperial here. Commissioner. Couple here. And commissioner ruiz here. Thank you. Commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance items one, a and b for case numbers 2022. Hyphen 009794 drp and var at 1153 guerrero street. Discretionary review and variance are proposed for continuance to april 4th, 2024. Item two. Case number 2023 hyphen 011051 see you at 350 rhode island street. Conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Item three, case number 2023 hyphen 009000 pca, the Cannabis Retail uses planning code amendment, has been withdrawn further commissioners. We received a last minute request for continuance under your regular calendar for item 16. Case number 2020. Hyphen 007806 cour at 1314 page street at a conditional use authorization. This request is coming from the project sponsor, and theyre requesting a 1 or 2 week continuance to march 7th or march 21st. And either will be fine with that. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items being proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance. Comment on 11 five 511 five three guerrero. Uh we have not reached that item or wait a minute. First item on the list. Its on. Continue. Oh, im sorry. Yeah. Come on, come on up. But its only on the matter of continuance, sir. Not on the project itself. I would, i would like this item heard today to minimize my financial losses. Ive been working on this project since may 2022. I think there is some misunderstanding about the plans that santos prepared. The plans that santos prepared were temporary. Sean plans. After a neighbor complained and that the building was falling down the back porch was was temporary shored. By plans and permits approved by the City Building department by so the permit, the plans, inspection have all been approved and confirmed. Lets see if i can show you. One. Page two. Page three. These plans went through the City Building department engineering. Please speak into the mic. Im sorry. These plans were reviewed by the Building Department. The Engineering Department of the City Building. They would issued. The permit was issued, and we installed the temporary sean, we call for inspection. The senior building inspector inspected and okayed this. I have that record also. This is the job card that the senior building inspector signed off. The first document is city records that show that an inspection was performed, armed and okayed. I. Did not request or apply for a permit to tear this building down and rebuild it. City planning advised that i had to get a variance. Thank you sir, but that is your time. That is your time. Time is up. Yes. Okay thats your three minutes. But the commissioners may have questions. Can i show you the sanborn map . Um, if later the commissioners ask for it, they theyll call you up. Okay but not at this time. Anyway. The sanborn map shows that this building, this back porch, has been. Thank you. Sir. That is your time. Okay. Then theres commissioners. I will only say that this item, generally speaking, on the continuance calendar, you dont receive packets, but youve actually already heard this item previously. So you have the information. Good afternoon, commissioners Justin Zucker from ruben jason rose, on behalf of 1314 page street. I know this has been a complicated matter, and weve had several continuances, both requested by the department and by the applicant. Uh theres new information thats come to light since post publication of the packet with regards to the variance need for a variance, and wed request time so that we could get a variance on file and have a joint hearing before this body. Uh, previously we were thinking of just a 1 to 2 week continues to try to get our ducks in a row, but wed actually request for a continuance to its my understanding the Department Might be available for april 18th, april 25th, or may 2nd. Weve looked at our calendars and could make april 25th or may 2nd work, so we would request a continuance to either april 20th 5th or may 2nd so that we could have a joint hearing between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Thank you. Im available for any questions. Come up. Last call for Public Comment on the continuance calendar. Seeing no other requests to speak. Public comment is closed and youre continuance calendar is now before you commissioners Vice President moore, uh, like to continue items one a, one b, two and three. And i would like to see the page three project presented by the department relative to the new unit layout and issues that may present. Based on that. Thank you. Does does that mean you want to hear page treat today . Today thats correct. Yes sir. All second. Very good. Commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed with exception to item 16 for page street, which will be heard today under the regular calendar on that motion, commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i. Commissioner moore i and commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. Jonas ill also continue the variance for 1153. Guerrero to april 4th. Thank you, mr. Zoning administrator. Please sing us under your consent calendar. Commissioners all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. 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 as a separate item. At this, or a future hearing item for case number 2023. Hyphen 007037 an c at 2275. Market street. Conditional use authorization item five, case number 2021 hyphen 012389c at 1400 venice avenue. Conditional use authorization item six, case number 2024 hyphen 000035 seaway at 507 clement street. Conditional use authorization item seven, case number 2023 hyphen 007244c at 2175 Market Street. Conditional use authorization an item eight, case number 2023 hyphen 003061 pca for the state mandated accessory dwelling unit controls planning code amendments and item nine, case number 2023. Hyphen 003893. See you at 2245 post street a conditional use authorization. Um, i understand Commission President diamond, youll be requesting recusal from a couple of these. Yes um, i need to recuse myself from item five 1400 van ness, which involves at t, because i own, uh, some at t bonds in my retirement account. I also need to recuse myself from item number nine, which is 2245 post street. My husband is on the board of jpac, which is a 500 and 1c4 organization, which advocates in sacramento on behalf of the jewish communitys concern and broadly shared values. Jf and cs, which is the Property Owner of 2245 post street, which is the location of the jf and cs holocaust center, is a Member Organization of jpac , among other items, jpac has advocated for state Financial Support for physical improvements and programmatic funding for the holocaust center. As a result, to avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance of any conflict, and out of an abundance of caution on the advice of city attorney, i need to recuse myself from voting on the 2245 post street item. Is there a motion to recuse Commission President diamond move to recuse commissioner, president diamond from those two items . Second, second. Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to recuse Commission President diamond from items five and nine on consent. Commissioner braun i, commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i. Commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. I wouldnt leave i would just stay right there. But before we take up the other matters, members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and heard today or at a future hearing, seeing no requests. Commissioners, Public Comment on your consent calendar is closed and if we could take up items five and nine first. Actually i am going to leave the room while you do it, so i dont know if you want to do that first or second. Well well just take up items five and nine first to get that out of the way. And that way. Then ill be right back. Okay. Very good move to approve items five and nine second. Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to approve items five and nine on consent. Commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i. Commissioner coppell i and Commission Chair moore i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. Is there a motion on the remaining items on consent . Yes i moved to approve items four, six, seven and eight on consent. Second. Thank you, commissioner is on that motion to approve the remaining items on consent. Commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i. Commissioner imperial i. Commissioner. Coppell i. Commissioner moore i and commissioner. President. Diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under commission matters. Item ten the land acknowledgment. Im going to read the land acknowledgment today. Uh, the commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestor homeland of the ramaytush alone, who are the original inhabitant 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 responsibility 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 11. Consider of Adoption Draft minutes for february 15th, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again you need to come forward seeing none. Public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you. Commissioner imperial, move to adopt the minutes. Second, thank you commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes. Commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i. Commissioner koppel i commissioner moore i and commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. Item 12 commission comments and questions. Commissioner ruiz , thank you. Um, i think most of you know, but i just wanted to take the time to announce to the public that today will be my last hearing. I submitted my resignation on tuesday day. Um, i want to take these next two years to focus on my career and planning at ccdc, and also being a mom. So so, um, before i pass it back to president diamond, i just want to, um, thank first and foremost, the board of supervisors, president Sherman Walton appointed me and trusted me in this seat. And um, if it wasnt for the support of him and the rest of the board of supervisors, i dont feel like i would have, um, pushed myself in the direction to, to come here. So um, thank you so much. And i specifically just want to say thanks to the, the Department Staff director, hylis, and you know, everyone who has had the time to sit with me, the city attorney. Jonas, i feel like every week i learn so much and i learn so much more than i thought i would have ever been exposed to. When it comes to planning. Um, i want to thank my fellow commissioner for welcoming, welcoming me to this space. This can be an incredibly intimidating space to be a part of, but i feel like every week we have a level of respect for one another and we each add our unique perspective, which is something i really, really appreciate. And one of the things that im going to take with me is just an a bigger perspective of planning, you know, way more than i thought, thought that id ever consider here, um, doing community planning. Um, the community at large, i mean, the participation at Public Comment or via email. You know, i think thats so important to the work we do. And then i also just want to acknowledge the support from my employer. You know, being flexible in allowing me to be on this space on a work day. So with that, i will give it back to president diamond. But im going to miss being up here and i just want to thank everyone for giving me the space. Um thank you, commissioner ruiz. Were going to miss you terribly. Um so disappointed. Although understanding of this news, um, you have brought a valuable perspective. Active and also an incredible, wonderful style. Um, you worked hard to get across your views and hear others, um, and figure out how to get alliance on matters of importance. So i am very sad that you are departing. Um and wish you all the best in, you know, whatever else comes next. Commissioner braun. I just wanted to thank commissioner ruiz for your service on this body. And um, its been really wonderful having you also as my neighbor on the dais this entire time and having, you know, all the more opportunity to discuss, um, matters and also just life in general. So i really appreciate having you here. Um, i think youve brought a really wonderful and important perspective, both as somebody who was born and raised in San Francisco. So, um, and also somebody who really prioritizes equity and community voice, uh, and has really done a great job of, of always pushing this body to be thoughtful and to do better and, and so i also wish you the best of luck in the future. I hope we will be seeing you on this or another commission someday in the future again. But but yes. Yeah, were going to miss you, Vice President. More. I just wanted to thank commissioner rose. Thank you for being the person you are. The three team will miss you tremendously, but the 1617 will miss you just as much. Um, you know what i mean. This is an inside joke. Uh, while we lose her, her little daughter will benefit. I wish you all the best, commissioner imperial. Yeah, its. Its sad to hear of you departing the Planning Commission. Um, and on the time that youve been here and working with you has been very valuable. And i think, um, the board of supervisors made a great choice to nominate you as a commissioner in the voice on behalf of the voice of the community. So i wish you all the best. And, um, also so hopefully have good time now with your daughter. Um, yeah. So thank you. Um, i also so, um, want to share about, um, on behalf of the s. F. Planning department and of the Planning Commission on, um, we grieve the sudden death and expected passing of morelia. Leon who is the chief executive officer of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development corporation and just want to make a short, um, commemoration on behalf of the commission as well. Um, an inspiring and strong leader, murillo served the people of San Francisco with a fierce passion for housing, justice. As the s. F. Planning Commission Honors his legacy and impact in the tenderloin and throughout all San Francisco. His pursuit of Affordable Housing as a matter of social justice for low income, working class individuals and families was inflected by lives, experience and powered by his education. Murillo was born into mexican immigrant farm working family and became the first member of his family to attend college. Thanks to opportunity programs like migrant education and federal trial programs. He graduated from university of california, berkeley and earned a master of Public Public policy from the Harvard Kennedy school. He dedicated his personal and professional life to fostering opportunity, equity, and general change for immigrants. Low income families, and families of color as we remember him for passion and leadership in building housing for so many vulnerable families in San Francisco, the challenging work that he had led with humility and grace. We wish his family, friends and community and the entire tna dc team peace and love as they navigate this tragic loss. Um, and i would like to invite, um, if there is any from the public that would like to speak. Um about his passing or share a memory of him. Feel free to do so. And i would also like to propose those to see, um, to end this session today. Um, on behalf of his of murillo, leon. So. Hi, im roxanne huey, cfo at Tenderloin Neighborhood Development corp, and now the interim co ceo of tnc with my coceo, katie lamont here. Um, i want to thank the commission for giving us this time and for recognizing murillo. He meant a lot to me. He meant a lot to the organization. He meant a lot to the city and the people we serve. I know that, uh, hes the reason i was at. I came to tnc at. And all of his passion for Affordable Housing, uh, i will guarantee to carry on in his name. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to share, as you know, murillo had an incredible life story. He was a great man. Hes so humble. He cared deeply about people and public service. He cared deeply about community and connection. When you were with him, he gave you his full attention. When he would ask how what was happening made you feel . Uh, he encouraged me to get and stay rooted, centered, grounded. Um, he touched and continues to touch colleagues and friends across multiple communities he belonged to. There were so many i was aware of, and even more, im becoming aware of. He was so deeply committed to supportive housing, all kinds of housing, to working with immigrants and migrants. Um, this was his work. I know this is your work and our work. Im so grateful for this community. Um and for the honor that youre doing him today. Thank you. Um, good afternoon. Commissioners, planning staff. Thank you for being here. And offering this moment for maurelio. My name is fernando pujols. Im here on behalf of the board of directors of tnc. I joined, of course, by our interim coceos. Rocks ann and katie, who you just heard from. Um maurilio really exuded a couple of qualities that, um, are rare, but one found in leaders are incredibly powerful. Well, um, to lead with humility and caring. Um, and facing challenges with great optimism. Um, um, on behalf of the board and the staff, i just want to thank the commission. Um our Community Partners in the tenderloin and in the region who have just shown an outpouring of support and i want to express personally how proud i am of the board and the staff, uh, for the way ive watched them come together in this really difficult time. Um, and i know that were going to continue on in marios legacy and staying focused on the most important part of our work, which is really creating opportunity city. Um, for folks who dont start at the same blocks as everyone else and, um, i just leave you with that as you Carry Forward in your work. And it is a tremendous loss. But theres also an incredible strength and coming together in the organization and in our partners. As ive mentioned. So thank you for taking this moment to honor mario. Ouceainly with k you. Thank you for those beautiful tributes. And we will end the meeting in his memory. Director hylis it. Um, one, thank you for those comments. I just wanted to highlight two maurilio was joined our our all staff meeting. Just a couple of weeks ago. Uh, to be on a panel to talk about our collective work in the tenderloin and really, truly inspired our staff, you know, and often we focus on the challenges of the tenderloin, which he did, too. But but really highlighted the beauty of the tenderloin, especially its residents. And, you know, just inspired us all about the work we are doing and the work he did in the tenderloin. So just want to send our condolences to, to his, his family and to the to his, his work family and the tenderloin and the community. Thank you. Um, on a separate and unrelated note, i think we all read with disappointment. Uh, macys announcement that its closing in union square, and i wonder if the Planning Department is involved at all or engaged in conversations about potential uses of that space and what might transpire Going Forward . Yeah, i mean, early, but we are in in talking to judy, whos more the lead on this about the property. I mean, macys has indicated that they will not close the store until they actually sell the property. So we hope that means then a use the work youve done over the past couple of months or years, um, is in providing more flexible zoning in union square will kind of allow for, you know, other potential uses than retail. Although i think retail would be a great use still to anchor union square, but it could be housing, it could be office use. Its very flexible. Now, the underlying zoning there. So i think probably we owe you an update on the work were doing with food around downtown. So well calendar that in the coming weeks as wl. I think that would be great. Thank you. Theres nothing further commissioners we can move on to, uh, department matters, item 13 directors announcements. Nothing additional except thank you, commissioner ruiz. I share the sentiments of your fellow commissioners. Its sad to see you go, but i know we worked with you before. Uh, you were on the commission around Group Housing issues in the tenderloin , and youve just got a great knack of kind of taking things that are complex and boiling them down to what the impact is on the community, on a neighborhood. So i know well continue to work with you, um, at sdc. So thank you for being on the commission and everything youve done here. Item 14 review of past events at the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. There was no Historic Preservation Commission Hearing yesterday. Uh, good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs, first on the land use agenda was the landmark designation for the Sacred Heart Parish complex. This was initiated by hpc about eight years ago. In october of 2016, the hpc unanimously recommended approval on september 20th of last year, the landmark designation did have some controversy, uh, mainly about what to include in the landmark designation and it also includes several buildings adding to the complexity of the designation report this week, supervisor preston introduced amendments to the landmark designation that included adding additional descriptive detail to character defining features, adding the wood connector bridge to the list of character defining features, and adding several interior features to the church to list the character defining features, specifically, the choir loft and the finishes in the narthex. There are also some revisions made to clarifying language about preservation and replacement or repair, and kind, as well as a nod to the Property Owners interest in potential future alterations, provided the work is approved by hpc. Three Public Comments were mixed. Some commenters were past parishioners of this church and lamented that the building was no longer the sacred space they had once known, while others spoke approvingly of the new life being brought to the building as a roller skating rink supervisor, preston signed on as sponsor. The amendments were adopted and the item was continued for one week to march 4th. As the amendments were substantive. Next the committee considered supervisor melgar and engardio duplicate ordinance to the Family Housing opportunity. Sud this version would allow taller buildings 65ft on corner lots within rh districts in the Family Housing opportunity sud. This item was amended last week and therefore required continuance this week. Supervisor melgar made a motion to defer to further amend the ordinance to add back the one year ownership requirement for Single Family homes in the five year ownership requirement for multifamily homes that had been removed in previous versions. Those amendments were taken and not needs to be substantive. There was also some Public Commenters. All were critical of the ordinance. The Committee Members ended up forwarding the item to the full board with a positive recommendation version. Next, the committee considered a duplicated version of the constraints reduction ordinance. This version focused on changes to 311 notification requirements in response to recently passed state law. The amendments, including changing Building Permit to planning entitlement application, define what is a planning entitlement application and some additional clarifying language for 311 triggers. This week, staff read the proposed amendments into the record and the committee voted to accept the amendments. President peskin also indicated he had some additional clerical changes that he would be adding to the ordinance at the full board once the amendments were approved to form. The committee then forwarded the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next, the committee considered the potrero bus yard project. This project includes amendments to the planning code and zoning map to establish the wsud and general plan amendments to make conforming changes to the general plan. The proposed project includes demolishing sfmta existing two story bus facility and constructing an approximately 1,240,000 square foot, 75 to 150 foot mixed use building that will contain Public Public transport facility and Public Utilities yard for sfmta and up to 465 dwelling units. The Planning Commission heard these items on january 11th of this year, and voted to recommend approval. During the hearing, planning staff and mta made their respective presentations. There were no Public Comments and the committee then forwarded the item to the full board. Finally, the committee took up supervisor chans ordinance to amend the Parcel Delivery controls and supervisor peskins ordinance to amend the fleet charging controls. These items were called together. Commissioners you heard supervisor chans ordinance on february 8th and voted to recommend approval and suggested that the board consider staffs proposed amendments. Those amendments include amend the accessory use prohibition to exclude cannabis delivery. Remove the conditional use controls from the use definition. Revise the accessory use controls to match the accessory use. Prohibit prohibitions included in section 102. Incorporate the temporary Parcel Delivery Service Exception from the Current Interim controls include an exemption for off site uses from the idling signage requirement, and then for smaller uses, make the electrification requirement a criterion for consideration rather than a condition. Create a simpler conditional use authorization process and remove the additional studies, and then finally conduct a citywide economic analysis. Instead of relying on a project by project analysis. Miss, you also asked Supervisors Office to work with planning staff on the proposed amendments this week. Supervisor chan introduced amendments that were not discussed or shared with planning staff prior to the hearing. The ordinance was amended to exempt cannabis businesses from the accessory Parcel Delivery service use prohibition, use the standard conditional use process for projects that are less than 5000ft s, and make tech tech. Te technical amendments requested by staff. The file was duplicated and amended to have a march 30th, 2024 retroactive date. The file was then sent as a Committee Report. Im sorry, the original file was then sent as a Committee Report to the full board and the duplicated ordinance was continued. One week. Supervisor peskins fleet charging ordinance, which would remove an allowance to convert parking lots and vehicle storage lots to fleet charging in pdr districts. As of right, thus making all fleet charging uses require conditional use authorization. This commission heard the item on january 11th of this year, and voted to recommend approval during Planning Commissions hearing, president peskin indicated that he would be adding a grandfathering clause to the ordinance to allow existing applications to move forward, but still require 311 notification for those uses. At the land use committee, peskin added. These amendments to the ordinance and the item was then then forwarded to the full board as a Committee Report. Um, as these items were called together , there was only one Public Comment period. Most of those who spoke during Public Comment represented the unions associated with fleet charging and Parcel Delivery services, and were in favor of the proposed ordinances. Then, at the full board this week, the downtown rail extension fee waiver, sponsored by supervisor dorsey, passed its second read uh supervisor peskins ordinance that would amend the density controls in three Historic Districts uh, the c2 area northeast waterfront, and the Jackson Square Historic District passed on an 8 to 3 vote on first read with supervisors melgar, dorsey and engardio voting against it. Melgar and dorsey expressed concerns over reducing density outside of our priority equity geography areas, and the need to meet the goals of the Housing Element at the landmark designation for the grand theater, sponsored by supervisor ronen, passed its first read uh and then the fleet charging and Parcel Delivery service uses both passed their first read. And that concludes my report. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I dont know if the Zoning Administrator has a report for the board of appeals. Apparently not. Um, so we can move on commissioners to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit. General Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda for. For the Commission Commissioner ruiz, good luck and thank you. Just have a wonderful time. Youll have a good time. Im sure. And thank you for your work. Yeah macys. That was kind of a shock to read that in the paper. Um i know mr. Teague is not here, but i did hear from, uh, someone i didnt get to watch it that the board of appeals voted unanimously to continue remote hearings. So i think thats really interesting. And i hope that it, um, its not a dead letter item with this commission because i think theres still value to it. I mean, i know personally a couple of people, elders like myself, who, uh, cant come and cant figure out how to, uh, to get the doctors note to, to talk week in, week out from, uh, from the secretary and i think theyre an important voice to hear. So the handout that mr. Ionin just gave you, uh, is about section 317, democracy, and its two pages. And its, um, based on, to me looking at everything for the past ten years, i think the values in year two are make sense. And i think it makes sense because of the constraints reduction ordinance. Thats trying to protect the priority equity geographies. And i think theres still issues that could happen there in those neighborhoods where, uh, the, the legislature and the commissions intent and the Housing Element is to protect housing in those neighborhoods. So i hope you consider it. And the other side is, uh, what i call a historic document, which was mr. Nikitas statement back from 2009, where he said he was going to come back and, uh, ask the commission to consider adjusting the calcs. It was like the first year was supposed to be a test of the values, and he never came back. And i think that the fact that he never came back is very unfortunate, because they were never tested. You never they never even was a discussion at the Commission Level about the issue with them. And i know the staff isnt crazy about the idea because theyll just go right up to the edge and theyll be different, you know, different, uh, different, uh, um, i cant think of a different standard, you know, like its like, oh, well, well just go up to that and then we can do it. But no, i think that the point of adjusting them and im trying to get it out is to, to retain as much housing as possible, because as we know, existing housing is most Affordable Housing. So thanks very much. Congratulations again. Youll be miss commissioner ruiz, but five of you will make do for a while. Thank you. Have a great day. Oh, and happy leap year, by the way. Last call for public general Public Comment for items not on todays agenda. Seeing none. General Public Comment is closed. And i just want to reiterate that we do not require a doctors note for a reasonable accommodation request. In fact, we received one that was granted for someone who was visually impaired later today. So i just want to reiterate that to the members of the public. You do not require a doctors note for reasonable accommodation. The commissioners regular calendar item 15, case number 2023. Hyphen 001197 wp Affordable Housing Leadership Council recommendations and report. This is an informational presentation. Commissioner ruiz yeah, um, after consulting with the city attorney, ive been advised to recuse myself due to cdks involvement in the executive board and the technical group. So. Do we need to vote on that recusal . City attorney is suggesting that we do. Do i have a motion on the recusal for commissioner ruiz . There a second, second, thank you. Commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner reece, commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously and as this is not expected to be a short item probably retired to the executive chambers. Well, i do intend to be brief, but i will get started now. Commissioners, great to see you. My name is dan adams. Im the director of the Mayors Office of housing and community development, and i want to start just first by echoing all the appreciative remarks regarding mario leone. Um, were a tight knit, Affordable Housing community in San Francisco. And so the loss of his leadership is still resonating through our staff and through our community of partners. Um, morelia was a housing hero, and the work that he and tnc did and do are so foundational to the work that well be describing today. The ongoing work, the continued work. And were going to need heroic efforts to meet our goals moving forward. So again, um, send our condolences to those who are closest to maurilio. Um, i also want to start with some thank yous. First and foremost to the planning staff who really facilitated and led this effort. Uh miriam chang and james pappas, their leadership and the work of their teams was critical to making this happen. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, thank the Leadership Council, uh, the members of our executive committee and working groups, we had 30, 30 of the best minds across a Broad Spectrum of disciplines helping us think about how do we advance our Affordable Housing agenda, how do we increase production, how do we do it in an equitable way . And im very pleased to show and report out on the recommendations, uh, that we got. So lets get started. So first of all, just a little bit about the Leadership Council and process. This is this is what were going to talk about today. Um ill provide a brief Affordable Housing context. This is not this work is not done in isolation. Often we have a long history of supporting Affordable Housing development in San Francisco. Um and then well get into the recommendations. And im just going to present very high level recommendations, as i really do encourage you all to read the report. Theres an excellent executive summary, but if you have the time to go through the full report and read the all the context and the research, as well as memos provided by our Consultant Team at enterprise, i think its well worth it. So this work, um, comes out of the, uh, Regional Housing needs allocation that you all are, im sure, intimately familiar with and the goals that are set in this cycle that far exceed previous cycles, including and perhaps most importantly for our discussion, a really, uh, dramatic increase in, uh, production goals around very low, low and moderate Income Housing production. So thats the focus for our work today. And its set within the context of the citys response to those goals. Uh, the mayor issued a housing for all executive directive and that really was the impetus for forming this Leadership Council, uh, gathering folks together and, um, rolling up our sleeves and figuring out how do we how do we do things better, what resources can we leverage at multiple levels of government to increase our Affordable Housing production . Um. I think its really important to note that, uh, social and Racial Equity was foundational to the conversations that we were having in our various working Group Meetings and at the executive committee. Um uh, increasing Affordable Housing production, increasing our network of Affordable Housing that provides stable Housing Resources to our most vulnerable populations is so foundation to our social and Racial Equity goals. Those that are articulated in the Housing Element and certainly are part and parcel of the work that we do at the Mayors Office of housing and community development. So, um, the planning staff engaged the equity council, uh, established a series of equity principles and we really highlight in the report, uh, the ways in which the recommendations reverberate out and increase our ability to address equity concerns throughout the city. So a little bit of Affordable Housing context. So this this chart shows how how the increase in our housing goals relative to the last cycle, as well as our, our production goals over the last few years. Um, so overlay or are shown again, it, it, it calls out the quite dramatic increase in goal setting that the state has given us. This would represent sort of a five fold increase in Housing Production, Affordable Housing production, um, for the city. So i just want to call that out. This is this is not at a 50 increase or 75, but its a scale jump for us. And so as we go through the presentation, i will continue to highlight the fact that San Francisco cant do this alone, that we really rely on regional partners, state partners, federal partners, as well as our network of Community Housing providers to really make even come close to these numbers. Um, we produce a lot of Affordable Housing already, and that production has increased over the last few years. Weve benefited from some strong Funding Sources like the previous housing bond of 2019. Um weve also benefited from an infusion of dollars that came through the, um, uh, recovery act in the in the in the wake of the pandemic. So weve weve seen real increases over the last few years in Affordable Housing production. Um, and, and we want that to continue, however. We are seeing reductions in those Funding Sources that were starting to have expended the proceeds from the previous bond, um, the infusion of cash that came out of the recovery work has largely, largely been expended. Um and we see reductions at the state level, certainly in, in projected Affordable Housing funding moving forward. So um, you can see from this chart and i think that sort of dark blue band, i think is really indicative. Its the recovery act infusion of dollars that really helped to continue to our pipeline work. And that is gone. So were really looking at a shifting funding environment as we move forward. So uh, San Francisco deploys a diverse set of Funding Sources currently we have we make good use of bonds. We have a permanent source in the Housing Trust fund. Um, we have we have other fees that we collect across a number of program areas. We manage a spreadsheet. Our pipeline spreadsheet has 30, 30 columns of different sources that we deploy. Um many of these sources are undergird with property taxes. They support the bonds or they they go into into the general fund and support our Housing Trust fund. Uh, one Important Note here. You see that, um, piece of the graph is related to inclusionary fees, and those are not coming in to any, almost any degree. So thats a critical source of funding that were seeing in sharp decline currently. Local sources are generally lumpy in general. Certainly the bonds, you know, they come in, we pass a bond. We got a bunch of money, we spend it and then we need to pass another bond to move forward. So we dont have as many consistent sources as as, um, as we, as we ideally would have. And as youll see, theyre projected to decline over time in our the current 23, 24 year, um, the graph shows the expenditures. So this was money that was allocated or identified in Previous Years. And now as were expanding that but our future years are looking at a decline in resources. And as such there will be a could be a decline in production. I really like this graph. Um, the top donut, uh, graphic shows us again the importance of the state and federal match. We generally spend about. We see our funds cover about a third of the costs of the development of an Affordable Housing unit. And we need those state and federal sources as, as leverage. So as we think about trying to increase our production, having the commensurate increases in resources at the state and federal level is really going to be critical. The bottom graph shows how we allocate those resources to our Affordable Housing developments. And the thing to note there is its darn expensive to build Affordable Housing in San Francisco. So one of the recommended lines that youll hear is how can we lower that cost . We havent proven to be great at lowering costs over time. Ive been working in Affordable Housing in this town for decades at this stage, and its a recurring theme, but i think its worth worthwhile to recommit ourselves to figuring out ways in which we can reduce the costs and, as such, produce more housing. So now on to the, um, the Leadership Council recommendations. So we had a number of executive committee meetings. I think about six of those. Those were, uh, eight member who really are sort of luminaries in the field. And then a series of working Group Meetings at a more technical nature. Um, the these were facilitated conversations, group brainstorming, whiteboarding. But we really consider these these are recommendations that come from the Leadership Group to us. So im a im a vessel of those recommendations. But the authors of the recommendations are really this group of assembled volunteers. Um, and weve erred on the side of inclusive city in the recommendations. So we didnt we didnt if we took took all good recommendations and youll see them in the report. But we didnt spend a lot of time ranking or discarding recommendations. And so part of the work moving forward is for us and for my office will really be to identify those recommendations among this very inclusive list that we can advance in the near terme, where theres opportunities to leverage funds and to move forward. These strategies as we as we proceed. Theyre really are sort of three overarching recommendations here. So as we look at, i think the 5050 some odd individual recommendations there, theyre grouped on three main themes. The first is advocating for Additional Resources at those upper tier government levels federal, state and regional, and trying to be more creative and more, uh, effective at leveraging funds at those tiers that are currently available. The second recommendation is always improving and refining how we do work here in San Francisco. Process improvements, new Funding Sources. What can we do locally to advance our Housing Production and then finally is simply we need to continue to be innovative, take new ideas is really, um, strength in and enhance our partnership with not only our partnerships, not only with our Community Housing providers, with philanthropy, any other thought leaders to do new stuff . And we have some ideas now. But over the eight year cycle, were hopeful to really have a new, new, new ideas to pursue. So in terms of federal funding, um, recommendations, um, we do advocate and need to continue to advocate for increases in federal funding for Affordable Housing production. Um, you know, not to not to go too far back in time, but really, since the nixon era, theres been a near wholesale retreat of the federal government from investing in urban areas. And we see this the Section Eight Program, huds programs have stayed flat in their funding for decades, while the need has increased. So even while we struggle to maintain the basic precepts of democracy at the national level, weve got to advocate for more resources for cities and for Affordable Housing. At the same time. Um, um, the graph on the right shows that currently we only provide section eight subsidies for about a quarter of the people who qualify for them. And so that would be a dramatic increase in really sort of a scale that were talking about. If we, the federal government, could really provide housing subsidy as an entitlement and as and as a right. Um. State funding recommendations. We want to work with our other major cities to advance legislation like aca. One. This would be critical in lowering the threshold to pass bonds. Currently, its a very high threshold. And, um, a bond can fail. It still gets 65, which in other contexts would be a landslide victory. And so were very hopeful of the passage of aca one. Um other other initiatives and priorities can be helpful to our effort. Um, Property Mission one, which would direct more capital dollars for transitional housing and Mental Health beds, while not considered traditional housing from our perspective, its not a leased housing unit. It is an essential part of our housing infrastructure here and getting our most Vulnerable People inside out of the elements and the treatment that they need and deserve. Um, and then well continue to want to be active with with the various advocacy groups that we work with in continuing to advocate for more funding at the state level through the course of this arena cycle. We are actively involved in conversations about how to better align the state Funding Sources that do exist. Theyre disconnected. The funding cycles dont work on the same timeline. So, um, half the brain damage will maybe. Yeah, half the brain damage of being a project manager at an Affordable Housing developer is figuring out how you leverage and stack all these various Funding Sources and make the timing work. So it should be easier. And we want to work with the new housing secretary, tamika moss, to figure out ways to streamline that. That funding source. Um, buffer, the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency will be putting on the ballot a regional bond that could generate significant resources for San Francisco, 1 to 2 billion. And that would really be a game changer for our programs. Um and then at various levels, i know boff is looking at this. Were looking at local locally. Are there moderate Income Housing programs that we can pilot it and take advantage of that . Dont require significant subsidy, but address the need of that moderate or middle income folks who are increasingly priced out of cities like San Francisco. I do want to note that the board of supervisors recently passed a resolution calling for staving off on the significant cuts to Affordable Housing resources that are proposed in the draft budget. Um, if those cuts go forward, it just makes our goal of increasing production all the harder. And, um, this wont be the last time ill say it, but we cant. Our funds need those state and federal matches to really have have full effect. So thats an important resolution. And well be tracking the budget picture at the state level very closely. Finally, local i mean not finally but next local capacity and coordination. We you know, the Mayors Office of housing and community development, were a funder, were a advocate, were a supporter. But the work is really done through our network of Affordable Housing providers, many of them community based, many of them nonprofits. Um, were seeing increase operating costs, the issues around insurance are hitting our developments and our providers hard. So although so the invitation to the group was really to talk about how we increase production. There was a fair bit of conversation about just how do we ensure that our current network, our current infrastructure is healthy and can sustain at current levels. So one of the things that my office is doing is working with those Community Providers was to establish stabilization plans, look at their portfolio, make sure that their cash flows are are Strong Enough to sustain operations and adjusting our own procedures and requirements to allow flexibility and use of funds to ensure that at the enterprise level, were not seeing, um, uh, organizations go into significant distress during this period of time. So not not production related. But, you know, ensuring that what weve got stays and thats going to be super important. Local capacity and coordination. Um, those of us whove worked in city hall for a while know that, you know, better coordination is a recurring theme, and it certainly was a, a theme in in our conversations with the Leadership Council. Um, how can we work across the various housing agencies, particularly most cdd and the Housing Authority, but also know, uh hsh oci and even dph, um, will be looking at doing an mou with the Housing Authority to really try and align our procedures and resource allocations. So its much more streamlined. Um, we want to work on streamlining our placement processes, ensuring that there arent vacancies in our Affordable Housing portfolio. Um, and uh. Per the comment earlier about reducing costs, look at where where there are city policies or city requirements that are driving costs, fees that can be reduced or eliminated in order to reduce the burden on our Affordable Housing . Uh, um, proformas and budgets. Finally innovative and alternative um, ideas or or initiatives. Were actively i mentioned moderate Income Housing. There have been some programs across the state looking at leveraging a property Tax Exemption in order to permanently restrict housing to moderate income households. Thats an idea that were actively involved in. Weve had some success in, um, leveraging philanthropic resources and streamlining our own financing to reduce costs in a fairly profound way. And we want to replicate those models and really extend and expand our relationship with philanthropy. Um and where there are rezonings look at opportunities to provide Affordable Housing by design or Affordable Housing at to moderate income levels that dont require significant subsidy. Again really trying to focus the subsidy that we have for deeper affordability. Formerly homeless, very low, low income residents. And then what are other kinds of policy tools that we can use to really encourage more moderate Income Housing. So just wrapping up, i mean, we its going to take a village. We need to continue to coordinate with our partners. We intend to be continually engaging with the working Group Members on an ad hoc basis on a subgroup basis, to tackle issues as they arise. Um coordinating with our the big cities across the state. I know the mayor has a very strong relationship and participates in big city mayor forums, and we want to use that as a platform, um, to advance housing, a shared housing agenda. Um, and were, were ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Theres some of this stuff that we can start working on today. Some of it its going to take a while for us to put into practice, but, um, its exactly the right work that we need to do. And with that, i will. Thank you. And um, the, the folks on the screen, james and sheila will be available over time to answer any questions. And im here today to answer any questions that you have or that the public has. Thank you very much. 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. If youre in the chambers, you need to come forward. Good afternoon. Commissioners charlie shamus, policy director of the council of Community Housing organizations. I wanted to appreciate the work put forward by the Affordable Housing Leadership Council. The Planning Department and the Mayors Office of housing. Its especially critical because we have so few spaces to Center Discussions around affordable and antidisplacement strategies. If we look at the benchmarks weve set in our Housing Element San Francisco should be producing 5800 affordable units every year at current rates, the city has been creating 1000 units a year, so we have to increase five fold. It seems daunting, but when we look to only a few years ago, we were producing about 500 units a year and we were able to double our capacity in a short period of time. Now, as one of those moments where we need to be reaching much further than we are, while the Affordable Housing Leadership Council report is expansive, it lacks a sense of urgency and a clear set of benchmarks. There are no deadlines, no consequences. We urge you to ensure that there is a clear structure and timeline for implementing action. In addition, there are two strategies that are notably missing from the report Affordable Housing budgeting and land banking. First, the city can create an Affordable Housing allocation plan through the annual budgeting process. We signed up to do this in our Housing Element policy action 1. 1. 2. This plan would set goals, measure progress made on Previous Year allocations, allocate investments to achieve our goals, and include an annual menu of Revenue Strategies to scale up to meet our goals on the land banking side, the city is pursuing an up zoning to accommodate the larger arena goal of 82,000 units, but there is no affirmative strategy for the affordable portion of our goal. The 46,000 units through the a sites inventory and an accompanying Land Acquisition strategy. We said we would do this as part of Housing Element actions, 1. 2. 2 and 1. 2. 6. Neither of these two appear in the recommendations of the leader Leadership Council report, and we urge you to center these strategies as well. Thank you for your consideration. Good afternoon, commissioners joseph smith from the race and equity in all planning coalition. I just want to thank and appreciate the initiative of commissioner ruiz for bringing forward the resolution passed by the board of supervisors, urging the governor and the state legislature to reverse the governors 1. 2 billion worth of cuts in state funding to Affordable Housing. This is not the time to be cutting funding to Affordable Housing now is the time to increase Public Investment in this critical, desperately needed resource. I hope that the Planning Commission can make a motion to support the boards resolution and make it and make as clear a statement as possible that we need to be working together at all levels of government to prioritize Affordable Housing. Thank you very much. Last call for Public Comment. Hello. My name is jason chiu. Im just a private citizen. Im actually here for Something Else today on the agenda, but id like to address what i heard just now. Um, i think the Affordable Housing, uh, person here for the Mayors Office is absolutely right. We need new, new ideas. I just happen to be talking to some of the members who helped run the city build program for the city of San Francisco, and they were talking about how they dont have enough people to train as young, young individuals, people out of high school, people who need to go into trades rather than tech or, or, uh, other other jobs that, you know, are more popular now. So one of the new new ideas that might be there that we bandied around was that if theres a way to recruit more young people into that program, you create more supply of contract builders, tradespeople that would then reduce the cost for the city of San Francisco to do those types of constructions and builds. If San Francisco is able to create a force of young people like that. So i just wanted to present that as a new, new idea and something that may, since the programs are already in place and youre already funding city build, why not use that . Thats all. Thank you. Okay. Final. Final last call. Seeing none. Public comment is closed on this matter is now before you commissioners. I want to start out by thanking staff and all of the members of the Affordable Housing Leadership Council, um, for the incredible amount of work and thoughtfulness that went into the, uh, very, very detailed report. It was, uh, both the report itself and the presentation today were extremely well executed, easy to understand and underscored the urgency of the situation. Uh, i thought they did a great job of explaining where we were, where we are, and where we need to get to, um, with, uh, you know, lots of suggestions for how we get there. I will say that in light of that, i found pretty distressing this morning an article in the kron that talked about concern over whether or not the Affordable Housing bond was actually going to meet the two thirds threshold, and i wonder if mr. Adams wants to come back up and talk to us about, you know, sort of where you see that going. The consequences if it doesnt pass. Um, what that means for future, uh, Affordable Housing bonds. I read that with incredible concern. Thank you. Commissioner, thats a great question. And i should note that i. Im not taking any position on the march bond. Um, so, uh, but we are watching it, and it, um, the implications will be very direct for us. We have a pipeline that, in its aggregate, probably could use 1 billion of, um, funding to move forward. Thats assuming always the state and federal leverage. So um, there are a number of eligible projects in our pipeline, in our queue that are currently waiting for a state funding award. We should hear any day now. Um if we get those state awards, the bond proceeds would be matched perfectly and perfectly timed to take advantage of those state funding awards and move forward with construction on an expedited timeline. If the bond doesnt pass, well have to scramble and it will mean likely move moving funds from future projects that we think will score really high. Highly for state, state and federal resources. Taking funds from those projects and just moving it down to move this immediate kind of tier of projects forward. So um, its likely that , again, the properties that are queued up for state funding should they get them, well well be able to scramble and find the matching resources for those. But the immediately next and following projects will not be able to move forward and will be in a period of stasis. So the impacts are, are, um, its it seems like the simplest thing to say, but, you know, we need the money and without it, theres, theres not a lot of new, new ideas that are going to make up for, um, the cash. So um, thank you. I have two more questions before i turn to the other commissioners. Um one is you raised the issue of property insurance, which were also reading a lot about. Yes, affecting everybody in the state at the moment. Um, and i wonder if you could go into a little more detail, um, about efforts that you might be undertaking, uh, with the state to increase the availability and lower the cost of insurance thats needed for these projects. Yes. Well it is, um, you know, its an issue that is, you know, reverberating from, um, you know, institutional level to individual levels. And, um, the, the theres a complexity around insurance that im afraid i cannot speak to with any nuance or knowledge or detailed knowledge. I can say that we are very actively involved with, um, enterprise Community Partners, which serves as a Technical Advisor to us. And its a nation wide Affordable Housing finance intermediary. Thats thats coordinating advocacy efforts. Um, with the state around alternative insurance ideas and, um, efforts to try and lower, lower the barrier to access and just lower the cost of, of insurance. But it it is profound and its a part and parcel of the stabilization work that were doing with our Affordable Housing providers. Um, in brief, were looking at for those who have a portfolio. So if theres in general, when you have cash flow at a property, it stays with the property. So were really trying to provide flexibility. So if owners have properties that are quote unquote winners and generate cash that they can allocate those with greater flexibility as properties that are struggling through operating costs, primarily insurance, but also things like, um, other utility costs, rent collection vacancies and the like. So um, at an operational level, were looking at policies that can really absorb these Cost Increases and engaging with partners at the at the state level to advocate for changes. Okay. And my last question for now has to do with tax increment financing. Yes. Um ive been um, working long enough in this field to have seen the, um, change that happened when redeveloping projects went away. Um, and how it changed what we source of funding. We used to rely on. Yes. And i wondered if you could talk about sort of the status of your efforts to try to revive the availability of tax increment financing, um, to be used for affordable projects . Sure happy to. I mean, the replacement tool thats being used, um, strategically currently at the city is an Infrastructure Finance district, of which Affordable Housing is an eligible cost. And so we have an ifd going on at treasure island, for instance. And in particular is working with the Controllers Office and, um, our Development Community to look at opportunities for using that ifd , um, at other of our major sort of Multiphase Development sites. And i dont have the list of them in front of me, but these are these are big sites, like, im not saying that ifds are going here, but india basin and Candlestick Point that scale of development where the infrastructure burden is so significant that you cant really get to the Housing Production, and these are these are developments that have an obligation, a strong obligation to provide Affordable Housing. So were excited about the use of that tool. And its currently underway. And its one of the recommendations in the report. Additionally um, uh, there was a wiener bill, sb 593 that passed recently that allows for uh, oci former Redevelopment Agency to issue debt against tax revenue that comes from former redevelopment areas. So its i wouldnt describe it as tax increment financing. The increment is really based on increased Property Values that fund that, um, debt obligation. But it does provide an additional tool to use, uh, to that oci has to advance Affordable Housing funding. They can they can use this tool for all of their replacement housing obligation in all of the units that were lost during redevelopment, which totals over 5000 units. So it is not a new funding source. I want to hasten to add, this would be a bonding tool thats able to use current current property tax revenue that goes to the general fund. But it is another tool in our tool kit. Um, i think the, the we have been engaged with policy partners on appetite for kind of reconstituting a, you know, a kinder, gentler redevelopment site, you know, and really the tools that redevelopment primarily tax increment financing. But some of the Land Assembly and disposition tools that redevelopment agencies use to have, which would be really helpful. Im not sure if those are really appetite at the state for that currently. Um, but uh, there is, uh, you know, i think if we can implement and use the tools that we do have primarily ifds in the near terme, um, and then suss out appetite in future , uh, uh, state assemblies and senates for, for, for opportunities for, for tif financing more broadly. I think thats going to be a real opportunity for us. Great. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the detailed answers to the questions. Um, i guess i should clarify when i asked you the question about the Affordable Housing bond that i too am not taking a position on. Um, were all city officials in case there are any attorneys in the room. Um, right. I just want to un. But i think its important to point out the article this morning and to make sure we understand the consequences is, um, of what happens if the bond. Yes. And thank you for that question. Okay um, commissioner koppell. Yeah. Uh, financing is definitely the name of the game. Uh, i recently met with, uh, director of hylis, uh, and linked him up to somebody that is, uh, has been active in San Francisco funding housing projects. Um, the aflcio has built projects like, um, i forget which ones. The oz erickson, oz erickson, the electrical fund. Yeah. Yeah. Thats right. And then the other, the other project on venice used the aflc. So they are specifically targeting Affordable Housing projects. So im going to send you all an email, um, and link you guys up. So hopefully we can find some Common Ground because if the moneys there we can build this, build the projects. Yes thank you for that, commissioner imperial. Thank you, mr. Adams, for the report. And the planning and also the Mayors Office and also the Committee Leaders that participated. It is very extensive. Um, report. Um, it took me three days, three nights reading. It only took me two, but i blocked out some time. But i really appreciate the effort that has been done. Um, i do have questions. Regions. Um, in terms of because there are in early of this year, there are recent legislation that pass in terms of, um, on the on the reduction of the fees in particularly the inclusionary fees. And i did not see that as part of the analysis. Maybe i have not, you know, maybe i skipped a page of it. Um, but it, um, what would that mean . Now that there is, you know, because the reduction of the of the inclusionary fees for now is for three years, but how would that impact again, looking in the report that the city fees are about a third of the Affordable Housing funding is coming from that. But would that mean for the next four years, um, in. For. Yeah. Well thats a great question. And we didnt we didnt dive into the inclusionary fees question because that had been covered quite extensively through the Technical Advisory committee that led up to the fee reduction proposal. So thats one reason, uh, i think, uh, perhaps even more importantly, the we only get the fees if stuff gets built. So if, um, 20 of zero is zero and 12 of something is 12 of whatever, that is. So theres a, theres a dynamic in terms of the fee rates that it doesnt lend itself to a kind of simple math. If we knew that whether the fees were 20 or 12, that 4000 units of housing was going to get built, and they would all fee out, then i could tell you with precision about what that trade off would be, but the fee reduction as a strategy is to reduce the well, id say increase the financial feasibility of Housing Production. Um and in so doing then we perceive some amount of fees or on site inclusionary units. So as an exercise, its completely speculative to, to um , try and calculate or quantify relative live fees, given that, um, to date, were still not seeing market rate Housing Production. And so, um, i think the if and until market rate Housing Production starts, the impact of that, um, if, if theres no production, the impact of that reduction will be nothing because we wont be receiving any fees. I think, um, i, i, i think its a very positive of place where we landed with the policy that every three years this will be looked at and revised their the markets dynamic, you know, any of us i mean those of us whove been working on this for a long time, you know, we you know, before the great recession, things were booming. Then things just stopped. Then we came out of it like gangbusters. This recovery is much more extended. Um, but but having a kind of a three year check in seems very appropriate to me. So on the part of my office, we dont see the fee reduction as a reduction in Affordable Housing resources or production necessarily, because again, were not seeing any of that market rate production to produce any amount of fees in the immediate terms. So the pretty much the biggest conclusion as im seeing here is definitely more federal and state funding. Aside from the local funding, i mean, but the federal and federal funding is something that needs to be looked into based on the politics in the washington, dc. And whos ever going to be the next president. Um, i know its hard to be aspirational in this moment, but i think we have to be. Yeah but im just, um, commenting that, you know, of course, in planning, you know, or, you know, most de, you know, we usually have a timeline of when the projects will be so i guess for me, its like i, id like to see where the projects, the timeline of this projects going. You know, the, this ten year project that has been built out. Um, and then, you know, i mean, i think its like, what is the city doing in making sure that these projects are being built as well . But again, um, uh, i want to move on to the next question. And that is the one thing that i really agree on is for the city to have or the city to have the, um, to expand its capacity as a Housing Finance agency and to do Revolving Loans. Yes i think that would mediate in terms of the current, you know, or upcoming pipeline. Um, also, i want to comment on one of the, uh, mr. Aoyamas comment regarding the, uh, um, i think last year the public bank was passed out, and i think its in the process right now in the creation of i think there is a firm called financial, um, municipal Financial Corporation in order to be, um, you know, in order to start doing it as a municipal bank. Is that something that is you also see as the role where most cd, you know, and also the public bank will be able to sustain or, you know, mediate some of the upcoming housing. Certainly we are eager to collaborate with any, any kind of municipal finance entity. It is on my to do list to reach out and get an update on where they are in their process. We have internal capacity now to advance a Revolving Loan fund. In fact, we manage one currently its the past program and it um, its been bond issuance for many years ago that was specific for seismic safety improvements that in 2016 i maybe 2016 i think was recast to include Affordable Housing development. And weve been really successful in managing that revolving well loan fund. I should the problem is it doesnt revolve and thats the problem. So were running out of those resources. So um, very much appreciate your, your, um, underscoring the need to, uh, increase our Housing Finance capacity. I think we see where we to have funds to restart that. And establish a revolving fund. We could likely do it in house quite quickly and quite expeditiously. But, um, more creative or broader financial, uh, strategies. We would we would be delighted and more than happy to work across across departments and with the new municipal bank, it looks like in the timeline, in the timeline of is 2 to 4 years. And i think there is another one that is expanding that joint ownership enterprises, Something Like that. That will be 0 to 2 years. And then expanding the most it is 2 to 4 years. Can there be a way that most capacity or the public Bank Capacity be moved up to 0 to 2 years, instead of up to four years, instead . Well, i would say, um, the short answer is yes. I mean, i think we, we really see, you know, youve got a seed, a fund. And so even though it, it, it can revolve and sustain itself, it would likely diminish over time. Wed want to make sure that the loans were of a below market interest rate. So, so its a theres some, some diminishment of the, of the power of the fund over time. But it um, it would be a great component of a our boffa expenditure plan. So we will probably start in late summer, start to work on an expenditure plan. So should that boffa bond pass. Um, im very interested in and hope our Community Stakeholders will be as well in using a portion of that to seed this Revolving Loan fund so that that could be deployed if the bond is successful quite, quite quickly. Again we have the sort of internal chops to move on that, um, in the near terme. Well, good to hear. And those are my questions. And thank you. Thank you, commissioner braun. Uh, yes. I mostly just have some high level comments. And first of all, i just want to say thanks to all the members and participants of the Affordable Housing Leadership Council and the technical working group. Um, this document had just just a phenomenal level of detail on specific actions and technical fixes that i just dont often see in efforts like this in many communities. And so i think the group is to be commended and its theres a lot in here. And theres a lot of work to do. I think it speaks to the fact that there is no single solution. Um although the Biggest Issue and solution is funding, as you have emphasized, director adams, um, i, uh, so i also appreciate how honest this is about the challenges, um, for funding Affordable Housing. And, you know, when i think about funding needs, there was just the discussion that happened about, um, you know, all of our market, our development driven Funding Sources are going to be so cyclical and we talk a lot about in lieu fees. We talk a lot about inclusionary housing. But what i take away from this report is seeing im happy to see so much effort around establishing more sustainable Funding Sources that are not linked so directly to development through our, you know, jobs, housing linkage fee or through the inlieu fees. Its especially true as we get more and more, more, uh, density bonus projects, even though they are providing on site units, they fee revenue they generate is relatively low compared to the size of the project, since only a small portion of their square feet are subject to the fee. So, um, you know, again, really speaks to the need to expand these resources. Um i its helpful to hear that there will be a prioritization process for implementing these recommendations, because i think that was one thing i was looking for in the report. And, you know , i had a half second where i thought about trying to pull all this into a spreadsheet to sort things in a way where i could kind of see whats whats the timing on these, whos responsible . Um, but i right now it is kind of everything thats needed being thrown in here. And so yes, im excited to see kind of the early next steps that will come through this process. And speaking of implementation, lastly, i noticed that the Planning Department is identified as an implementer for five items and you. Know, they look like the right kind of, uh, alignment with the Planning Departments role in all of this. Um, but i would just throw my full throated support behind this department doing everything it can. And and, um, providing the resources and support for implementing this effort. And if theres other ways that the department can be involved, i think we would all be very much in favor of that. So i just want to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Vice president moore, uh. Thank you. I think its the best response to an incredible piece of work. It took me more than three and a half days just to humbly, uh, speak about the expertise and the depth of what is in front of us here. I want to ask a very practical question. I very much support comments made by everybody. This is a significantly Solid Foundation of how we can move forward. There options there in betweens, and there is obviously a call for additional expertise and commitment to the question at last, how does that get us from here to there . And i am mostly concerned that in light of commonality of what everybody acknowledges is happening in in the state, on the state level, in washington, dc, and financially, how can we meet the states is significantly challenging demands in the immediate future without without falling off the cliff . Well, thats a thats a big question. Um, the i think maybe ill answer it this way. We intentionally structured the conversation. Um, both at the executive Committee Level and the working group level to focus on Creative Ideas that would advance and increase our Affordable Housing production. That was the that was the task. And um, by design, we did not um, although the prompting question included this very aspirational goal of 46,000 units. We didnt let the burden of that incredible, daunting task, uh, limit the creativity in the room. So we, as i mentioned earlier, we talked a lot about how do we preserve and support our existing network. So you know, thats thats not a conversation about getting from 0 to 46,000. Thats about, you know, maintaining maintaining our strong status. Um so the what i really appreciate about the work of all the teams is that we now have this very comprehensive list of great ideas. Um, we are already working on a number of them. Um, um, and we are ready to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Hopefully we can help generate those opportunities, but but this work is always going to be opportunistic. Theres no way for us to say today 20, 24, six years from now, were going to do x, y, or z because it was in the plan. So there were in conversation with state level and regional level and federal level dynamics all the time. And i think we have a really Strong Foundation to take advantage of those. Take advantage of those to get to the 46,000 units. Um, as soon as the federal government increases its Section Eight Program by a factor of five five, and the state establishes a permanent source of funding to support the operations of our of our uh, network and portfolio at and the region passes not perhaps a 20 billion bond, but maybe a 40 or a 60 or an 80 billion bond. Thats how we get there. Thats thats the road to 46,000. Um so, uh, again, you know, this is this is not a task that we can take on individually. We the task we can take on is to prepare ourselves best for new opportunities and really to improve how we work locally. Uh, i very much appreciate your answer. And i would like to suggest that we put our most energy on the first eight years or seven years or whatever is left because once we learn how to pace ourselves as a different cadence, we will perhaps in the end, know how to run a marathon. Thank you so much. Thank you. Theres nothing further. Theres nothing further. Commissioners we can move on to item 16 for case number 2020. Hyphen 007806. See you a at 1314 page street conditional use authorization. Oh yeah. Then back. Commissioner ruiz, if you are in the executive chambers, you can rejoin us. If you want to say. So as if we good afternoon, commissioners matt dedeaux, planning Department Staff, the project before you is requesting conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of two residential flats and relocate one of the flats to the ground floor. The project does not result in the elimination of a dwelling unit. Two dwelling units legally exist and two dwelling units are proposed. The project seeks to expand the relocate ground floor dwelling unit by 130ft s from its current condition in the project is considered a residential merger because it seeks to legalize the enlargement of one dwelling unit while reducing the size of the other dwelling unit by more than 25 of the original floor area. The second and third floor flats prior to the merger were each approximately 1500ft s. The relocated ground floor unit is proposed to be 815ft s, which is approximately 55 of the original area. The 75 of the original floor area is 1143ft s, meaning the ground floor dwelling unit would need to expand an additional 328ft to not require conditional use authorization. It should be noted that the current proposal for the ground floor unit is not code compliant with the exposure requirement. Should the commission approve the project today, a variance would be required to pursue the permit to correct the legalization case. This does not preclude the commission from any decision today, as its a separate independent action. Im happy to walk through the particulars of how that process would work if we get to that point. During discussion on the subject, property was originally constructed as a Single Family dwelling, and in 1978 it was legally converted to a two family dwelling, with one unit occupying each of the second and third floors. The ground floor contained a garage with storage behind it. The current owner purchased the property in 1994, and in 2000 a Building Permit was issued to remodel a ground floor kitchen and relocate a bathroom. The plans illustrated that a merger had already occurred, and that this was an existing condition. This permit, nor any future permit ever sought to legalize the merger or accurately portray that a merger had occurred. Uh. Additionally, there was no authorization to relocate one of the units to the ground floor. Subsequent permits stated that the current layout of the building that it, as it is today, was legal both planning and dvi have issued enforcement notices confirming that the current layout is not legal, and the merger was unauthorized. The conditional use request seeks to abate these enforcement actions. The Department Finds that the request, as it is today, is not necessary or desirable. In contrary to the general plan, the project proposes to legalize the enlargement of one dwelling unit, while significantly reducing the size of the other. The ground floor unit does not provide code compliant exposure, while the legal configuration as a full floor flat did as proposed, the department cannot identify any objectives or policies to support the project. Additional. The project results in the elimination of a residential flat. Because the ground floor dwelling does not maintain maintain the dual exposure that previously existed, the Department Finds that this loss is an exceptional circumstance due to the lack of a quality replacement for this flat, as. This is a conditional use request, there is no discretion review action being taken, but instead the flat policy is considered as part of the conditional use representation for the Property Owner has stated that denial of this application and forced restoration of the property to its previous configuration as two flats, uh, for clarification , the departments recommendation of disapproval was based on the current proposal. We recognize this is not straightforward to analyze given the 25 year gap from when the merger occurred in today, and should the project be modified to provide a second unit that is more comparable to the original 1500 square foot third floor flat, we would reevaluate this recommendation. It should be noted that disapproval would require restoration to the two residential flat over garage configuration, because we do not have an alternate code compliant proposal. Uh, we would consider any code compliant alternatives proposed by the sponsor in the event of disapproval. Restoration is the default because this is the only proposal we have. The department has received 15 letters of support for the project and no opposition. This concludes my presentation and im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor. You have five minutes. Hello, commissioners, im catherine, almost age 66, sf resident since 1980, single mom raising first my first son and triplets at 1314. Page my household is still busy. Nine of us were here recently for a month. Ive worked 46 years as a union musician violist, now a life member. Over the years ive concertized internationally as and as an extra with sf symphony , ballet, journey, eagles, tony bennett, linda ronstadt, etc. In addition to performing, its been important to me to contribute to Music Education in the city. Ive played 300 shows for 78 sf usd grade school. Ive coached music at soda, roosevelt, aptos middle schools, kenyatta college, and countless concerts. Busing. In 2000, students per show at davies and the opera house. And ive coached students seven summer summers throughout asia. My average annual income is 60 k. The project was completed 24 years ago with no required planning review, all work permitted and signed off by dbe. I have the original job cards and cfc here. A fire broke out during the project. My dad was dying at that time and i had my four toddlers. Very stressful. My now ex husband and i hired a licensed gc who handled the entire project. All was believed to be legal, including the ground floor unit, and the city has known that the top two floors were merged for over two decades in 2017, i went on my own to dbe to get the cfc filed from the 2002 approved and sign off from the 2002 approval. Approval and sign off with the august 2019 nof filed. I responded right away, filing the pr as dbe directed me at the same time, my mother was in her last days and died that november. Planning never responded to the pr then came the pandemic. So march 2020, my work at the opera opera house across the street shut down 19 months. Then only in 2020. Planning directed me to submit a icu. I spent Retirement Savings with months of costly planning requests with no income. Then planning stalls my case, citing sb 330 right before were ready to present. Two years ago. For five years now, almost five years now, ive done everything. Asked of me. The latest ask of growing the lower unit, assessing the Financial Stress stretch. I coordinated daily consults to meet the ask. Ive suffered enough financial and emotional wreckage. 50 neighbors have written in support, including petition signees. I called other supporters off today thinking we would be continued. I apologize for that. I am an extreme. Its an extreme, unreasonable. Ask to reverse the merger. Im not eligible for a loan. My retirement is now jeopardized. Planning continues to give me the endless runaround. Please allow my family to keep our home. Our future is in your hands. Please approve our icu. Thank you very much. Katherine has done everything a reasonable homeowner would have done. All that said, we appreciate the nuance there. We are addressing work from nearly a quarter century ago and are providing flexibility for an improved outcome. Here. Katherine is able to better the ground floor unit, bringing it closer to the size that would not otherwise require a conditional use authorization. But trying to restore the upper floors to two flats or building out the entire ground floor as a dwelling is financially unattainable. Restoring the upper two floors would cost over a half million dollars, and making the entire ground floor a unit would. Some would be around there as well. We found a way to get within an amount. You, the Planning Commission, have discretion to approve via 317 b7, which allows for you to provide a 20 discretionary change in the amount in which a unit may be reduced from 25 to 30, and thus weve provided an option where we have a unit that is within that 70 threshold that would not trigger a coup, but does require your discretion. And ccing the hallway in the new area a as shown. Can i have the overhead, please . Annexing the hallway in the new area a that has been expanded increases the ground floor unit to 942ft . Internal area that gets the unit within greater than 70 of the size of the original third floor unit, which. Based on internal size. Is 1320 six square feet. Weve netted out the staircase, which is about 60 odd square feet, because that was never part of the original unit. Were requesting a continuance to april 20th 5th or may 2nd, so that we may have a joint hearing with the wsa and bring back a noticed variance hearing so that we can have this all heard under one on one stop hearing. As of now, we have theres a two stop process and it may not even be able to achieve that. Thank you. Im available for any questions. Okay. With that we should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing none. Public comment is closed. This matter is now before you commissioners. I wonder if staff could respond to the issue that was raised by my, um, mr. Zucker about, i think he referred to 317 b7 the ability on our part to use discretion to veer off the 25 requirement. Right right. Um, so the text of that section is, is. The Planning Commission may reduce the numerical element of this criterion by up to 20 of its value. Should it deem that adjustment is necessary to implement the intent of section 317 to conserve existing housing and preserve Affordable Housing, i. I believe that is more programmatic across how we do mergers entirely. Its not a case by case basis, but im going to let. Is that right . Yeah. Okay so yeah, its not case specific. You would be making that adjustment for any project applying for a merger. Um, ill just put out there that this is a very tough case for me. Um, that that i understand staffs position. It was very succinctly presented. Um, and it leads me in one direction. Um but i am also very much, um, you know, respond to the fact that this has been 25 years. Um, and, and, uh, that they are trying hard to figure out how to get a second unit that meets our size requires boots on the ground floor. If they were eliminating a unit, this would be easy for me. But they are adding not adding. But they are trying to create a habitable unit on the ground floor. So im interested in hearing how the rest of you feel about this. I you know, i understand and staffs position, but but i, you know, would like to see if there is a way to get them to grow the unit. So at least comes closer to the requirement. Um, and be able to allow the family to be able to stay there even if it doesnt exactly get to you know, 75. But its close. Um, gives in the circumstances, the fact that there isnt its still it was two units. It will be two units. I could see supporting something that came close, even if it wasnt exactly there. Um, so i would love to hear from the rest of you. Um, because i dont know what the sense is of the other commissioners. Vice president moore. This is a tough project. There have been many other tough projects for me personally, like this before, and each time there is the human side and we hear that very clearly. And then on the other side, there is the requirement of sitting here where we do and dealing with code compliance and general, uh, policies about, uh, affordability, flat policy, unit protection, etc, etc. And basically avoiding mergers. The strong dictum that came out in various specific forms under former mayor lee, uh, that said, uh, in this particular case, we tried to help the applicant indeed be here today and present us with a at least code compliant unit that in size resembled of what we lost. Uh, but it needs to be code compliant, and it needed to be a double aspect unit. And unfortunately that was not achieved. And that may be either due to limitations of the building itself, which i dont believe it is, or it may be due to finances, but that is something that we cannot judge on anyway. It just leaves simply the dilemma of deciding of what to do. Uh, asking for a variance is, i think, a very difficult thing for me to consider because variances are exempt to are exceptions to the rule. Uh, and since the most important part is the assurance to the policy of avoiding unit mergers of variance is a way around that particular requirement, at least in a very superficial interpretation here at the moment, uh, i am on the fence. I am not very happy to have to decide on it. Uh but i believe that, um. Let me let let me leave it with that and listen to what my other fellow commissioners have to say. Commissioner brown. Yes, i im glad im not the only one who feels a little torn about this one coming in the room today. I was still, uh, needing to hear more. Um, so for all the reasons that have been articulated, i find this a very difficult decision on on this, um, project. And you know, i, im supportive of the continuance, although not so much just to get the hearings to line up with the Zoning Administrator, but also to see if theres anything else that can be done to address the comments that have been shared by Vice President moore. Um regarding regarding, you know, the, the, the ground floor sort of replacement unit, um, that has been proposed. Im also a little uncomfortable making a decision today based on the fact that we dont really have a concrete plan. Then i understand that theres a reason behind that. But in terms of timing and also in terms of taking that really far, if it ends up not being approved. But i, i, i know i would certainly feel more comfortable if i actually could see a more concrete plan and really understand, you know, any issues that it might pose. So, um, i, i, i will actually propose a continuance as, as requested by the project sponsor to, to, uh, april 20th 5th or may 2nd. Um, i would just suggest that, uh, you continue to explore anything else that can be done to address the comments raised by the commission during that time. I will second that. But i would first like to hear from commissioner imperial. Thank you. Um, yeah. Im this is a difficult case to i think for me. What, um, you know, even if, um, what present um, diamond is trying to reach into agreement, you know, um, um, leveling to the ground floor into the same, you know, about, uh, averaging around the same same size. I think the issue is still is whether the project sponsor be able to do that. The financing of it. And if the if it comes back to us and the argument and the presentation. That they give is still not, you know, i would still go for this approval. Um so that is like, you know, i mean, im curious as to what the project sponsor will come out in order to meet what, um, present diamond is trying to see. But i think at the end of the day, its the financing part of it. And we read the theres part of it about the financing that that how much it would make for them. Um, and, and yeah, i, i do i just do not think it will be really stick, but im unless the project sponsor is willing to Say Something about it. Um, but yeah, thats where im coming from. Um, im still im leaning toward this approval because even if we, you know. Yeah okay. Vice president moore, um, i believe that. Thank you. Uh, i believe that staff has done an, uh, an objective, thorough analysis, uh, and really try to turn every page to figure out how this could be, uh, salvaged. Uh, im going to make a motion to support staffs findings. Uh and looking for a second, second. Commissioner koppel, i was wondering if Zoning Administrator might be able to just check in and just let us know where hes at with this. Sure. Uh, corey teague, Zoning Administrator. Um the only thing i can really state at this point is to confirm what staff had mentioned, which is the nature of the unit now and whats proposed is, is a relocation of a unit in a way that it was a unit that met required exposure to a unit that does not meet required exposure, and that would trigger the requirement for a variance. And so the only way that would be able to move forward is if a variance was granted. And then beyond that, even if the variance was granted, if it happened to be appealed, then that would go to the board of appeals for their consideration. I wonder if the project sponsor or their attorney want to comment on, uh, sort of your thoughts in light of the comments youve heard. Thank you. Um, you know, were were working very hard to try to grow this unit to get it into greater parity. I appreciate the comments. With respect to the ci broke my glasses just before i came in. Perfect timing. Um, thankfully i know this for the back of my heart, back of my hand. Um, as i was saying, you know, we appreciate the nuance we found pathways to grow the unit to get it larger for, um, i think we can go back. Weve really run this to the ground. I think we can try a little bit harder. I appreciate that theres not that 5 wiggle room in the departments mind, and we will try to get this within that 75 threshold. But at, um, at this point in time, were not in a position to make a conclusive state that, you know, this just came to us within this past week. Its very fresh for us, and were trying to navigate that. And thats why were looking for this short continuance. So that we can either present an option that doesnt need condition, doesnt need to be before this body or the Zoning Administrator. But at this point in time, uh, its too new for us to have a plan that would get us to where we need to be. So i seconded the motion for the continued use. But like commissioner brown as you know, just so that you can move it to a date where you can have a variance hearing and a icu hearing at the same time doesnt seem to me like reason enough to move it. If you actually are going to use the time to try to get with something that comes a lot closer to being a code complying unit, then you know, then that makes sense to me. So i you know, your what do you think well let the design team chime in. Hi my name is mason kirby. Um, i have been working this week very quickly to try and understand how a variety of new Building Department rules with regard to emergency escape and rescue and the corridor. There are some technical issues here that yeah, um, theres a reason why i penned an area diagram for you. Because there is time that i need literally to go down and make sure that i present something to you that is also compliant with some Building Code egress access component pieces. So i would just offer you that. If theres nothing further, commissioner, what did you want to. Yeah. As i mentioned we i appreciate the comments from both you president diamond and commissioner braun. We too wouldnt want to continue this to come back with the same thing. Uh, but it where its very, very fresh, where we dont know if thats. This is the only thing that we can do. Uh with this new variance request, weve, as youve seen, weve been working very quickly and nimbly to try to grow the unit and find pathways. Uh, that would be our intent is to try to find that way. I just cant guarantee that here, right now. Which is the sad reality. But do we want to try to find a pathway . Absolutely we. Uh, mr. Vice president , more. Mr. Zucker, if i may, uh, i heard the applicant clearly stated that she was not able to get a loan or be able to do it anyway. So that stands somewhat in contradiction between uh uh uh, trying to search and answer for something that was clearly spelled out, uh, when we heard this project before, for and for us, it is very difficult while we are very open to granting continuance, if there is indeed a realistic way, enables one to agree with each other, etc. But this seems to be kind of, uh, if i misunderstood. And please correct me, uh, that the applicant clearly said that that is not what she wants to do anyway. So, uh, it leaves me to think that we have spent a lot of time on this project. Staff has done a significant job to analyze whats in front of us, and i believe its time to see what the commission, as a body says and take it from there. And if the commission disagrees or agrees with, uh, what, trying to continue this, uh, then that is what we do. Well first call the question on the project itself, and that is supporting the departments finding no on the continuance. First, procedurally , commissioner moore, uh, the procedural matter will take precedence. And so even if you had made the motion first, we would still call the continuance. Okay. Thats good. First, lets do that. Commissioner brown, yes, i have a question for planning Department Staff. Uh so this is a good point about the Financial Capacity to build out the ground floor unit. Essentially legalizing the what is currently an authorized dwelling unit. Um, im trying to sort of understand based on the, lets say, this body were to approve the project. Um, does completion of that unit, is there a connection in which the allowing the merger on the upper of the upper two units is sort of contingent on completion and build out and legalization of the ground floor unit, or are those two things kind of separate actions that arent connected . No, theyre tied together. Um, because you cant come in those two units without that ground floor unit existing. Thats a different request. Um, so, yeah, you cant have one without the other. Okay. So that gives me a little more comfort just knowing that, you know, if Financial Capacity is an issue, one way or another, this has to be resolved through the action taken by the commission. So yes, thank you. So it seems to me were giving her were moving in the direction of two options. She may not be able to afford either of them. Um, one is the half a million in order to, uh, um, revert the units back to where they were. If i heard you correctly, the other is to build out the ground floor unit in a way that gets closer in size. But i need to focus on the use, not the user. Um, which i think is our job. And i, i, you know, um, i dont want to cut off their ability. Weve been clear, i think, on all of our comments that you need to try to get a whole lot closer to the 75 limit and im still willing to give you the time to do that, but i dont want this dragging on and on any further either. So, you know, i think in april, if we do continue it, thats kind of the end of the line for me, which is we need to make a final decision. But i see that commissioner ruiz would like to weigh in to. Yeah, i just want to express my position. I feel very torn as well. And i think president diamond, you mentioning focusing on the use rather than the user. I mean, i very much sympathize with everything that you have expressed to us, but i think for me its about about the policy and where we are as a city. We are nowhere near meeting our Affordable Housing goals. Weve set policies within our Housing Element about protecting rent control, housing, and i think we see these cases and were up here trying to make a decision based off of, you know, somebody circumstance. And it puts us, you know, in a very difficult position to have to say no to that. Right . So im im very much torn. But im more so leaning towards disapproval just to honor the, you know, the policies that we have set as a city. Thanks. Thank you. I just wanted to add a little context for what the two different actions being floated are. So in the event of a disapproval, the outcome would be they need to abate this issue through an action that doesnt require conditional use. It doesnt automatically mean they have to restore the two flats. Its essentially the commission saying were not going to consider a unit thats less than 75 of that original size. Separate theres the flat policy where you could end up seeing a code compliant version of the project, requiring a flat doctor. So, um, thats just Something Else to consider. And additionally, the variance side of it, even if you were to go to an approval, if a dwelling unit with code compliant exposures important, you can essentially cut that off by saying a condition of approval being code compliant exposure. If you dont address it, they go through the variance process after, um, and then a continuance i think clear direction on terms of like what a percentage youre looking for or certain areas you want to see explored would be really helpful for staff as we move over the next, you know, eight weeks, whatever it is. Um, so that we are able to really focus in on a specific proposal with the sponsor. Okay. Thank. Vice president moore, i have a question for the architect. Uh as a licensed architect, uh, i assume that, uh, you understand how to achieve a code compliant unit down here . Uh, we had a couple of very early suggestions as to how we could do it, but it came down to missing eight inches for an existing yard that we couldnt use for, um, for access in that. Using the eight inches as a as a tongue in cheek comment. Or is that is that reality that youre saying eight inches . Uh, could you repeat the question i said, were you just trying to make a funny comment about eight inches on the yard . Or. Im actually telling you that the front egress court has three stories and it needs to be a certain width, and we just dont have it. I would love to make, um, the area a that expands a, uh, into the garage a , a qualifying room with qualifying windows. But according to a relatively straightforward dbe information sheet that was revised not too long ago as the height of the adjacent building rises over above two stories, we go from needing three feet to requiring four feet, and we have a three foot four. So i, um, i cant make that extension into the garage a code compliant room from the perspective of it being, you know, the 120 square foot with exposure. Um, theres a way in which the quality of the unit i imagine, could be made better in terms of pulling back a portion of that wall from three foot four back to five feet. I could imagine a door. I could imagine that calling that an entrance. Um the nature of the exposure requirement, um, is , is a tough one in terms of a code compliant rear yard. We had a different variable when we originally considered this project a few years ago. So in this particular instance, um, the, uh, the, the opportunity to legalize a unit under 4314 versus an adu versus a general birite unit that has to comply with all the code compliance is also something that we, um, thought about and wondered whether or not there would be a precedent to consider. Um a waiver for the exposure requirement given in some instances. Were at 23ft, you know, 11 as opposed to 25ft. And i would respectfully acknowledge that, um, i personally went out there and measured this this is not a an eight inch hyperbole. This is this is real. These are real numbers. Uh im sure. You understand as as soon as you asking for a waiver, uh, that that makes it very difficult for us, including staff. I mean, its not a waiver issue. This is a flat policy and merger issue and equitable or, like, size unit replacement. Uh, so it shifts it into a more subjective way of discussing projects like that. And since we find ourselves in the difficult position in looking at this all the time, we have already waivers and exceptions and concessions when it comes to state density, bonus. This particular project does not fall under those rules. I understand so, but i appreciate your going through that because i think you are trying. But i, i realized just hearing you that, uh, the changes were not just a yes, i would. We will use the time wisely or i will use the time wisely. Thank you so much for the clarity. Youre welcome. If theres nothing. Further commissioners, theres there are two motions on the floor. One to continue, one to disapprove. I will take up the continuance matter first on the motion to continue to april 25th. Commissioner braun i, commissioner ruiz i. Commissioner imperial. Commissioner. Coppell, i. Commissioner moore, no. And commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners. That motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against commissioners. That will place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 17, case number 2023. Hyphen 006990p at 1846 grove street. Discretion tree review. Guys, talk to me. Good afternoon, commissioners matt dydo planning Department Staff. Again, the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of three Building Permits at 1846 grove street to construct two residential duplexes totaling four dwelling units and one accessory structure for storage and bicycle parking. The subject property is located on the south side of fulton street. Despite the grove street address and is an undeveloped flag lot, it is called a flag lot because its shaped like a flag. The lot maintains a 3. 5ft access away off of fulton street for 50ft before widening to six feet for another 50ft. The lot then widens to a 75 by 90 foot space in the middle of the block. The scope of work presented to the commission today was previously approved by the commission as a conditional use authorization on april ninth, 2020, the project required conditional use at that time because it proposed proposed four dwelling units in an r2 Zoning District, the conditional use authorization granted by the commission was appealed to the board of supervisors, who on september 20th, 2020, disapproved of the conditional use and granted a new authorization limiting the property to two dwelling units. The project sponsor did not take any actions to vest that authorization and the project before the commission today is not subject to the limitations and conditions, as its considered a new project. The project was also granted variances in june 2020 for the rear yard exposure and bicycle parking requirements. This variance was not appealed and remains valid today. In august of 2023, the sponsor filed a new application for the proposed project using a density exception for rh districts, which allows up to four units. The project was deemed eligible. A request for discretionary review was filed during the 311 notification period on september 19th, 2023. On january 14th, 2024, ordinance 248 dash 33 became effective, which removed the conditional use requirement in rh districts for additional density, instead making it principally permitted by lot area. The subject property is now principally permitted. Five dwelling units. As such, the project is no longer seeking the density exception, instead proposing four dwelling units as principally permitted, and this has not resulted in any change to the scope of work proposed. Its a procedural change to how the units will be approved by the department to date, the department has received nearly 130 petition letters supporting the project and eight individual letters opposing the project. The requester is a resident of one of the adjacent properties to the east. The primary concerns taken with the project are erroneously granted variances. Unreasoned impacts to adjacent properties, fire safety and utility placement issues. The alternative proposed is to limit the project to two dwelling units to briefly address each concern. The variance was due the variances were duly noticed, heard and decided on by the Zoning Administrator. They were not appealed and remain valid. The current request for doctor is not an appropriate forum to contest the variances. Should those variances lapse, the sponsor would be required to file for new variances and the public would have additional opportunity to comment. The department reviewed the project again and confirmed the proposals compliant with the residential design guidelines. While the department recognizes the unique nature of the lot, the project has been designed to minimize impacts to neighbors with any remaining impacts considered reasonable. The project does not extend higher than 20ft, and property lines are limited to one story, the equivalent of a fence height. Windows facing toward adjacent Property Properties have been limited and use frosted glass when possible. Regarding fire safety and utilities, the department frequently hears concerns regarding these non planning topics. The sponsor is aware of the challenges the project may face during technical review, with building and fire, and they conducted a preapplication meeting with both agencies prior to permits submittal and determined that the scope of work was feasible. Finally, the subject property is permitted five dwelling units more than the four proposed. The suggested alternative is not reasonable because it calls for limiting the subject property to less than the principally permitted maximum density. The projects been designed to respect the scale, massing, and open space of its context, and while the lot presents a unique set of challenges, the department believes these challenges and circumstances have been adequately addressed, leaving no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to warrant a doctor, and recommends the commission not take doctor and approve the project as proposed. This concludes my presentation and im available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, dr. Requester. You have a five minute presentation. Afternoon commission. My name is john marchetta. I am here representing the noble west Neighborhood Association and 230 neighbors who have signed a petition in opposition to this development. I also happen to live right next door to the little pull flag that we just talked about. The 3. 5ft breezeway way, which is the only way in and out of the property. Um, based on the proposal, we would have four new families living there, up to 24 neighbors there, and while there are many concerns about the property, some of which the developer troy has addressed, i think our primary concern is around safety. Um, and, uh, its a unique property. I think at least in that its designated in two different zonings r2, r3. So technically in the big flag part, he can have five units, but where the actual point of egress is concerned, its actually zoned to only allow for 1 to 2 units. So actually the Safety Measures of this development are designed in such a way where you can have more people that live there than actually is allowed by the only way in and out. So it doesnt actually meet the one point of egress, doesnt meet the standards of r3. So as a Neighborhood Association, we are very concerned about the safety of future neighbors that would live there. Um, in an event of fire, earthquake or just adverse weather. Um, you know, in the event of fire, we have brought this up in the past because it is such a narrow passageway. Weve heard from the developer that people who live there are supposed to hunker down rather than try to leave, because theres not enough space for Emergency Services to come in while theyre coming out. I mean, i have a three year old and a five year old. I dont really imagine them running down that pathway with, i dont know, 18 other people. While Emergency Services are trying to get in on the other side of the path is also a commercial kitchen, so theres actually a real risk of a fire that would trap everyone inside. This building is made of wood. Theres no Fire Protection there. And, you know, obviously earthquake easily trapped people in and unfortunately, fire follows earthquake. Um, and just adverse weather too. Um, one of the more recent, uh, atmospheric rivers that came through, it actually knocked over the shared fence line that i have with the developer, troy. And it blocked the entire path. So those families would have been trapped just because of wind and rain. Um, so these are some serious concerns that we have around the development. Um, and i think in general, if you were to ask people in our Neighborhood Association, we understand that new housing is good. Um, but in this case, we just see it, as, you know, proposing to have four families live there. When the only way in and out is really only designed for 1 or 2 families. And thats the reason why we oppose this. And we understand that financially it also may be more viable for the developer to do four units and two. But i mean, from our perspective, safety is the most important thing with this. Um, so thats why were asking to accept the doctor to, to kind of halt the development as it stands today. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have a five minute presentation on. Good afternoon, commissioners im troy kishanpur. The project architect and also one of three coowners. Im here with my partners today. Um ronan concannon, who will be the builder, and sasha platica, who runs a nonprofit in San Francisco, as well as with um re retired Fire Department captain mario ballard, who is our fire consultant for the project. Im not going to go into the configuration of the units on the property, as has been previously, uh, presented and approved by this commission. Im happy to answer questions about that. But, um, if theres commissioner that want to refresh their memory on the configuration, this commission has seen the project twice. At the first meeting, the commission suggested modification, um, which we implemented, including the reduction of the number of units from 5 to 4 and modification to the site massing the opposite has put forth a number of pretextual arguments about why the project should not be approved. These include arguments such as about utilities and Building Code. They continue to state that the site access is too narrow for people to pass. They have stated a conflict between exiting and the Fire Department access in your package. Ive provided a link to a video that shows people clearly passing very comfortably on the site, and i could show that if upon request here, i have rebutted each of these items in my written response. But the Planning Commission correctly deliberated previously. Um, that we have a Fire Department and we have a Building Department, and they are the ones that are responsible for assessing sing life safety, exit ing, uh, Fire Department access on a site prior to our purchase of this property, we consulted with these department s and after purchase and coming up with a design, we went through the preapplication review process in which the Fire Department recognized the site conditions. They came to the site, they reviewed the plans and they provided conditions of approval, which is the standard and which is the process. So its not as if we are making up the code here just because we want it. Uh, i do not dictate the code, nor do any of the neighbors. If the neighbors disagree with the life safety code, theres a process to change the code through the Building Department and the code advisory committee. Um, i think thats really not the point here. I think the point is for them to raise these issues, to kind of get you to say no. Um after the conditional use hearing, i had a conversation with supervisor mandelman, and he said, you know what . I should do is bring back a project that doesnt require conditional use authorization that could be appealed to the board of supervisors, um, to avoid the politics of all of this. And in a discussion with his aide, he made me aware of the pending changes to the legislation. And so, following his advice, we reactivated our applications and are back before you now realizing the extraordinary need for additional housing, the board of supervisors passed the constraints reduction ordinance. The ordinance eliminated conditional use for oversize lots. The board of supervisors wrote this legislation with the full knowledge that the department of building inspection and the Fire Department will review the projects for code requirements, including those raised in this filing. They deliberately voted to remove themselves from the politics in the implementation and creation of new homes. So i would say also that there is another process if the neighbors continue to disagree and thats the board of appeals that is a quasi judicial body. And can really dig into the code and get testimony from the Fire Department and get testimony from the Building Department. Should it come to that . So heres where we are now. I feel like if you take doctor to reduce the number of units you are unfortunately reducing the number of units to zero on this site, because we have some very High Construction costs due to, um, the conditions provided by the Fire Department, the full fire Sprinkler System, the standpipes, we have a 25 20 foot height limit and we have noncombustible construction. All of those add costs and i think as you heard during the presentation on Affordable Housing, housing costs have not come down. So we really need you to reaffirm your earlier decision. You spoke very favorably of the project. Welcome. Any questions . Thank you. Thank you. With that, we should take Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. Yes, sir. Come on up. If youre ready to, uh, before i start my Public Comment, can i have 20s to acknowledge the commissioners . Just just thank you for your work. I know that this is not easy. Minute. Your time has started. Okay well, anyway, you are the guardians of the future. Livability of this city. The desire to have more housing in San Francisco must not come at the expense of building anything, anywhere, and ignoring the codes that have evolved to ensure safety for everyone. The 1846 grove Street Investors want you to ignore safety, Building Codes, the interests of neighbors, and the quality of life that residents trusted would be protected when they bought their homes. Please do not be coerced into approving this expanded project at the expense of safety and the character of the neighborhood. Because of the ruckus around housing shortages, this project may become a wonderful contribution to market rate housing if it is built in the right location. A donut hole in the middle of a 100 year Old Neighborhood with only a 3. 5ft wide woodside alley for First Responders as resident access any racing open space by building up to the lot lines of 34 residences is not that location. The alley that provides street ingress and egress from the lot is proposed does not meet california fire and Building Codes because it is too narrow and cannot be modified for fire safety without making the alleyway even narrower. This choke point would create unacceptable risk to life and property. We must trust that the commissioners would not want a catastrophic event to occur because of blindly accepting anyones wink and nod that everything will be okay. They there is no no. There is no assurance or there is no ability of the San Francisco Fire Department to override California Building and fire codes. Planet code requires setback to a minimum of 15ft from neighboring lot boundaries. Yet the investors want you to do away with this and build up to the lot line, taking away from the existing 34 neighbors any visual and esthetic benefit of unbuilt space, while continuing to provide residents in the proposed project with unhindered visual access to neighbors. Open space. I suspect if this project were being built against your property, you would feel that something of yours is being taken for someone elses benefit and that you would object. Thank you. I hope you vote no for this, uh, project. Good afternoon, commissioners. Um, ive been a resident of district five and a member of the Architectural Design community for over 20 years. Here in San Francisco. I support the project. At 1846 grove. Its been demonstrating its due diligence, and its a progressive design response to a challenging site and a set of design constraint. S, i encourage you to approve the project on its merits and respect the findings of our own Planning Department. Thank you. Hi my name is meg gray. Im a neighbor of the project. Thank you for being here and listening to us. So when we first moved into this lot, right next to the flag lot, we were told like, oh, you know, theres potential someday to build back there. And we went and like looked at this alleyway and the Immediate Reaction was like, common sense must prevail. Like, theres just no way it makes sense to have such limited access into this type of project. Um, so kind of dismiss it at that point. And i, im very pro housing in our city. I know we need more. Like if there was a second point of access or, you know, if it wasnt this lot and it was just a building next door to me, like you wouldnt see me here opposing this. Its very much the unique nature of this lot makes this project feel really unsafe to us. And just feels like it doesnt make sense. I also wish i could be here saying that its been a really collaborative process with the developer and i just cant say thats been true. I havent heard him try to explore there being other ways in and out of that lot. Um, or kind of hasnt felt like hes been openly kind of engaging with other ideas with the immediate neighbors either, which has been discouraging throughout this long process. Um, so, yeah, i think this feels really unsafe. Its a unique lot. Like i think you unique situations like this are a reason we still have these types of reviews in place. And its not just like build anything anywhere. So i hope youll take that into consideration in your decision and not move the project forward. Thank you. I beg your forgiveness. Im not sure whether i can present this using this. There may sefcovic. The overhead. Uh, my name is jason chiu and i represent the owners of 1834, 36, 4042 and 1850. Grove street, as well as 17 tenant residents who are there. Uh, i have i have a presentation here regarding the 1846 grove, and id like to present it here. Uh, one thing id like to mention is that the sponsor has stated that this is a reactivation of a plan at the same time, staff planning staff has stated this is a new application. The fact that the board of supervisors unanimously voted this to be a two Unit Development is something which then affects the variances and appeals. Im surprised that its allowed as a new application, and yet the appeal, the variances are allowed to remain. So those should probably be also be newly submitted. And im asking for common sense from the planning committee. Uh, basically this is the access way. This is the access way. That narrow red rectangle, uh, to the uh, the lot in question. And that is the lot itself. You can see 100 year old Heritage Tree there on the right hand side on the southwest corner, two trees that are 65 to 70 year old have been ignored completely and will be destroyed in the development. This is lahaina, maui. I lost family members there during the wildfires that just occurred. Theres one road in and out to access points. Residents were asked to shelter in place just as this, uh, developer has asked and presented in open committee here. Previously. This is a road two directions for cars on each side. Its actually only for one lane each way, but for cars can fit. This is what happens when people panic when theyre asked to shelter in place. And the natural response is to flee. These people died. Thank you sir. That is your time. Hi commissioners. My name is ed gilbert and i want to speak in favor of this proposal. Um, i wasnt invited here by the developer or project developer. I wanted to come on my own, uh, fruition. But i think one of the important points that was put forward earlier is that we have a Fire Department, and we have planning involvement in order to make sure that projects are developed safely. And i think this is a unique situation. Its a unique lot. And theres these kind of situations do occur in big cities. And i think it takes a certain amount of creativity to allow for housing to be constructed and built in a safe manner, with all appropriate public input, so that, um, you know, unique housing is unique lot situations can in fact be become something. And, you know, everybody can understand a neighbor who doesnt want to develop on development to happen on the project lot thats adjacent to their house or or, you know, these are realities, but we live in an urban place. This is a city. We have to work together. We have to put the priorities where they belong. And i would encourage the commission to support this project. I think its already been thoroughly deliberated and we should, you know, i mean, i would support moving forward with this. So. Okay. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing none. Come on up, maam. Hi. Good afternoon. Um, im a neighbor that that is affected by this developer. And uh, i want to go farther. The converse about yimby versus nimby. Um, its just something im so tired of hearing in no way have we ever said stop this development. What we ask for is for the developers to proceed following guidelines that were safety guidelines that were set forth. Um back when he when they bought the property, uh, we know that. One line of egress to get in and out of the property, 80 for four units and they did want more when initially started. And as the neighborhood group, we actually said, can we just bring it to three units at least. Can we compromise there. And there was never any compromise about it. So when you look at the plans and you see that theyre going for a zone two or zone three or, or, um, getting all the various pieces that they need in order to build this, uh, just no safety is, uh, paramount here. And to know that we hired a fire inspector and all of thats out the window now, and i. I just hope that you take into consideration the strangeness of the entry point in and out for all of these units to be using, um, with no other exit or entrance besides the neighboring properties. So thank you. Okay. Final last call for Public Comment. Seeing none, dr. Requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. Um, can i show. So, um, this is the first 50ft of the walkway were talking about. Uh, ill admit it. This is a complicated situation for a developer here. Its simply not wide enough for the, um. What is r3 designation . So the only reason why it actually hits code is because this entrance is rh two. But then theyre going to build as if its rh three. Thats the reason why its i mean, i dont know. Im not going to say i know, but yeah im sorry. Im not going to say i know. But you know, ill say that. Oh right. Okay. Oh sorry. Repeat that one more time into the microphone. Im not sure. Um, what im saying is that its a complicated property. We understand that if the whole thing was designated rh two, then thered only be two units in. According to the developer, it wouldnt be financially viable if the whole thing was designated rh three. Then the entryway wouldnt be wide enough. And so the only reason why, as i see it or i understand this, is moving forward, is because its split designation on it happens to be the only way in and out is designated rh two and the place where hes going to build the properties is rh three, which means he is building more units than what that entrance can safely allow. In and out. Its designed for 1 or 2 units. Hes building four. Thats why we have safety concerns. Um, and we understand that there are other parts of this process. We just feel like knowing that there is a safety risk is, i mean, were all kind of turning a blind eye to the real risks that exist. And just passing it down to the next person to say, this is a risk and this is a problem. So we do really ask that you do stop it as it is. Um, find other ways to make it safer for people. Thank you. Project sponsor. You have a two minute rebuttal. Thank you. Commissioners um, first off, theres no wink and nod thats occurred here. This process has been through a rigorous, um. Its been rigorous. So far, and it will continue to be rigorous through plan check at building and fire. Um, you you are not the end of the process. You are a, uh, point somewhere in the middle. Um, our consultant, former firefighter and head of plan Check Division at the Fire Department wanted to say a couple of words, so im going to yield the rest of my minute and a half to him. And and we are, of course, available to answer questions. Mario would you like to speak . Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon. Commissioners mario ballard. Uh, 33 years with the San Francisco Fire Department, um, both in the firehouse and at the end of my career, i managed the plan. Review division for over ten years. Um just a couple of issues that were brought up today about that came across like this is an unusual condition. Quote would passageways there literally hundreds of would passageways as a means of egress from units, multiple units, multistory units from the rear of the building to the public way. I grew up in north beach, um, third floor through a courtyard, through the alleyway to the, uh, to the street. Um again, i cant emphasize enough that to this point, both dbi and fire have looked at this condition in and has not found anything that would preclude them from approving this plan. I mentioned to the developer here, one of the speakers up here talked about, um, basically being able to egress in the time to get from the rear of the building or from the New Buildings to the public way. I could do a code compliant timed egress analysis that will show that the number of occupants that are going to be in the rear of the building will will not be at risk to get to the public way. Thank you sir. That is your time. Okay with that commissioners . This matter is now before you. Yeah Vice President moore, uh uh, for the for the record, uh, i support, uh, supported this project, uh, for four years ago when it first came to us. I think it came to us in april of 20. Yeah. April nine, 2020. Uh we spent a lot of time on questions that were raised today by the public. And i appreciate going through those thoughts again. And, uh, there were issues of privacy. There were issues of appropriateness of how the building is composed. And we spent quite a bit of time, um, adjusting the project and working with the architect and with the public, uh, to support the project and, uh, the project is coming forward with the new exception for density here, which i think is supportive of what we all are looking for. We are still looking at four units and, uh, i am supporting the project as it was, as i supported it. Then. Commissioner imperial yeah. Um, i have a question. I think the requester brought up a very interesting point where this is an arch to and, um, of course, our as were seeing this, this is, um, more than two units. So so id like to get a clarification on the light and safety or fire, you know, when it comes to arch three. So arch two designation and this is not i mean anyway this is more than the two units. Um, so yeah, theres a couple points. Id like to clarify there. Im matt giteau, Department Staff again. Um, so the lot has two Zoning Districts overlay on it the access way, the breezeway, whatever you want to call it, that area is largely zoned r3. So it would if you were developing that area, youd be principally permitted three units. The bulk of the lot where all this development is occurring is rh two. So uh, even when you factor in only the area thats developable, the bulk of the lot, they would still be principally permitted at least four units. So um, the rh three portion, its it adds to the overall lot area and we proportionately would allow development. But we also limit Development Based on the zoning for that area. So long story short, the development proposed is consistent with the rh two Zoning District because of the area that is rh two. And then just to clarify, i think the comments we were hearing around that were actually more Building Code based and the different requirements around entrance and egress based on occupancy, which is based on what youre constructing. Thank you. Thank you for that. Can i just ask a clarify question . So what i heard the doctor requester said is, um, we have an rh two entry, but rh three development is that the Building Code issue that youre talking about. So the if youre talking about zoning, it was flipped. Im not sure if they meant to reference building occupancy, but again built occupancy for building is based on what youre constructing. Its not based on like an where youre located in that sense okay. Thank you. Commissioner bryant. Yes uh, you know, i have to say im staying in our lane on the analysis of this project and access utilities safety variance issues. Those are all matters for review, for approvals, for appeals to other Decision Making bodies and departments. So in just looking at this through the lens of the, uh, planning code, you know, the setting is unusual, but with the design of the project, i dont find anything that, uh, would represent an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. The project design, thanks to its design responses to the setting. So i moved to not take discretionary review and to approve the project second. Theres nothing further commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr. And approve the project as proposed on that motion. Commissioner braun i uh commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and will place us on the final item on your agenda today. Commissioners number 18, case number 2,005. 0228 drp for the property at 124 fillmore street. Discretionary review. Okay. Good afternoon commissioners. For those who dont know me, matt dydo, planning Department Staff, the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of a Building Permit at 124 fillmore street to construct a two story, above grade grade garage with parking for three vehicles. The garage extends ten feet below grade and will utilize a car lift. The garage also includes a roof deck. The garage is located in the required rear yard and was granted a variance in 2005 for the exact scope of work proposed today. The variance has undergone numerous extensions and remains valid today. In 2012, the variance was determined to have expired, but in response to a petition from the Property Owner, the city and the Property Owner entered into a Settlement Agreement that reinstated the variance. The reinstatement agreed upon in the settlement was in part due to the Property Owners confirmed disability and their need for the garage and Parking Spaces to provide necessary accommodations. Following the approval of the variance in. 2005, a Building Permit was issued for the scope of work. In 2007, the issuance was appealed to the board of appeals, and the permit was revoked because it was filed as a building alteration permit. When the garage will be a completely new structure, which requires a Building Permit for new construction. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this proposal at any point in the past, but a request for discretionary review was filed on december 27th, 2023. During the 311 notification period, the requesters believe that the project presents significant risk to adjacent properties because of the required excavation. They believe this risk has not been adequately addressed by the project sponsor, and they request rejection of the current proposal. The department has received ten letters of opposition to the project from nearby residents, and the concerns are generally around excavation fit with the neighborhood and the propertys history of unauthorized short tum rentals, the Department Notes most that the most recent short tum rental complaint against the property was abated in 2016. There are no current active violations or enforcement cases on the property in. Response to these concerns, the department reviewed the project again for compliance with the residential design guidelines. The project complies with the guidelines by creating a consistent street wall and maintaining the scale of development along germania street frontage. Additionally, the structural soundness of the project, as well as a construction plan to ensure no damage to adjacent adjacent properties, will be verified by the department of building inspection prior to final issuance of the permit, the Department Finds that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends the commission not take dr. And approve the project as proposed. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Dr. Requester. You have a five minute presentation for your team. Yes. Um. Yeah. As if theyre going to use the overhead. Uh, hello, commissioners. My name is steve. Lowinger. Since 1980, i have owned the four unit building located at 70 through 76 germania, which is located directly across the street from the proposed project site. The city of San Francisco has lost sight of the greater good of its community members, and has elected to impose a construction project that will only benefit one individual, all while degrading the quality of life of numerous other long terme residents and homeowners. We are here to request that the Planning Commission reject the current proposal. To excavate 15ft below grade and install a three car hydraulic stacker elevator at 124 fillmore street, such. Such a rejection would be consistent with the decision by the Planning Commission on a similar proposal put forth by the property. Owner in 2008, because at that time the property was in violation of the planning code by operating as an unauthorized hotel and it would be the right decision today to make, because the property continues to operate as an unauthorized hotel. The airbnb type short tum rentals he operates have increased foot and automobile traffic in our neighborhood, with vacationers coming and going at all hours. Also. In the past several years, there have been over 40 complaints on his property over Building Code violations. This project is out of the norm. It is extreme and not necessary. It is atypical to build a garage of this kind in a residential neighborhood. Another concern about this project is the proposed work has a high potential to cause damage to adjacent historic. Properties. The site is very tight and it would place a mechanical garage structure directly next to the living quarters in the adjacent home, located at 73 germania street. We are also unhappy about the ongoing motor and automobile Combustion Engine noise and the inconvenience that will result from the unnecessary three car hydraulic stocker elevator. We also would like to understand the correlation between the Property Owners disability and the requirement for him to park three cars on the property. This doesnt make sense to us. Our concerns are real. I would like to briefly give you one notable example. Mr. Nails next door neighbor at 73 germania. Deborah stopped, who is currently in ill health, has been in long terme, opposite to this proposal. She was the individual who initially spearheaded the opposition to the stacker elevator. Her current compromised health puts her at risk from both the construction phase as well as the results project. Thank you. Hello, my name is ian price and ive lived at 71 germania street since 2013. This is an extreme excavation directly between two historic timber frame buildings. Our concern is for the safety of the structures. The site is extremely tight. The proposed lift shaft is in pink. Ill show you on the overhead. So. The proposed lift shaft is in pink. The surrounding areas in red risk being damaged by concrete supporting walls and noise insulation, and a base slab. This is a display. Fortunately large pit next. To our building. The lift would operate next to the living room and the bedroom of 73 germania. Only a one inch clearance is proposed and, uh, in the wall next to the wall, theres a clear risk that the pit could compromise the integrity of our foundations. These fragile structures are built on sand. The original victorian builders of our home made no provision for such an unprecedented. Void. Dug immediately next to it. The plan omits the following mitigating factors a soil survey and a detailed plan to securely support our building. A Structural Survey and monitoring of 71 to 73 germania street before, during and after construction. A mechanical lift generates noise and vibration. Will the motor be sited away from number 73 . There is no timeline. There is no timeline for construction. Uh, this is not a standard excavation. This is not a standard excavation. Would specialist contractors and engineers be used for this multicar hydraulic hydraulic device . In summary, such a deep excavation to accommodate a three car garage is excessive for this small site. This extraordinary proposal is. Without precedent in local city neighborhoods. Thank you sir, and could easily damage our building. Thank you, thank you. Project sponsor. You have a five minute presentation. Thank you. Um, i wanted to make it clear that the zoning does allow for the three spaces by right. So i dont know that this is so out of character with the neighborhood. Um i plan to use the same siting as the Main Property on the garage, uh, to make it fit. And the original project was modified to have a window above the garage door to make it more in character. Theres a similar garage with a roof deck across the street, and, um, this proposed garage would be about eight foot taller, but in other ways very similar to that right now. On our block, there are. 19 buildings with 22 garages on our block and the proposed garage would be one of the shorter buildings on the block. The garage will be built following best practices, following all codes. The Structural Engineer attended stanford and berkeley. Hes worked over 30 years in San Francisco, so and he has engineered hundreds of projects with excavations much more complex than this project. With a ten foot excavation. And hes had no incidents, although there are no garages with three car elevators on our block. Klaus parking systems, who ill be using for this garage, has installed over 1000 parking lifts in San Francisco, so. And about 10,000 in the state. The garage will be safe and quiet. It will be constructed with a minimum of six inch concrete walls. As the lift will make less noise, lowering and raising than a garage door opening and raising. The garage will have a fire Sprinkler System that no short tum rental people will be allowed to use it. They have trouble operating the tvs and the finding an ironing board and need too much help. It doesnt make any sense and i need those anyway. And to that point i have applied and im going through the process of short tum rental permit. And while you go through the process, youre allowed to do it. There are no complaints on the Building Meetings and discussions have been held with neighbors, and changes have been made to the plans. Weve moved the garage back four feet from the sidewalk. Weve included bicycle parking. Weve included car chargers and made other changes based on neighbors comments. Its please allow us to continue with the process. Thank you for your time. Okay with that, we should open up Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is dave stott and my sister deborah spearheaded the. The project, uh, being disapproved back in 2008. Uh, shes unable to be here. Okay. Because she suffers from early onset alzheimers as well as a number of lung issues. Issues that concern me as her brother, uh, for the health and her safety as this project, if approved, is begun. And what happens afterwards . But, you know, im not going to talk on that because i heard you talk about use rather than users. Okay okay. Um, if you look at this property, i worked for an hvac company for 30 years. I dealt with plans and plans dont always accurately reflect reality. Okay i send my guys out on a job where the engineers and the drawings say you can run a duct here, or you have room to run risers for your sprinkling system. And yet, when my guys go out there, that room is not there for any number of reasons. Okay so i have to wonder for how this project is going to fit in the space that is there. And i also have concerns for your community. I live in connecticut. Okay i what happens here . Were let me put it this way. This this board is sometimes times the only guard between chaos and order. Okay. Im afraid that if this project is approved and put through, youre going to see these kind of situations pop up a lot more often. And you have to decide if this is what we really want. Thank you sir. That is your time. Thank you. Commissioners thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion today about this project. I wasnt expecting to speak so i dont have anything prepared, so i would like to just read the letter that i wrote to matt dito, a month or so ago, with a few changes. The letter. Im Theresa Skelton at 130 fillmore street for 35 years ive owned the street level unit that is directly across the narrow germania street, more sort of an alley or a lane, side street, face being the site of the proposed construction. I have no objection to david nail installing this garage, but feel that a i should say a garage, but feel that a hydraulic three story stacking garage is out of scale for germania street. Germania street has been designated as part of an Historic District granting permission for an hydraulic garage in a quiet residential setting in an Historic District sets a precedent in San Francisco for more of the same. Um, i think a stacking garage invites inordinate congestion and possibly noise as three three cars repeatedly access it. I would hate to imagine what it would be like negotiating germania street if all of those single level garages on it were allowed to accommodate three stacked cars. My understanding is that david does run a short terme rental building at 124 fillmore. I think its somewhat uncommon for most airbnbs and the like in dense urban areas to provide parking rather than helping to take cars off the street. In San Francisco, it seems this practice would encourage it. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Gilchrist and i live across the street from the proposed project. Ive lived there for 20 years. This december, um, i wrote a letter on my objections to it. Uh, a couple things real fast. Uh, in the application, mr. Nails has stated that there have been a that klaus has built 100 residential elevator garages in the bay area. The bay area goes from im call it santa clara to napa. Uh, i contacted the company to find out if where i could find some of these in the city. They never got back to me. Now mr. Nail, saying that theres 1000 built in San Francisco, but again, 100 residential in the bay area. And as of right now, we have no information as to where those residential garages are. If there are any in San Francisco, if they are in San Francisco, are they in commercial areas . If they are in residential areas, are they on one lane roads . Um, im a little confused with regards to the ability, um, granting them the disability. Im not 100 sure why, uh, there should be anything more than a single garage, uh, on the street in conformance with all the other garages on the street. Mr. Nail just said that theres a similar garage across the street with a deck on it. Its not a similar garage. Its a one story garage. Its a regular garage. Its not a three story garage. And theres no two story garages there. Uh, mr. Nail says. And again, im trying to figure out who the beneficiary of this would be other than mr. Nail and his short time tenants. Once again, as documented, mr. Nail currently is running an airbnb, and other than the benefit of mr. Nail parking there, i it would only be the short tum tenants that will be parking there and finally the noise factor of a vacuum cleaner one inch away from deborahs head while shes trying to sleep at night. Doesnt seem to me to be a sensible solution. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, lets go to our reasonable accommodation. Request. For. No no, were. Im unmuting the reasonable accommodation. Requester whos calling in remotely. Maam, are you with us . Yes i am okay. Go ahead. You have. Yes. You have two minutes. Oh, great. Um. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is lucretia rao. Im the owner of 4350 germania, a six unit apartment house between fillmore and webster. And ive owned the building for over 35 years. And as ms. Terrace said, its a Historic District. So many of these victorians are over 100 years old. People who live on germania street are currently able to enjoy a very quiet, low traffic street where children can even play safely. Since this elevator garage was being built to accommodate the short terme, renters, it will undoubtedly increase traffic at any time during day and night. What kind of noise will this type of, uh, elevated garage create . The victorian home adjacent deborahs that is, uh, its most likely going to feel vibration and hear the noise of the elevator when its in operation. Also, the noise of the increased traffic of the vehicles maneuvering our narrow little street to enter the garage will directly affect the neighbors who live across the street from the garage entrance, where their living areas are. I feel this project is way out of proportion and is not in keeping residents nature of our neighborhood. A project of this size, um will bring chaos to our streets during construction and direct and specifically uh, have an adverse effect on germania street commissioners, please do not allow this project to go forward, as it will forever remove the nature of this quiet little street. Thank you for your consideration. Okay thank you. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing none, derek wester, you have a two minute rebuttal. If you want it, no. Very good. Um, project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal if you need it. I just wanted to be very clear. There were some things that were misspoke. The garage is not three stories. It is two stories. This is in your packet of information. Um there will be no airbnb people. I spend time trying to get them to show them how to use the tv, and theres no way im going to have them use the garage and have to have more work of trying to explain that itll just be me using the garage for now. And um, the pit is not 15ft. It is ten feet. Um, anyway, i just wanted to be clear. You have all that information. Its in the plans. There were just people have misspoke. Okay, commissioners with that. This matter is now before you. Commissioner imperial, i have a question on reasonable accommodation pertaining to the garage. Um, is that mean that the garage, the two story garage is simply to the owner . Thank you. Uh, corey teague, Zoning Administrator. Just to elaborate that a little bit more, um, we referenced this in the in the case report. Just want to make sure its clear again, the original variance was from 2005. We didnt have a reasonable modification process here in San Francisco until 2015. Um, which we adopted to make sure we had this process, um, consistent with state and federal fair housing laws. Um, the, the uh, Settlement Agreement that was entered into in 2014 before we had that process. This was in large part, um, inclusive of, uh, the Property Owner essentially making a reasonable accommodation request. Um, so that settlement was very much viewed through that lens, even though we didnt have that as a local process. So the variance that is here now is even though its not a reasonable modification, as we have adopted since 2015, it is essentially kind of tantamount to a reasonable, uh, modification, because that extension, um, and settlement was very much predicated on, uh, fair housing laws and reasonable accommodations. Is that and its been specific to the three, the three d um, three car stacker since the beginning. Okay. Im, um, i think, i mean, i, i necessarily dont see any exceptional, um, on this particular project, but the mention of reasonable accommodation, of course, pertains to, i guess, as its mentioned in the packet. But, um, just for me, what is the purpose of reasonable accommodation in terms of the, the stacking of the garage . If if there is any purpose to it. But it seems like the purpose of the reasonable is was part of the settlement to meet the fair and housing law requirement back then. But this is not necessarily a, um, you know, its not really a big factor in terms of the, you know, if were looking into it as the, you know, the need for the garage, um, for this property, um, and right now it seems like the Property Owner is applying for the short tum rental units. Um, just trying to align the facts here. Um, and i dont see the issue of the garage. I think for me is that it . Um, to whom is the reasonable accommodation is to. And why is that important . Sure um, and to be clear, the reasonable accommodation is to you know, an occupant with a qualifying disability, which in this case is the Property Owner. Um and my understand is that the request from multiple Parking Spaces is to accommodate himself as well as multiple caregivers, um, that would need to be there at the same time, you know, over the course of, you know, going into the future, um, this is not exactly the same, but similar to weve had reasonable accommodation requests for, um, you know, dwelling unit mergers to allow inhome home care providers. Um, you know, is kind of not to, not for space for the occupant, but space for Health Care Professionals that they will need as an accommodation for their disability. And this is kind of similar in that in that case, not necessarily for inhome living care, but for, uh, parking availability for those, um, those health care, uh, people. Um, the Property Owner would know better than i mean, more specifically, um, but in general, generally speaking, thats my understanding. Uh, no, i heard i mean, ive seen where, um, caregivers also request for, um, parking as well. Um, as part of the accommodation requirement. Um, yeah, i, i, i do not necessarily see an issue, um, in terms of if were looking into, you know, the need for the garage. Um, i dont necessarily see an issue into it in terms of the excavation or construction. Again, as the staff said, it goes to, um, you know, these are being examined by the dba. Um, i , um, yeah, i think from what im hearing from the public is the issue of the excavation and how much it will affect them nearby. How how ever its the Different Department that looks into that kind of issue as well. Um, so, so yeah, commissioner braun. Yes i think anybody who knows me knows i dont love voting in favor of things that encourage private automobile use, and that includes one of the biggest factors is actually, um, storage at destinations and origins. But that being said, the, uh, you know, it is allowable to have from a planning code perspective to have three on site Parking Spaces in this site. It is a little different to see a stacker in this kind of tight context. Its something that im now thinking about because with this technology, im now thinking, um, there might be more and more sites throughout the city where we could start end up having a lot more for automobile storage than weve historically had in single car garages. But thats just something for me to chew on and work through with this. The broader processes of this body. Um, but as far as the discretionary review goes, um, you know, i dont i agree, i dont see anything exceptional or extraordinary. Theres nothing about the design. Theres nothing about the number of spaces on site. Um and the excavation as, as mentioned, is, is not a matter that this commission has oversight over. So i would move to not i move to not take discretionary review and to approve second. Seeing no further deliberation, commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr. And approve the project as proposed. And on that motion, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. President diamond i so move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing today. We are going to conclude in memory of tnc direct executive director, marilia leone. music . The Ferry Building one of San Francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. One of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding San Francisco is how young the city we are. And nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. There was a small spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in San Francisco. And then the gold rush happened. By 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life. By 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. With sand the way that San Francisco was and when you look at a map of San Francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is those streets started off in extremely long piers. But by 1875 they know they needed more so the Ferry Building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the Ferry Building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the trams came to that area also. But by the late 1880s we needed Something Better than the Ferry Building. A bond issue was passed for 600,000. To build a new Ferry Building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in San Francisco they thought that was a grand Ferry Building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose a young aspiring architect and in the long paris and San Francisco had grand plans for this transit station. So he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. Than that actually is but the price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and killed. But it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but Market Street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and Mission Street up to nob hill and the fishermans area. And then the earthquake hit in 190 six the Ferry Building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. And 80 percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a Dennis Herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gave them to chance to show how electrical cars and were going to get on top this. Take 10 years for the city to rebuild. Side ferry use was increasing for a International Exhibition in 1950 and people didnt realize how much of a Community Center the Ferry Building was. It was the center for celebration. The upper level of Ferry Building was a Gathering Place. Also whenever there was a war like the filipino war or World War Two had a parade on Market Street and the Ferry Building would have banners and to give you an idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted to to be a Gathering Place in that Ferry Building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our International Exposition 18 million living in San Francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after the earthquake and 22 different ferry boats to alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 San Francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had mask mandates and anyone caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and San Francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what were supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away. The way the Ferry Building was originally built the lower level with the Natural Light was used for take it off lunge storage. The second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out and central stairway of the building that is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and were talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the Ferry Building and the embarcadero on Market Street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have San Francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world and the pacific we need the iron that. As the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach San Francisco. And automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. The dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. Take the care ferry and to San Francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed having the car ferry. When the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our Sales Force Transit Center is now another way of getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having a purpose. What happened in the 40 and 50s because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a World Trade Center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall towers a trade center in new york but a tower in between that was a part of Ferry Building and completely impractical. After the cars the Tower Administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. So they had an intrastate free plan the plan for major freeway systems to go throughout San Francisco. And so the developers came up with the bay bridge and worked their way along embarcadero. The plans were to be very, very efficient for that through town he once the San Francisco saw had Human Services agency happening 200 though people figure out city hall offender that the embarcadero free was dropped and we had the great free to no where. Which cut us off from the Ferry Building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the free. And that was the renaissance of Ferry Building. That land was developed for a new Ferry Building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didnt want that was when a plan was developed for the liquor store. The San Francisco Ferry Building has many that ups and downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing and after the earthquake had a shove of adrenaline to revise the waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the future and feel that by making a reliable ferry system once the Ferry Building will be there to surface. [ ] my familys starts in mexico in a small town. My parents are from a very, very small town. So small, that my dads brother is married to one of my moms sisters. Its that small. A lot of folks from that town are here in the city. Like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for us. My dad came out here first. I think i was almost twoyearsold when he sent for us. My mom and myself came out here. We moved to San Francisco early on. In the Mission District and moved out to daily city and bounced back to San Francisco. We lived across the street from the ups building. For me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at night. When i was sevenyearsold and im in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. I have to make sure that we do our homework. Its a lot of responsibility for a kid. The weekends were always for family. We used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new Mission Theater and then afterwards going to Kentucky Fried Chicken. That was big for us. We get Kentucky Fried Chicken on sunday. Whoa go crazy so for me, home is having something where you are all together. Whether its just together for dinner or whether its together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. Whether its thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. That is home. Being so close to berkley and oakland and San Francisco, theres a line. Here you dont see a line. Even though you see someone thats different from you, theyre equal. Youve always seen that. A rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. When you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. They have dreams. They have aspirations. They have goals. And you are take that away from them. Right now, the price is a hard fight. Theyre determined. I mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. Their heart is in the right place. Theres hope. I mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. Right now theres a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. The only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who cant speak. Dy mind motion. Even though we have a lot of fighters, theres a lot of voice less folks and their voiceless because theyre scared. Francisc bell tolling . Wow. clapping welcome, everyone. Here we are high on a hill. Little morning fog, no rain are we lurking or not were san franciscans. Were here to celebrate a beautiful man in our beautiful cable car cars what better day to do it in valentines day can you bring our hearts all right. My name is rick im the president of the Market Street railway an independent advocate for the history cable car and streetcars we support muni and